Illegal Migration Bill returns to Parliament – and Braverman badmouths migrants AGAIN

Suella Braverman: this barrister seems to have a highly tenuous grasp on the difference between what is legal and what isn’t.

Suella Braverman went straight back to her ‘1930s Germany’ rhetoric when she reintroduced her Illegal – and that’s exactly the right word for it! – Migration Bill to Parliament.

She claimed she had been the subject of “grotesque slurs” just for saying “simple truths about the impact of unlimited and illegal migration” – but failed to clarify that the amount of illegal migration into the UK has skyrocketed because Conservative government policy allowed it.

She added that she would not be put off by “out of touch lefties”. Was this a reference to the

activist blob of left wing lawyers, civil servants and the Labour Party

who she (allegedly) claimed had blocked the Tories from stopping illegal migration without changing their laws in an email for which her part chairman, Greg Hands, has been forced to apologise?

Claims that government policies are bigoted are “irresponsible”, she said. In the middle of that comment, she added that these policies are backed by the majority of British people. Are they? Are they really? Do these people know that it is Tory government policies that have created the explosion of illegal migration into the UK? Do they know that the last Labour government was able to send back more illegal migrants in a year than the Tories are complaining about now? Do they know that the reason this can’t happen today is that Boris Johnson deliberately made sure there was no “returns” agreement with the European Union in his Brexit deal?

She returned to her tactic of “othering” the Channel migrants with this sickening slur:

That’s ‘1930s Germany’ rhetoric, right there.

She falsely claimed that Opposition MPs don’t have a plan to stop small boat crossings – and that in practise they favour open borders.

The obvious flaw in that is the fact that the last Labour government sent back more illegal migrants in a single year than the Tories are complaining about receiving now.

Here’s part of what Braverman said:

Just for information, Labour – at least – does have a plan to end Channel migration. Here it is:

Braverman also mentioned her “world-leading” agreement to house a few hundred illegal migrants in Rwanda (out of more than 46,000 this year, so far). Here’s what she said:

And they would be quite right to do so. It would not even scratch the surface of the problem.

Indeed, it might even endanger some of the people sent there.

But when the SNP’s Joanna Cherry said gay and trans people were not protected by anti-discrimination laws in Rwanda and asked Braverman if she thought it was a safe country, scuttled to hide behind a court judgment that may not be entirely relevant. Saying the Rwanda deal had been approved by the courts is hardly saying gay and trans people are safe.

Perhaps Braverman has a special hate in her heart for such people?

Some might say, at least she has promised not to detain and remove unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. But the fact is that they would go to local authorities for care, and many of them would subsequently disappear into a life of – well, who knows? Slavery, possibly. So it may be argued that Braverman has a special hate in her heart for them, as well.

Underpinning all of this is the possibility that the Bill is illegal under international human rights law.

Labour’s Clive Lewis tried to torpedo the debate before it started, by pointing this out – along with the possible threat to our own human rights that this Tory law exemplifies:

Well, Deputy Speaker Nigel Evans might not be able to rule on this but we have other sources on which to draw.

Here’s Peter Stefanovic:

So the Illegal Migration Bill is itself illegal; it discriminates against anybody coming into the UK by routes that the Tory government has criminalised, and may put unaccompanied children, gay and trans people in immediate danger.

And the Conservatives used their massive Parliamentary majority – given them at the 2019 general election – to defeat an attempt to block the bill.

It will therefore proceed through Parliament as though it has every right to do so – which it hasn’t.


Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the right margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com

5) Join the uPopulus group at https://upopulus.com/groups/vox-political/

6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical

7) Feel free to comment!

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.


The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook