it is if course a rhetorical reference to Johnson himself.
I know the reference, it's just irrelevant. Johnson is a British citizen, and was never convicted of either drug possession or conspiracy to assault. It has the appearance of a clever piece of rhetoric, but it's laughably simple to bat away; the deportation rules are the same for everybody, regardless of colour, who is not a British citizen and who has served a substantial gaol sentence after conviction. There are two lines of attack which are missed by trying to drag up Johnson's past - that the policy is being used in a racially biased way (e.g. cite examples of white crooks with worse records and less attachment to Britain who don't get deported), or that the policy is fundamentally illiberal regardless of race.
If I can attack a policy I support better than the leader of the opposition, it's a pretty poor state of affairs.
I know the reference, it's just irrelevant. Johnson is a British citizen, and was never convicted of either drug possession or conspiracy to assault. It has the appearance of a clever piece of rhetoric, but it's laughably simple to bat away; the deportation rules are the same for everybody, regardless of colour, who is not a British citizen and who has served a substantial gaol sentence after conviction. There are two lines of attack which are missed by trying to drag up Johnson's past - that the policy is being used in a racially biased way (e.g. cite examples of white crooks with worse records and less attachment to Britain who don't get deported), or that the policy is fundamentally illiberal regardless of race.
If I can attack a policy I support better than the leader of the opposition, it's a pretty poor state of affairs.