Boris calls for illegal immigrant amnesty

Anyone in UK for 10 years without a criminal record should be able to stay, says Johnson

Christopher Hope and Kate Mccann

BORIS JOHNSON yesterday challenged Theresa May in Cabinet to introduce an amnesty for illegal immigrants in the wake of the Windrush scandal.

The Foreign Secretary told the Cabinet that there needed to be a “broader” amnesty for those from Commonwealth nations and elsewhere, provided they were “squeaky clean” and did not have criminal records.

There is a growing debate in Government over the treatment of migrants in the wake of the Windrush immigration fiasco, with Mr Johnson among several Cabinet ministers urging a more liberal approach.

Earlier this week the Government announced an effective amnesty for Windrush migrants who arrived in Britain before 1971 after it emerged that they were being threatened with deportation.

Mr Johnson argued that this now needed to be extended to all illegal immigrants who had lived in the UK for more than a decade and not committed crimes, including those from Commonwealth nations such as India, Pakistan, Kenya and Ghana.

It is understood the approach could lead to between 500,000 and 700,000 migrants being given the right to stay permanently in the UK.

A Cabinet source said that Mrs May responded by highlighting previous calls by Mr Johnson for amnesties relating to illegal immigrants during the EU referendum campaign and when he was Mayor of London. At the time, Mr Johnson said that introducing an amnesty was the “humane” thing to do and would increase the amount of tax that the Government collects because illegal migrants in the UK would move away from the black economy.

However, when she was home secretary, Mrs May said that the approach would send the “wrong message”, adding that people feel illegal immigration is “very clearly wrong”.

Amber Rudd, the Home Secretary, will today face questions over the status of other Commonwealth migrants when she appears before the home affairs select committee.

She is expected to reiterate her desire to put things right and apologise again for the mistakes which led some Windrush migrants to receive deportation letters.

The Home Office is working to discover whether anyone has been forcibly removed from the UK over the scandal by trawling through records that span decades.

It comes amid Cabinet tensions over the Prime Minister’s plans for a customs partnership with the EU.

Mrs May was yesterday accused of “burying her head in the sand” after it emerged that the Brexit “war cabinet” would not discuss the customs deal when it meets today. The issue is instead expected to be debated next week. Senior Eurosceptics including Mr Johnson, David Davis, Liam Fox and Michael Gove have raised concerns that a customs partnership is “unworkable” and will ultimately lead to a climbdown on Brexit.

Jacob Rees-mogg, leader of a group of some 60 Eurosceptic Tory MPS, yesterday said that the plans were “cretinous” and represented a “betrayal” of good sense as he suggested Mrs May lacked “enthusiasm” for Brexit. The Prime Minister has suggested two

It isn’t easy to picture Jacob Reesmogg as a gangster. I suppose he has the right kind of suits for it, and the slicked-down hair. On the other hand, it’s hard to imagine him being able to lift a tommy gun, let alone fire it, and the denizens of the New York criminal underworld might not find his manner entirely intimidating. “I say, dear fellow – I know it’s the most frightful bore, but would you mind awfully if I killed you?”

And yet, for all his Edwardian gentility and murmuring selfdeprecation, the Conservative MP for North East Somerset is capable of a subtle, understated menace. Yesterday he was answering questions at a Brexit-themed event in Parliament, organised by a think tank called Open Europe. Here’s what he said about the House of Lords voting against the Government on Brexit. His choice of imagery was striking.

“I think their lordships are playing with fire,” said Mr Rees-mogg, quietly. “And it would be a shame to burn down the historic house.”

Imagine those words being delivered not in an accent like a decanter of tawny port, but in an Italian-american growl.

“Nice little revising chamber you got here. Be a shame if anything… happened to it.”

“I’m sorry, sir – could I help you?”

“You guys got a lot of ermine robes. Very valuable ermine robes.”

“Well, strictly speaking, they aren’t made of ermine, they’re made of...”

“You oughta be careful. A person could accidentally put those valuable ermine robes in a boil wash, and cause them all to shrink… couldn’t he?”

Mr Rees-mogg’s remarks on the Irish border row carried a similarly ominous air.

“The Irish economy is dependent on access to the UK market,” he said. “It is a much smaller economy than the UK. If we were to apply the common external tariff on Irish beef, the Irish agricultural industry would be in serious trouble…”

Mr Rees-mogg did not puff out a ring of cigar smoke as he said this. But he might as well have.

Does Theresa May have anything to fear from The Moggfather? Well, he’s certainly noted her shortcomings as a cheerleader for Brexit (“It’s hard to read what level of enthusiasm she has for it.”) Then again, he seems satisfied that she wouldn’t dare risk Brexiteers’ wrath (“She’s very dutiful.”) A journalist asked what he’d do if she kept Britain in the customs union. “I don’t see it happening.”

But, in the no doubt extremely unlikely event that it did, he believes his party would be duly punished at the next election. “Who would vote for us?” he asked, with a shrug. In fact, if the Tories failed to deliver Brexit, he predicted that they would receive only a single vote: from himself (“I’m such a diehard Tory, I always would.”)

Still, there’s no need for it to come to that, is there, Prime Minister?

Capisce?