Britain's New "Friendly" Immigration Rules

The children of failed asylum seekers awaiting deportation from the United Kingdom will no longer be detained with their parents:

Parents awaiting forced deportation would still be held in secure houses, but their children would be assigned minders so they can move around freely.

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said it would mean the UK had one of the "most child-friendly" immigration systems in the world.

Fantastic! Britain has so much money right now it simply can't spend it fast enough, it seems. Clearly we have nothing better to do than employ "minders" for the children of illegal immigrants. Who needs an immigration policy that's taxpayer-friendly when it can be "child-friendly"?

Mr Clegg said the decision to no longer detain children in the immigration system "spoke for itself" and marked a "big cultural shift".

"The change prioritises doing the right thing over looking and sounding tough," he said. "Reforms which will give the UK one of the most child-friendly immigration systems in the developed world."

I agree, it does speak for itself; Clegg's a Liberal Democrat and probably sees all border controls as some sort of symbol of fascist racism.

Whilst he and I would probably differ on what "doing the right thing" means here, at least he doesn't want to sound tough on an issue he has no intention of being tough on, and he deserves some credit for that.

I would point out, however, that the purpose of an immigration system is to process and remove those who have no right to be here and are absuing our hospitality - not be "friendly" to anyone. If said system was fit for purpose, this detention simply wouldn't be an issue - because those denied would be removed immediately.

BBC home affairs correspondent Tom Symonds says the government hopes a softer approach will encourage asylum seekers not to fight their deportation.

But it is understood the change may lengthen the process and have an impact on the numbers deported.

Ah, but of course. I think the article forgot to mention the impact it will probably have on the cost of the whole operation, but never mind.

Martin Narey, chief executive of Barnardo's, told the BBC that detaining children in Yarl's Wood was "very, very damaging", but "not because staff there are monsters or because it's run badly".

"Locking away children who haven't done anything wrong at all - and some of these are very, very young children indeed - putting them in essentially a prison environment with barbed wire, bars and locks is not something we should do."

Asked whether more families would abscond as a result of the relaxation, he said: "I'm not at all convinced there will be more, but if there were a few more it would be a good price to pay.

"It's not just about families. This is a significant day for the UK's reputation as a country that will treat people with compassion."

But is it a price you will personally be paying, Mr Narey? I somehow doubt it.

As for the UK's reputation - it's simply another piece of evidence that Britain is a country of mugs, run by mugs, as far as most of the illegals are concerned. They'll probably encourage their children to abscond in order to drag out an already tortured process yet further.

Why is it that the UK is required to show compassion to everyone else on earth - except its own long-suffering taxpayers?