Immigration Watch International (2): British Cabinet breaks ranks to warn PM: Get tougher on migration

Tuesday, November 28, 2023

British Cabinet breaks ranks to warn PM: Get tougher on migration

Rishi Sunak’s immigration plan was hit by fresh turmoil after No 10 admitted its new Rwanda treaty had been delayed and ministers broke rank to push the PM for “much tougher” moves to get record-high migration numbers down.

Downing Street refused to commit to having the revised Rwanda pact in place before Christmas, saying only that it would be ready “in the coming weeks” – having previously promised it would published in “days”.

It came as cabinet rifts over immigration deepened, with business secretary Kemi Badenoch revealing that she was “pushing” for Mr Sunak to take “much, much tougher measures” to tackle record-high net migration.

Meanwhile, immigration minister Robert Jenrick moved to quell Tory anger – insisting that the Rwanda plan remained “extremely important” after backbench MPs challenged home secretary James Cleverly over his claim it was not the “be all and end all” of the stop the boats push.

The Independent understands a new crackdown on legal migration to address record-high numbers has also been delayed, as different departments continue to argue about how far Mr Sunak should go.

Senior Tory Steve Brine said slashing migration to keep Ms Braverman happy was not good for society or the economy.
No 10 had said in the hours after the 15 November Supreme Court ruling against the Rwanda plan that an updated deal with the central African country would be produced in the “coming days”. On 16 November, Mr Cleverly said the deal was “pretty much” ready to be done “within days, not weeks or months”.

But on Monday, the PM’s official spokesman refused to commit to having the pact with Kigali in place before Christmas – saying only it would be set out “in the coming weeks”.

Grilled by reporters on why there had been such a long delay, the PM’s spokesman said No 10 was working to give the government the “strongest possible position because we want both the treaty and the bill to have the best possible chance of success”.

Mr Cleverly’s comment at the weekend that the scheme was not the “be all and end all” of small boats policy had angered some on the right of the party – given the new home secretary is known to be opposed to pulling out of, or ignoring, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Right-wing Tory MP James Morris shared concerns about Mr Cleverly’s remarks – challenging immigration minister Mr Jenrick, an ally of sacked hardliner Ms Braverman, to say if he shared those sentiments.

Visibly angry at the jeering from the Labour benches over Tory splits, Mr Jenrick insisted that the Rwanda deportation flights remained an “extremely important component” of the stop the boats plan.

Seeking to calm Tory frustration at the failure to act, Mr Cleverly also told MPs in the Commons that the Rwanda plan was “an incredibly important part of the basket of responses that we have”.

Mr Cleverly shrugged off a question from right-winger Simon Clarke, who said it was his “profound conviction” that the government must disapply the ECHR and UN Refugee Convention to get the Rwanda flights off the ground.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/sunak-rwanda-plan-delayed-cleverly-tories-b2454271.html

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

No comments:

Post a Comment

Background

Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.

Why is "La Raza" the one Spanish term that is NEVER translated in the American mass media? Because translating it would make it a lot less respectable. It means "THE RACE" -- The mixed Hispanic "race" of Mexico. Racism is fine South of the Rio Grande only, apparently.

The "line" of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:

1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.

2). Selectivity should be based on "the content of a man's character, not on the color of his skin", as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many "refugees" would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual's likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.

3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.

4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live -- Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the "refugee" category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted -- for instance a higher level of education or a business background.

5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. "Who will pick our crops?" (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: Before the pandemic, you usually COULD buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.

6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the "open door" policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.

I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com -- or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.

Immigration Watch International (2)

Tuesday, November 28, 2023

British Cabinet breaks ranks to warn PM: Get tougher on migration

No comments:

Post a Comment

Background

Other blogs

Blog Archive

Contributors