And the link to the below is... this


Is it possible to have an immigration policy that stems abuse while allowing compassionate asylum and sensible population circulation?

I'd say so. I have a list of questions in my mind which I'd like to ask, including whether we prioritise our former colonies (which I should know but don't; I suspect not really any longer, which would be irrational if so), and exactly what questions are asked and what requirements made. Funny how we never really get the chance to find out. It's quite Yes Ministerish when you go to the Home Office site (caution: the "Directorate" loads slowly) and find out just how many amendments are being continually made to the rules. There's no sense of principle, only pettiness. Pretty much off the cuff I'd say that our problem lies in a system relying on the alien principle of 'rules' rather than the kind of evolutionary, flexible principles which make our common law work. I'd say why not allow for a branch of home grown law to grow up on the subject, giving access to courts where something like a CPS for immigrants considered a case uncertain and meriting legal examination? That's probably quite a silly idea but seems appealing to me rather than the bureaucratic morass and opaqueness of the current situation.

The US situation is different to the UK's, but if you're looking for an expert on the situation Michelle Malkin has some definite attributes. And she can vent on the subject, too. Fine rant indeed.