business as usual

A week after the election of two BNP MEPs - which, of course, is the exclusive fault of the left, ZOMGZOMG - the Mail goes back to printing misleading immigration stories:

Want a British passport? Just stand on a picket line or canvas for Labour

Migrants will win fast-track passports if they stand on picket lines or knock on doors asking people to vote Labour, it emerged last night.

The Home Office says trade union activism and political canvassing should count towards the planned new system of 'earned citizenship'.

It's a fairly obvious attempt to make it seem as though Labour is bribing immigrants into campaign work on their behalf in exchange for passports - even though political activism, for any party, is only one of the ways in which applicants might complete 50 hours of voluntary work. The one shred of honesty in the report notes that "even aiding the BNP would count - if it was willing to accept help from an immigrant." Hah.

James Slack - the "journalist" responsible for this story - also helpfully looks into the future to invent conspiracy theories for critics who don't exist:

Critics will point to the historic relationship between Labour and the unions. Migrants cannot vote until they become citizens - so, by using union membership to speed their applications, Labour is potentially swelling its own support.

Except, of course, that the scheme is not restricted to joining Labour-friendly unions: you can also work at a soup kitchen for the homeless, serve as a school governor or help out a local museum. You can even volunteer for a faith organisation.

You'll probably recall that one of the recurring arguments presented by critics of immigration in general (and multi-culturalism in particular) is that that migrants should adopt the language and culture of the UK. So what's so objectionable about this proposed scheme, which affirms the need for "newcomers" to speak English and to "participate in our civic and political life"?

Or is the argument that visitors should "fit in" a thin cover for a rather more ugly hostility?