It comes to something when The Daily Express, one of the main carriers of scare and hate material about asylum seekers, actually turns round and tells Migrationwatch UK, the think-tank which provides much of what goes for rationale behind the anti-asylum seeker campaign that it might be going too far.

Yet that is exactly what a Daily Express editorial of 17.11.03, page 12, headed: Give us a real asylum policy said: Migrationwatch (which campaigns against large-scale immigration) has in a report called Asylum and Immigration: A programme for Action demanded a string of reforms, some of which chime with the Governments plans, but some of which sound alarmingly draconian.

As we have said before, a measured immigration policy is essential to our economy but only if it is matched by a determination to exclude those seeking home here who have no part to play in our nations wellbeing

What is going on here? For The Daily Express to admit that any immigration policy could be essential to our economy is a turn-round of massive proportions. Its usual line is that the UK is the asylum capital of the world and it wants to be rid of asylum seekers.

Now suddenly “a measured immigration policy is essential to our economy,” and some of Migrationwatchs proposals sound alarmingly draconian

The comments are based on an Express story from 17.11.03, on page 17, with the usual sort of headline: Asylum alarm and standfirst: Watchdog wants thousands with no passports to be held in £2bn scandal

The Intro starts: Urgent reforms of the asylum and immigration system are needed if the government is to regain control of our borders, campaigners say today.

They say public confidence will be restored only if tough action is taken on the policy that is costing the country £5million a day.

This would include the detention of thousands of asylum seekers without passports and new restrictions on marriage to foreigners.

The story claims that a report by Migrationwatch UK comes days after government issued statistics that 418,000 foreigners came to live here and 186,000 Britons left the country. (Of course The Express does not admit that the net inflow of people into the UK in 2002 actually fell to its lowest level for three years).

But what were the reforms that Migrationwatch demands that worried The Express? Some are ministerial policy such as only allowing asylum seekers one appeal, restricting legal aid and checking who leaves the country.

However with some organisations, however extreme the governments policies, they always want more. In this case Sir Andrew Green, Chair of Migrationwatch UK calls for more dramatic changes.

He told The Express When you have a system costing £5.million a day, which abjectly fails genuine refugees while riding roughshod over the clearly expressed wishes of the host population, something has gone terribly wrong.

According to Greene: Policy has been allowed to drift with the result that the Government has lost control of its borders. And Greene has lost confidence in Home Secretary, David Blunkett, for last week’s comment that there was no obvious upper limit on the number of immigrants who could legally enter the UK

So Migrationwatch UK wants Britain to pull out of outdated international conventions and to state how many people they want in this country The story then goes on to list some of the proposals in Asylum and Immigration: A programme for Action such as:

"Health checks on would be asylum seekers,

"Returning genuine refugees back to their own countries when the danger from which they had fled passes

"Only allowing marriages between British citizens and foreigners if both are aged 24 or over

" Fining employers who hire illegal immigrants

" Introducing ID cards

" Making local councils check the immigration status of anyone applying for housing or education

However, The Express does not say which of these are alarmingly draconian.

Nor does the paper give all this dismal organisation’s unpleasant proposals which also include: the removal of asylum seekers with HIV or Hepatitis; immigration checks on those applying for social security or medical treatment; visitors or students to have to post a financial bond before they are allowed into the UK which will only be returned when they go back home; reducing the numbers of those here on work permits; requiring marriage contracts of immigrants made overseas to conform to UK law and to include allowing divorce by the wife; and withdrawing from the 1951 Geneva Convention on Refugees.

When The Daily Express finds some of the proposals by Migrationwatch UK draconian, you might think the government would sit up and take notice. Well in a way it has, by actually accepting some of them: the removal of all but a single appeal by asylum seekers, cutting back legal aid for asylum seekers, making destroying documents by asylum seekers a criminal offence

Of course accepting some of the policies will not satisfy those behind the anti-asylum seeker campaigns. If they see the government on the run, it simply makes them ask for more.

So one shouldnt be surprised to find The Daily Express 24.11.03 opinion column attacking the Governments latest hard policy: forcing children from failed asylum seekers to be taken into care.

You might think such apparent heartlessness by the authorities would be applauded? Not a bit of it. The Express explains: While this might seem harsh, desperate parents might actually prefer to surrender their children to the state and go underground in the belief their family would get a better upbringing this way. After all, in a care home they would be guaranteed access to free British healthcare and education.

Such an idea from the Government a year ago would have cause a giant human rights storm, but now taking failed asylum seeker children into care is not draconian enough to warrent The Express’s condemnation. It just shows how the drip, drip, drip, of the anti-asylum seeker campaign seems to desensitise everyone’s feelings of human decency.