Immigration Changes: changing national legislation and adherence to international treaties?

 

Changing national legislation and adherence to international treaties?

Statements have been made: legislation is going to be changed to allow Britain to overcome legal obstacles to deal with migration.

After the judgement issued by the Supreme Court regarding government agreements with Rwanda about migration management, questions have been raised in terms of how the British government is going to manage to overcome legal obstacles.

We await the texts of new bills that will have to be produced by Parliament to achieve declared aims so that the idea of sending migrants to Rwanda does not become a kind of round trip with people sent to Rwanda being returned by Rwanda to the United Kingdom in order to comply with legislation.

Declaring that Rwanda is a safe country might not be nearly enough if for any reason Rwanda decides to deport migrants back to the United Kingdom. What would be the point of accepting migrants back in Britain? Is this yet another plan destined to fail?

Can anybody come up with a viable plan, instead of proposing yet another gimmick?

In past months, hotels and recreational facilities have been filled up with illegal migrants. Even a barge was acquired to accommodate illegal migrants. Monies were paid to Rwanda for a plan that the Supreme Court declared illegal.

Another political embarrassment? We await with impatience the text of legislation promised by the government that will have to deal with the issue of illegal migration effectively.  

Failure to deliver in this particular scenario when the Prime Minister and Cabinet members have committed themselves so publicly is political suicide.

 

 Abortion: while everybody talks about geopolitical crisis and economics, an earthquake hits the USA

I don't think that many people were expecting this to happen. It is a bit of a 9/11 moment. The Twin Towers have been hit all over again. Some call it a Constitutional Earthquake. It is thought that terminations will be instantly banned in not less than 13 of the 50 states and that in at least 26 states the will be moves to ban abortion altogether. Anti-abortion demonstrators gathered outside the USA Supreme Court to celebrate the ruling. 

Now, let's look at the list of states that have what is called 'trigger laws' in place: Arkansas, Idado, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Wyoming.

The USA is changing direction of travel and what happens now in the rest of the Anglo world. It is reported that this evening there will be demonstrations at the USA Embassy in London. According to the ruling, the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the peo-ple and their elected representatives.

Christian Conservatives are turning the clock back. What else is in store to surprise us even more? This could be the beginning of a crusade to bring back a more traditionalist USA, a version of the USA that is closer to the version the Founding Fathers imagined and hope that America could be. Will the American winds reach Europe? Prime Minister Boris Johnson immediately stood up to criticize the move and said that it was a move backwards. Since when America sneezes Britain catches a cold, I don't doubt that traditionalist sector of the British society will soon been invigorated by the ruling of the USA Supreme Court and the debate will be re-ignited in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. What will happen in Hollywood? The movie industry created an image of the USA that people believe to be America itself. Later on, Hollywood openly portrayed a more liberal approach that promoted the acceptability of abortion and homosexuality. Hollywood changed America. Will America now change Hollywood? Looking forward to see how this pans out.