tv British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson Delivers Remarks on U.S. Travel Ban CSPAN January 31, 2017 4:40am-6:14am EST
discussion. boris johnson spoke about president trump's executive order temporarily denying citizens of seven muslim majority countries into the statementtes, his clarifies the impact on u.s. diplomats in london and holders of british passports. during the 90 minute event, members of parliament call for the conservative government to take a stronger stance against the donald trump administration's actions. the foreign commonwealth affairs, boris johnson. mr. johnson: i should like to make a statement on the implications for this country of the recent changes in u.s. immigration policy. in view of the understandable concern and uncertainty, it may be helpful if i described for the house the consequences for british citizens and dual
nationals of the executive order issued last friday. let me begin by saying this is not u.k. policy, not our policy, nor something this government would consider. anxiety thatour discriminate on grounds of nationality in ways that are divisive and wrong. president donald trump issued an executive order banning citizens of seven countries from entering the u.s. for 90 days. those countries are syria, iraq, libya, andia, yemen, sudan. the order makes clear that no u.s. lisa will be issued to citizens of those states at anyone who are ready has a be set will be denied entry. the immigration policy of the united states is a matter for the government of the united
states but on the face of it, this executive order has consequences for some british citizens. or that reason i spoke yesterday to the u.s. administration and my honorable friend the home secretary has spoken to the secretary of homeland security. i am able to provide a following clarifications -- the general principles is that all british passport holders remain welcome to travel to the u.s. fromve received assurances the u.s. embassy that this executive order will make no difference to any british passport holder, your perspective of their country of birth or whether they hold another passport.
in any case, the executive order is a temporary measure intended to last 90 days until the u.s. system as new security precautions which is a highly controversial policy, which has caused unease and i repeat, this is not an approach this government would take. let me conclude by reminding the ofse of the vital importance this country's alliance with the united states. , and intelligence, which i am sure they appreciate and understand on their side. on defense, intelligence, security, we work together more closely than any other two countries in the world, that relationship is overwhelmingly to our benefit. the prime minister's highly successful visit to the white house underlined the strength of that transatlantic alliance
where we have -- where we had differences with the united ailtes we will not oil -- qu from expressing them as i have done today. let me say to the house that there is a huge interest in this matter which collects can rely upon me to accommodate, i understand the strength of feeling that the foreign secretary's statement and upcoming, the questions must be heard. where we have differences to the u.s. we will not hesitate to express them as i have done today, if they are listening as the prime minister did yesterday, as she did in her excellent speech in philadelphia last week. we will also repeat our resolve to work alongside the trump
administration in the mutual interest of both our countries and i commend the statement to the house. >> emily thornberry. ,> that me start by saying this i am sure the whole house will want to join me in expressing our sorrow at last night's gun attack on a canadian mosque which left six dead and eight injured. they were all victims of hate and we are under a duty to stand up to hate whenever and whatever form it appears. i think the foreign secretary for advanced sight of his statement, i thought there were a few pages missing but apparently not. i hope mr. speaker you will allow questions and asked about the timing. on the details, as the secretary knows, thousands of people in britain who live here on a permanent basis but also nationals of the seven listed countries and they have no dual
citizenship, many are here with indefinite leave to remain having fled persecution or war, can the secretary of state confirm, based on what he said today, the thousands of british residents are now barred from traveling to the united states, people like a arabian national doctor living and working who on friday was told she was not allowed to fly home from costa rica because she would need to change planes in new york. as a smalley national with a temporary u.s. visa is it needs a visiting their family, cap you confirmed they can return to the u.s. under these rules? i hope you can clarify these points and now the timing -- this order was issued at 9:45 on friday u.k. time, it then took number 10 until midnight on saturday, a full 27 hours later, to say they would consider the impact on u.k. nationals. it took the prime minister until sunday morning to tell the
foreign secretary to tell the white house and it took them until midday on sunday to call the travel ban divisive and wrong. , mr. speaker,rs to have the courage to say what everyone else was saying on friday night. finally, 46 hours after the executive order we got clarification that u.k. nationals and dual nationals would not be affected, if this was because the wheels in washington were slow to turn, it may be understandable but look at canada, they were immediately in touch on saturday with their american counterparts and by that evening they had security travel rights of canadian nationals, a full 17 hours before we secured hours. can i ask the secretary of state -- canada is supposed to be five hours behind the u.k., why were they a day ahead of us when it came to the results? the order timing --
was side barely an hour or two after the prime minister had left the white house, can he tell us that in their discussions about terrorism and security, was this imminent the presidentd, would have such little respect for the prime minister that he would not think of telling her, or that he did and she did not think it sounded wrong? if it was the first, hardly a surprise that if it was the later, we do have a problem, mr. speaker, because when it comes to humans rights and women's rights and torture at freedom of minorities, president trump is the sending down a very dissenting slope. when that happens we need a prime minister that is prepared to tell him to stop, not one who simply crosses her head and helps them. helps him. >> mr. speaker, i listened carefully to the most
substantial mate she made about a particular case of a doctor. i appreciate there will be all sorts of cases, difficult cases, heartbreaking cases, a love frustration as a result of this measure which i repeat, has to members did not follow, this is not the policy of her majesty, this is promoted elsewhere. what we will do is make sure networks, our large -- all our networks, people difficult -- as i say, because of the energetic action of this government -- by my private desk by the prime minister and home secretary, we have an exemption for u.k. passport holders with a dual national -- whether dual nationals or otherwise and i
think most fair-minded people would say that that showed the advantages of working closely with the trump administration, the advantage to having a relationship that enables us to get our point across. protectionshe vital for u.k. passport holders they need. i may say the approach taken by the party opposite means to demonize the trump administration, it would achieve the very opposite. speaker, does the foreign secretary welcome the joint statement by senators john mccain and lindsey graham on expressing their fear that this executive order will be a self-inflicted wound in the fight against terrorism? possibly what the
interventions of senator mccain and senator graham shows this is a subject for lively debate on capitol hill as it is here in this house. i repeat -- this is something we do not support, not a policy we othersith and there are in the u.s. who do not agree. >> i think the foreign secretary for his statement. -- thank the foreign secretary for his statement, president trump issued an executive order ban people from seven predominantly muslim countries -- this action is inhumane and racist and immoral. i welcome the fact that this house is now taking this with the seriousness it deserves.
we would like to pay to be at support the strong statements made by scholars first minister at -- scotland's first minister. you can learn some lessons from scotland's first minister. they provided model and tactical support for injustice and those affected by this despicable actions. given the prime ministers frank relationship with president trump, did she know in advance he would make this order and does she agree that the senior national security experts in the u.s. and elsewhere, this will have national security implications for the u.k., given that the u.s. administration has narrativeis's false this is the conflict between the
west and islam? we need to show global leadership, where is it? tested --minister has been tested as she failed on this first challenge. know, when: as you ht comes to the scourge of daes we are the second biggest contributor to military action in strikes against them in iraq and syria and we continue to be the second biggest donor to the humanitarian crisis in that region. everybody in this house should be proud of the leadership of the u.k. is showing in that respect. i have already made my views about this -- it is up to members of the house of commons if they wish to exhaust the wells of our trade in the did no station of this trait, i've made my position clear, i said it was
wrong -- i said it was wrong to promulgate policies that stigmatized people on the basis of their nationality and i believe that profoundly. what we have done in the last intercede ono behalf of u.k. nationals, which is our job, and u.k. passport holders, we have secured very a fortune protections for them. >> dr. julia louis. >> donald trump is a known unknown, we know he will do and say unpredictable things, and often just as quickly abandoned the positions. he will learn as he goes along, what we have to remember is that our security and that of europe depends on the atlantic alliance. does my honorable friend agree with me that there must be no question of our refusing to welcome him to the shores in the
hope of setting him along the right path as soon as possible to our mutual benefit? mr. johnson: my honorable friend , it would be entirely right in the sense that the prime dayster succeeded the other and getting her message across about the north atlantic alliance, about nato, and about president trump's commitment to that alliance, it is vital for our security. think verysident is much in the right place on that. here -- he sets up said so. the incoming president of our closest and most important ally should be accorded the honor of a state visit supported by this government and the invitation has been extended by her majesty the queen quite properly.
speaker, this is not just about the impact on british citizens, one of our closest allies has chosen to ban refugees and target muslims. all he can say is that it would not be our policy. that is not good enough. has he urged the u.s. administration to lift this order, to help refugees, and to muslims?eting this order was signed on , for the memorial day sake of history, have the guts to speak out. 's. johnson: it is open to mp opposite all sides of the house for fresh expressions of outrage about the presidential executive order. -- and ide my views
share the widespread -- i have made my views absolutely clear, i said it is divisive and wrong, i said it stigmatizes people on grounds of their nationality. what i will not do, which is what the party opposite would do, is disengaged from conversations with our american friends and partners in such a way that the material damage to the interest of u.k. citizens. what we have secured our report to protections or people in this country and that is the job of this government. given our newfound closeness with the trump administration, what plans does my right honorable friend task to try and persuade the administration after the 90 days to abandon what to many is a despicable and
immoral policy? and what my right honorable friend agree, interpreting a far wiser president, john f. kennedy , that those who ride on the back of the tiger end up inside it? mr. johnson: i am sure that the words of the honorable gentleman , what we heard in washington, we will continue mr. speaker to engage with the administration to make our point about the u.k. nationals and of course to convey our feelings about the global consternation that this measure has caused. secretarye foreign clarify -- the foreign secretary clarify the position for an iraqi national resident in the united kingdom whose child is working in the united states and
is a dual british and iraqi citizen in the event that the child dies? would her mother the able to travel from london to the united states to bury her daughter under the current u.s. arrangements, and if not, would he agreed that that would be quite simply in human and andageous -- inhuman outrageous. mr. johnson: it is possible to create all sorts of hypothetical situations will -- which will get more outrageous but the ,nswer as far as i understand it is up to the u.s. to explain .his policy the answer is that such a case will be treated very expeditiously and arrangements will be put in place to ensure that that person was able to travel to the u.s. gently and tactfully
point out that members to toddled into the chamber after the foreign secretary's statement have begun, should not be standing/ . i am sure they would not be so unreasonable as to think they would have a right to be called, that would be perverse and they would not behave in a perverse way. >> given that the united states congress as well as the president and diplomacy will play a part in arriving at a your -- europe in itself has estimated 5000 jihadists have come in from these countries. we should also member the ,ictims of 9/11 in new york paris, brussels, and berlin.
>> of course, we understand the threat from jihadists at home and abroad and that means it is vital we work with american friends to combat that threat. >> will be foreign secretary, just for a moment, try to recall, along with me, as i did underneath the stairs when two dictators, mussolini and hittner, were raining bombs on towns and cities in britain? now, this government, hand in hand with another fascist, trump , and what i would say to him, do the decent thing and and the visit. this man is not fit to walk in the footsteps of nelson mandela. , mussolinio say rained bombs on this country.
but i hear the comparison that he makes. i don't expect -- except that comparison. i believe it is better to work with our american friends to show we are appropriate. >> when president obama imposed a similar ban on a single country in 2011 american democracy insured it did not last and other action was taken. can't we rely on american democracy this time to do the right inc.? d's jobt british minister to speak for british policy. >> there is disquiet about this policy already on capitol hill. i have no doubt whatsoever that the american political system will help to introduce requisite balances in the end. it is our job to intervene now and get the best deal we can for u.k. nationals. >> in november 1938, a then
conservative government repaired a bill that led to the candor transportedat jewish refugee children to this country. doesn't the secretary of state realized that in making his statement he should uphold the geneva convention and speak truth to power in the united states? he has let the house down and his job down. i thinke to say that the honorable member is taking it to new heights and in fact, most fair-minded people would say that we have been very clear with our friends in america. we don't agree with their policy. we disapprove of discrimination on grounds of nationality and we worked with them to get the best possible outcome for u.k. nationals and dual nationals. but we have made clear to the a ministration, as i'm sure he would approve of, the widespread consternation by individuals
such as him around the world. >> can i congratulate the foreign secretary in condemning america's policy which on any standard is completely unjustified. i am also, like many of us, isighted that simone farah apparently now going to be able to go home and see his wife and his children. with the foreign secretary -- would the foreign secretary agree with the words of him when he described this policy as being based on nothing more than prejudice and ignorance? >> i savor the rare congratulations from my honorable friend on any matter whatever but i am delighted to of course, say that he is able to continue to go back to the united states where, he trains fit to win to get the many medals that he does. mr. speaker, the foreign
secretary knows that this policy is counterproductive, immoral and wrong. his attitude and his approach has been to get an extension for u.k. citizens from it and invite the perpetrator of it to a full state visit. this doesn't seem like the wholehearted combination -- condemnation. what is he going to do to make it absolutely clear in no uncertain terms that this american administration, this kind of it -- discrimination is counterproductive and in moral? >> she judges the policy as immoral and wrong. i say it is divisive, discriminatory and wrong. i invite them to write to me and explain. >> i commend the foreign secretary on the work he did through sunday into the night to ensure that britons have safe
travel in the united states. can i further ask him whether he has had clarification from the administration. that they have now updated the device to their embassy. some embassies are still turning nationals away. my honorable friend, they will not be affected by this presidential election. i can confirm that the embassy advice has been updated as we have been speaking. xenophobiaus condemn and we reject racism i instinct. which should the prime minister grace values? primaryrime minister's
duty is to the safety and security of everybody in this country, to protect the rights and freedoms and that is what has been achieved by the agreement that we have struck. you will also know that she was first out of the box, very early out-of-the-box in saying she disagreed with this policy. jacob rees more. >> can i congratulate my right honorable friend in making those words possible, her majesty is subject to travel without less hindrance in reality. and also being the first minister to dispatch box to defend the master policy in the united states since lord north? and not seek to tell how america how to run itself. >> i'm grateful to my honorable friend. i'm not seeking to defend or rationalize in any way the
policy of the presidential executive order. i merely seek to explain how it dualsfect u.k. nationals, and what we have done to mitigate the effects of that executive order. i'm sorry, it was holocaust memorial day. the prime minister told us that our commitments are about more than words. she said it is about sending him to prejudice wherever it is espoused to today. why did on saturday, was the prime minister unable to take her own call to action? >> the prime minister made it clear she did not agree with the policy. she did and i have made it absolutely clear several times now in the course of these proceedings that i think the policy is entirely a matter for the united states but it is my view that it is divisive, discriminatory and wrong. >> the foreign secretary is to be congratulated upon working to
protect the rights of british nationals. but willy also consider that he is not telling the white house how to run their own country, and to remind them in firm terms that our relationship is based upon a mutual respect for the rule of law, both national and international? and that in this policy america does nobody in that regard at all. >> i completely agree. we are more likely to get a hearing in respect to these vital issues if we treat our friends and partners, our long-standing friends and partners with the respect that they deserve. >> thank you, mr. speaker. it seems that fake news has come to the house of commons with a vengeance because the foreign secretary has just stood up to say outcry minister was first out of the box to condemn the words from president trump. she was not. it was 38 hours and her failure
was something that shamed the whole country. they have signed a petition to stop the state visit because they recognize that our prime minister has been involved not in complicitbut with tyranny. what does he say? >> i say to the honorable lady that constituents are at liberty to sign the petition to express their views. i have expressed my views about this measure but i also think it would be a good thing if the visit went ahead because the relationship between the united kingdom and the united states is -- single most geopolitical important yield lyrical fact of the last 100 years and we are going to keep that going. >> may i strongly agree with the foreign secretary of the vital importance of this country's alliance with the united states? inld you agree with me whatever others may do, refugees are arriving in this country and
will be dealt with with patients, courtesy and respect. i am very grateful to my right honorable friend to his point and i am glad also to see that the bust of his grandfather is being rightfully restored to its place in the oval office and, of course, i would remind him that it was winston churchill who took a very strong view that a country should be able to control its own borders and its own immigration policies. >> i don't think the foreign secretary understands, mr. speaker, how so many people in this country feel such contempt for what trump has done. and i clarify what he said earlier? of thisd this visit bigoted man is going to take reassured thate under no circumstances will he address parliament in
westminster hall? that in itself self would be a disgrace. >> i am sure that the mood of the chamber of the house of commons will be reflected in all discussions about how the visit is to go ahead but i think we should bear in mind that he is the elected head of state of our closest and most important ally and there is absolutely no reason why he should not the accorded a state visit and every reason why he should. >> edward lee. >> certainly, if we got the to have tea queen with the president of china i don't see why that queen can't have tea with the president of america. >> for 70 years, we depended on the special relationship and in prosperity,and our for the future trade deal, and absolutesit triumph? and is in first fruit of this
before and secretary has ensured the rights of british citizens? agreeust say that i do with the prime minister's visit. i do think it was a very great success and they kindled an important relationship and the parallels that were drawn in the u.s. commentary between ronald reagan and margaret thatcher, between our prime minister and the new american president, were i think very apt and we can look forward to a new era of stability working with the u.s.. >> mr. speaker, the british embassy in the united states has a very informal page on a website where it shows the lists of presidential visits to the united kingdom. can the foreign secretary confirm that george w. bush was president for more than two years before he made a state
visit? that barack obama was president for more than two years and that many previous presidents did visit this country in their duty. why on earth has teresa got in here with trump? order. the honorable gentleman will have a response to what he said but my immediate reaction is that the matter is one of taste rather than of order. -- don't needid any help from the honorable gentleman who has in the foggiest idea of where to start. guidance, may i say that i do find it distasteful, distasteful to make comparisons between the elected leader of a democracy, ande,
1930's tyrants. i think it is inappropriate. protocol -- as for the exact protocol of when the visit should take place, that is something the honorable gentleman cares very deeply about. i can't give guidance about that. that is a protocol matter. can i offer the foreign --retary my configuration commiseration on being back out on a sticky wicket. would he tell the house that inn he intervened washington, was it through the state department or the president's son-in-law? >> i am grateful for that ingenious question. i'm sure the house will
appreciate that we had very good relations with the u.s. government. theight honorable friend secretary himself has had a conversation today with general kelly of the homeland security department, confirming the important exemptions that we received for dual nationals. secretary does not like outrage. does he understand that this may -- the prime minister's failure to condemn trumps muslim ban and does he acknowledge that it may increase the risk to british citizens in the seven countries affected by the ban? >> i'm going to have to repeat what i already said about 15 times about my own views on this policy which i think are the same as the honorable lady.
i think it is divisive and wrong. that is our position. he can put out other adjectives if he chooses. we made our position clear. we also secured an important exemption for you can nationals. -- for u.k. nationals. >> as these barbaric attacks across europe demonstrate, we face a continuing threat from islamic fundamentalism which we are all trying to address in our separate ways. west we may not have adopted the same policy as the united states, shortly, this is a matter for the newly elected administration in america, its courts and its people and our position has been immensely enhanced by the fantastic visit by our friend the prime minister . something iny
defense of that great democracy of the united states of america? when you look at the migrants in the world, those who are living in a country other than the one in which they were born, 20% of them are in the u.s. 45 million people in the u.s. were not born in that country. i do not think that you could credibly say that that country is hostile. of coarse, it is vital that we work with united states in combating terror and that we deepen our relationship. >> thank you mr. speaker. can i congratulate the government on a successful visit to the united states of america and for putting the united kingdom of great britain and northern ireland top off. does the secretary of state recognize a touch of a double standard when people from ulster have been told for decades they must talk to the most objectionable people, work with
the most objectionable people, be in government with them and by the same people, they are told that you must have the president of the most in the craddick force -- most of a craddick force -- most democra tic force. and i give advice to northern ireland citizens who currently hold passports. should they be applying for british passport for ease of travel in the united states? >> i completely agree with the point that the honorable gentleman rightly makes. president trump in his administration have not been engaged in terrorist offenses on mainland britain. .nlike those reservation that he has expressed and the mitigation
that he has secured. what further opportunities will there be. in order to maximize our influence. that a return visit by the president is a rather obvious one? >> i am grateful to the right honorable friend that is a very good thought. the president to visit will be an occasion for having further such conversations. i will be meeting my u.s. counterpart at the security conference in munich in a few days time. to the general dismay, does the foreign secretary realize that those of us with constituents with a large muslim population and in my case a large arabic population are feeling deep concern? now are looking for the strongest possible reaction from the government.
diverse school path will be departing for america. will he do what he can to ensure smooth passage for those students that are going to america to study the great tradition of american democracy? >> we will do everything we can she refers parties to and in sure that they have a great trip to the u.s. as to the muslim minority arab course wecies, of must speak up for them and defend their interests, rights and that is why we made the of tools of tools and need for passports. >> is the secretary wherewith the speech in 1940 where winston churchill said each one hopes that if he beats the crocodile
down enough the crocodile will eat him last. in reference to the countries that remained neutral. this dangerous trend towards nationalism is inflicting itself upon the western world and it is clear this executive order needs to be condemned. we must make it stand here and now, for the weight of history stands on our shoulder. >> i completely agree that we must stand up against bigotry and nationalism but i must say that i do draw the line, i do draw the line at the comparison being made relentlessly this afternoon between the elected government of our most important ally, a great democracy, and the anti-democratic cruel barbaric tyrannies of the 1930's. continuing to use the language of appeasement demeans the horror of the 1930's and trivializes our conversation.
the reason people feel strongly about this is because of the great love held for the united states within this chamber. the foreign secretary is right to say that our deep friendship brings the ability to be candid. but strength also brings the really to be candid. and if this is the lesson from the week response, that desperation leads to the opposite. >> i think that the important point i would stress for that is that this government has earned the right to speak frankly to our friends in the u.s. and we have and we have made our views my views areasure, with the views of the honorable lady and other members here today.
the prime minister does not approve of this measure but the important thing to do is to talk to our friends in departments in the u.s. to reflect and relay some of that global consternation that we detest but for get a positive outcome nationals. >> i congratulate my right honorable friend for securing those rights of dual british nationals. when you look into the case of the middle eastern and other -- dualuntries refusing nationals from this country -- from entering their country? aware that there are other countries, particularly in the middle east that do, themselves, band citizens of at least one country from entering their own.
secretary, make no reference at all in his original statement to the american suspension of their refugee program and shouldn't our prime minister echo the words of the canadian prime minister in saying that we will welcome those fleeing purgation -- persecution and terror and war? >> our policy has not changed. we have a good in this country. a thousand syrian refugees alone and as i said, i don't think anyone could reasonably fault the united states of america as a great recipient from migrants from around the world. numbers, 45at the million people in the u.s. are not born in a country. it is a very distinguished record. >> does my right honorable friend share my disappointment that so many members of this
house have got so used to us not having control of our own immigration policy that they appeared to resent another sovereign country having control affairs? -- control of theirs? >> my honorable friend put it bluntly but accurately. you may thinker about this policy, and there is a wide measure of agreement it is thes house, prerogative of the president of the united states, the american government to do this. ford. black >> the world is in an increasingly dangerous place and if the special relationship is bemean anything, we should saying that he must desist. anxiety but the leadership we must show in order to deliver peace and security in
the world. to saygret respectfully what i have given on that point. we don't agree with policy but we engage with united states to improve it. >> i know the foreign secretary understands the fears this executive order has struck into sovereign of citizens, particularly as under the obama administration, british citizens of iranian extraction had their bank accounts closed by the u.k. bank because of u.s. banking rules. anduld seek protection assurances to ensure this executive order will not lead to further personal financial sanctions for british citizens originally from these seven countries? >> i think the right honorable pointakes an excellent and i just remind the house that the reason these particular
seven countries have been singled out has led to confusion they were,ersy but in fact, the seven selected by the obama administration for the withdrawal of the visa waiver for anybody who had been to those countries. i am sure that the three members of this house born in yemen are grateful to the foreign minister for allowing us to travel to america. but the position of a british citizen who happens to be an aid worker in yemen or has visited yemen for humanitarian purposes, they are caught by this ban because the united states will not allow, as i understand it, those who visited or worked in yemen even though they are nationals in britain to visit the united states. >> i am grateful to the honorable member, knowing he was
born in yemen and i know that there must have been some anxiety about exactly how he would be treated in the u.s. i'm happy to say he will face no obstacle whatever because he is au.k. passport holder and not aid worker in yemen. >> we didn't need the executive order to be signed to know that this was critical to trump's policy. it was an election pledge. was going to happen, did the foreign secretary raise this issue during his meeting with the transition team or did the it?e minister raise yeti -- the reality is the conversation between the the u.k.ation and
government has been going on for many months. we have to say, we became aware of the policies when it was being enacted by the president on friday evening and since then, we have worked hard to secure the exemptions and protections that we have today. given that the foreign secretary has said today that the u.s. president's policy is divisive and wrong, can the house assume that he will strengthen any representation he made on this policy to the u.s., our friends in the u.s. by working closely in partnership with our counterparts in the european union and the council of europe? >> we already worked very closely, locked at the hip with on partners in the eu foreign and security policies and we will continue to do so by
the way once we have met with the european union. >> i am grateful to the foreign secretary. many thousands of people will be confident that all british passport holders will be able to travel into the u.s.. those with a legal right to be here will be able to apply for a visa. there are seven countries on president trump list, banning citizens from entering the u.s. for 90 days. everyone of these countries bands israeli passport holders. had they had representation from dual british israeli citizens regarding this policy which is similarly divisive, discriminatory and wrong? >> i am glad that my honorable friend point that out. i have alluded to this in an elliptical way. the house should the aware of that discrimination, that ban that already exists.
the house should also reflect on the fact that all immigration policies are by their very betweeniscriminatory individuals and nations. >> allison mcgovern. >> the foreign secretary is right about one thing. we've got friends in america and i stand with our friends there today in standing up against this ban. attention back to the humanitarian cause in the middle east? many of those affected will be people who have been striving to save lives in syria, iraq and elsewhere. that they canre travel to the states as they need to? conversations we have had so far, where there are people who for diplomatic or political reasons or aid workers had reason to travel, there should be expeditious systems for
ensuring that they get through fast. that is why, to some of the people who are residents in this country but will have dual u.k. nationality. thehe foreign seeker -- foreign speaker has touched on this but 16 countries for bid admission to the israeli passport holders. when you are doing is without question misguided and wrong. would my friend agree with me that we should be consistent in our condemnation? >> i am very grateful to my .onorable friend many members of this house have been ignorant until this afternoon. they knew it, why did they keep silence? many in the academic community are not british passport holders. , a my constituents
specialist from a university, was prevented from boarding a flight because the flight involved a transfer in new york. the holocaust didn't start with the gas chambers. and only days after holocaust memorial day, the parallels are clear. we welcome the foreign secretary's condemnation. willie condemn these restrictions in any discussions he has? can he ensure that the price of trade will not be our complacent existence of these new rules? briefly, i have said already in my answer to the front bench that we are aware of the particular problem and we will do everything we have in our power to help. as for her repetition of
comparisons that have been made all afternoon between these events and the second world war and the holocaust, i have to say it trivializes the holocaust. speaker.you, mr. i think the foreign secretary for his statement and can i ask him to make it clear that while america pursues this terrible and divisive policy which i utterly condemn that the united kingdom will always be a place where refugees are welcomed? will always be a place where refugees are made to feel welcome? will you join me in thanking voluntary groups like refugees welcome in richmond that do great work in this field? >> absolutely. i can assure my honorable friend that we will continue to be a great and open society here in the u.k. 40% of londoners were born abroad, including myself.
condemnation of the executive order this afternoon which has been heard across the house. it is not my place to defend or but it isthat policy there for 90 days only and it will be subject to the full scrutiny of debate on capitol hill and we have already heard that there is doubt. decision to trump's issue this executive order is deeply divisive and dangerous. it sent shockwaves around the muslim world. muslim communities across europe, including here in this country. mr. speaker, as a muslim, i find it deeply worrying and disturbing and i find it deeply fearful for us to live in this country in the midst of
reprisals already in countries like canada. and when political leaders amplify tensions, when they fail to show courage and leadership and stand up in the face of division and hatred, then we send the wrong message. can i appeal to the foreign secretary and the prime minister to show courage and leadership and also take steps to provide protections for those communities who are feeling very, very worried about their safety across europe after this executive order. mr. speaker, of course i agree very much with a lot of what she has had to say and that is why both the prime minister and i have taken the mind that we have about this measure. speaks of hate crime and she is absolutely right to do so. i don't want to see anything that stigmatizes or infringes divisions or causes, communities
to feel unwelcome in this country or elsewhere. that is absolutely wrong. we take hate crime's very seriously in our country and i think we can be proud of some of the achievements we have made in the last 10, 20 years in cracking down on those who ferment mistrust and division between our communities. >> i thought that the prime minister's speech in philadelphia was one of the best expositions i have heard in recent years of the importance of the atlantic alliance. i would urge all honorable members who doubt that the readers beat and see why this is a relationship that is worth holding onto. would my honorable friend in considering these issues see the warm response to prime minister had from congressional leaders and redouble our efforts to reach out across the aisle as wise counsels and friends of the united kingdom in washington?
>> i completely agree with my honorable friend. there is a wide measure of agreement across the atlantic about some of those essentials which unite us. the importance of nato and our collective western defense and the importance of promoting our values in freedom, and democracy, rule of law, equality and human rights. peoplere shared by many in the republican party on capitol hill and they also share our strong desire to develop our trading relation in a new free-trade deal. that is one of the great achievements of the prime minister's visit. >> i have to say to the secretary that i found the emptiness and the hollowness of his statement today. given that during president trump's campaign he very clearly set out that he had a policy for banning muslims, does he agree
that this executive order amounts to banning muslims? to the bannot amount . certain states have been singled out and i believe that to be wrong in the sense that it discriminates against people on the grounds of nationality. >> when president obama came over here during the eu referendum, he gave voice to his concerns about what we are trying to do and we told him in no uncertain terms it was not his business, entirely due to us. while friends should be able to speak to each other, does the right honorable friend agree with me that the american people have voted donald trump to be the president and it is their business how they defend their borders? >> i do agree with you up to this point. i think it is also our duty, as many members of the house have said, to make our views clear to the american president about this measure.
we disapprove of it and we think it is divisive and wrong. as he rightly says, it is a sobering government -- a sovereign government of a friendly country and they have taken this decision by due process. collies have been listening they will have noticed that the foreign secretary has replies and ithy replies would ask now for pithy single sentence questions without preamble. if people want to preamble can i politely say keep it for the long winter evenings that lie ahead? we don't need you today. assessment has the foreign secretary made of the impact of this executive order on british foreign-policy objectives in the middle east and other areas in the world with substantial muslim populations? and how will a state visit from president trump assist them?
>> most countries in the middle east are exempt from these provisions but we all work with the incoming administration to address the crises in the middle east including those affecting the countries concerned. >> i congratulate the foreign secretary on -- it is right that we main -- remain a close friend but a candid friend. we should steer clear of policies that could act as a recruiting sergeant for daesh. >> i have been candid with the house this afternoon about how -- our reservations and they include the grounds that my friend has mentioned. >> can i repeat the question from the foreign secretary that he gave an answer? in light of our relationship with the united states, why does it take the government of the united kingdom over 17 hours longer to get the same assurances that the canadians got? >> it is our duty to secure the
best possible deal for the united kingdom. what canada has done is for canada. i have no knowledge of what they may have secured. it is an executive order that took many departments of the american ministration to put on p and it has taken them some time to elaborate the policies that we have. >> as donald trump is an elected president and our closest trading partner, though he is carrying out a promise he made to the american people in the general presidential election, can i commend the foreign secretary for standing firm on the state visit which is absolutely in our national interest. after all, it is the policies that the government didn't agree with if they barred any country,
the or whatever get a visit. -- would ever get a visit. >> i'm grateful to my honorable friend. knowledge, of my they have been entertained by her majesty, queen and i think most members of the house would concede that it is our duty and the right thing to do to put in preparation now for receiving our friends, our partner, and the leader of the great democracy and the most important ally we have. whatever it was for most of us that didn't have to meet either of there's. >> does the foreign secretary my concern that the reciprocal ban enclosed by iraq may damage the bid for security in that country?
>> i am very aware of that particular problem and i have heard representations from iraqi politicians. exemptionspecific for those involved in politics or diplomacy and i hope that they will be treated expeditiously by the u.s. thates my friend agree whilst we can say we would not have such a policy in the u.k., interfering in the affairs of another country can be counterproductive? president obama found out when he tried to impose the outcome of the eu referendum last year. >> that is entirely right. as things turned out, i was rather grateful for president obama's intervention but i think we have got the balance just about right.
we have to be clear with our american friends but we have also acted to secure protections for duels and u.k. citizens. personally -- he referred to grabbing a woman, my constituent said he was devastated by the prime minister's failure to condemn the actions of president trump. does the secretary of state agree? >> the prime minister has, herself, said several times that such language is unacceptable. >> may i thank the foreign secretary for answering in such a full way and you, mr. speaker for allowing such a debate so we can move swiftly on to the pension bill afterwards. can i ask the foreign if he has got a very special friend and they have been invited to a big
party, which is a better way of influencing them? banning them from the party or taking their hand and saying to them quietly what you would like them to do? i think my honorable friend makes the point very amicably. we do not agree with this policy or support it as something we would do ourselves but we think the best way to affect change and influence the white house is to engage and be positive as we possibly can. my keenness to accommodate is undiminished what can i say that if people feel they are going to add further insight to our proceedings, by their contribution, they can continue to stand but it is not compulsory to do so. ferrier.et wants toime minister do business with president
trump, presumably in the same way he does business with saudi .rabia and the uae muslim majority countries not on the banned list. not a single attack on u.s. soil has come from one of the countries on the list. and yet the 9/11 hijackers were from the saudi and middle east. it is a potential conflict of interest between the dealings and his the mystic policy. ladym afraid the honorable must've been thinking of something else when i pointed out earlier that these seven countries were those already singled out by the obama regime for very substantial visa restrictions. speaker, i will be attending a u.n. conference in new york in march. can the foreign secretary assure me that i and others like me will not be detained at immigration at the airport for questioning? >> i certainly can.
>> putin had state visits but none were invited to address houses of parliament. whose idea was it that mr. trump should be invited to do so? was it the foreign secretary? >> the labour party is assessing about point of protocol with the speaker but all of this has yet to be determined. >> thank you mr. speaker. the foreign secretary have said british citizens should be treated equally regardless of religion or origin. can i say this? when i entered the united states before being a member of parliament, on two occasions i was stopped at immigration and asked what country i was born in. i'm a british national. can the foreign secretary say that anyone should have a record and make appropriate
representation to the united states? >> i would point out to my honorable friend that this -- took place under the obama administration. that, obviously, i am happy to receive correspondence about but again, he and other possessors of u.k. passports will be free to travel to the united states without hindrance. >> from mr. pound? man -- i'm sure the secretary is familiar with the art of the deal. the point is to start with something so outrageous it will incite fury and then moved to something that will initially seem outrageous but by comparison seems almost reasonable. as a responsible foreign secretary, will be analyzed
possible future actions by the president? >> anybody looking at the president's electoral rhetoric and what he is in fact doing, they would conclude that his spark is considerably worse than his bite and we have had every very goody to do a deal with him on all sorts of things, not only free-trade? a short sentence. mr. peter grant. >> my assessment has been for the u.k. government, if you minutes ago, namely that with islamic phobia being propagated in america, it may be easier for daesh to recruit? phenomenon,ith the i understand the phenomenon to which he alludes and we all need to work harder and work together
with our american friends and partners to tackle that sense of exclusion and isolation which can drive extreme hate. >> for women's rights or torture, you're on one side or the other end how many refugees ?ill we take to offset the ban how many women's organizations will receive funding from us? will he rethink that highest honor? >> this country has a proud record of taking refugees and international organizations and campaigning for female victims of sexual violence and conflict. we have done more than any other country in the world to do that and we continue those. as for his point about the state, i repeat my point. her majesty the queen has .xtended that invitation
it is proper that we should go ahead and it will. >> could the country come to the conclusion that the government's response on this pernicious policy is that her government is so desperate for a post brexit trade deal with the united states that they are willing to become an apologist to the trump administration? >> i think any fair-minded person having listened to what has happened over the last 48 hours would understand that apart from supporting the policy , far from acquiescing in the policy, far from approving or agreeing, we have worked with the incoming administration to and to securelicy important protections for u.k. nationals and for dual nationals. >> dr. lisa cameron? >> i refer the house to my register. given that psychologists have suggested that president trump
has display traits of narcissism and maybe dogmatic, what is the reason moving forward? will the foreign secretary seek a psychological opinion himself? >> irrespective of the psychological traits of various world leaders, in which i am sure the honorable lady is excellent, i have not had a interests,onsult the but we will work with the president and with all our friends and partners to get the best outcome for our country and partnership of the u.s. is absolutely vital for security and stability. signifyorder doesn't just on the basis of nationality . it actually says signifies on the basis of faith. this is a muslim ban and that has been admitted by those held helped him implement the ban
legally. why do we system for tending that these people are not doing the very thing that they are themselves telling us they are doing? knowledge,est of my the president has, himself, dissociated himself from that characterize nation of this policy and i remind the house that these seven countries do not comprise the entire muslim world and indeed, they are the very countries that were singled out i president obama for thoroughly restrictive visa regulations. >> roger mullen? >> given the trump administration's intent on trading on man's inhumanity to man, when was the first time the secretary of state called his office is number to express his disquiet? as the honorable gentleman may know, my opposite number has not been confirmed in office yet
but we have had abundant conversations with representatives of the trumpet ministration about his policy. the foreignif secretary could comment on the blog that has come up at channel four, that says the prime minister was told of the u.s. refugee ban and was coming prior to the signing of the executive order? can the foreign secretary confirm or deny that fact? comment on confidential conversations between the prime minister -- confident conversation between the prime minister and the u.s. president but what i can tell the house is that as soon as we had a full understanding of the measure that they had brought, we decided to intercede to get the predictions that we needed.
>> mr. allen brown? minister andrime president of the united states, can we tell what his attention is going to be? that no deal is better than a i agree. >> i'm afraid i couldn't make out the earlier part of it but i totally agree with the last bit. holocaust survivors have said this reminds them of the 1930's. is this the time for appeasement or a time of standing up for british values? >> i think it is time for perspective, and time to stop demeaning the holocaust. weekwas in washington last with the nato policy assembly. administratione
of the united states took us usrt and said "stand by because our values are under attack." does the foreign secretary appreciate what comes out of ,ere in the statements we make those americans who want to fight to retain their values. >> i think the honorable lady. it is very important. we do talk to our friends and partners. within nato. and that is right. we have many friends on capitol hill who agree profoundly about the importance. they did, indeed, for people in the new trump administration. thosee way to nail arguments down is to engage with the trumpet ministration -- the
trump administration. refugeesn affects the from seven countries, many of whom will have been waiting for years in the camps and are ready to go to the u.s. before the ban came in. what will you do to use this much vaunted special relationship to speak up for the people who are, themselves, victims of war. >> we have made our position clear on this policy. we believe the u.s. has a proud record of taking refugees from the syrian conflict and i hope they will again. >> does the foreign secretary not share that concern that green team this invitation to the president might get us some short-term brownie points up in the new administration in washington, will lose this respect and trust across many more of the countries with them until recently we share the same common values, decency,
tolerance and respect. >> the entire proposition on its head. other countries around the world are looking to us to engage with the new american administration to reflect their concerns, to get across our key message on nato, on trade, on the values that unite us. >> mr. speaker, the shameful of complicit attitudes from the foreign secretary are a disgrace. the government talks about its global influence. does it have influence for this disgraceful recent quarter. if you see the impact is often the most vulnerable people on the planet? muslims.cause they are
>> i must say to the honorable lady that her question was composed long before she actually came to this statement and heard what i had to say. any fair-minded person listening to what i've had to say about that measure and about what the u.k. government has done over the last 40 odd hours could not ask the way she did. [shouting] >> thank you, mr. speaker. with the foreign secretary agree with me that regardless of the exemption for u.k. nationals, the trump president he is tainted by this bigoted and immoral band that the prime minister is taken by her hand-in-hand association and he is tainted by his craze in complacency. >> my right honorable friend has a very important point that the leadership and someone who advocated talking to the ira not so many years ago and possibly still does. what we are advocating, what we are advocating his engagement with the government of the most powerful nation on earth on which the security of the world depends.
>> can not the foreign secretary understand why this is perceived as discriminatory to muslims? the muslim majority countries and the president himself has said the majority faith including syrian christians will be exempt from the order. >> i don't think there's much to choose between us on this. i've said already repeatedly this afternoon that i believe the measure as discriminatory and wrong and the words that the honorable lady opposite. she parroted me. that is my view. as this measure may turn out to be counterproductive. that is also a point that we are making.
>> thank you, mr. speaker. >> thank you, mr. speaker. does the foreign secretary accept the point that this sort of action is exactly what isis wants because it plays into the false narrative that the west is anti-muslim. it's not just immoral, it is a threat to our national security and that is why we cannot be seen to endorse it. >> everybody understands the scope and extent of the challenge that we face in the radical islamic extremism and the point the honorable gentleman makes about pushing people into a corner and making them feel more isolated. he's quite right to raise that. we are working with a huge coalition of muslim countries are completely unaffected by this measure to defeat the extremism and radicalization.
>> has he in the point in the conversation with the geneva convention and obligations of the u.s. government would not let the chancellor angela merkel. >> at the risk of repeating myself, as i have said several times already this afternoon, we have expressed our clear views both in respect of refugees and in respect of migration from the countries. >> thank you, mr. speaker. my honorable friend raised an important point a few moments ago but didn't get a full answer. it would appear the prime minister was told about the refugee ban and the foreign secretary can confirm that was the case. if so, what was her advice? >> i think i gave the absurd moment or two ago which is that i do not comment on the confidential conversations that take place between the prime minister. what we have done its work with our friends in the white house, state department and department of homeland security to understand exactly how this
measure is to be implemented to make sure we secure the protections this country needs. >> thank you, mr. speaker. james rutger, my constituent e-mailed me to his feet the visits will be presented by trump and his cronies as ringing endorsements from the u.k. and therefore unfortunately scotland, too. does the foreign secretary not appreciate we are being judged by the friendships we keep? >> i understand the feelings of many people and the numbers in the petitions. i'm just going to repeat my point to the house, which is that it is our job as a sensible government to work with the most powerful democracy in the world whose leadership is absolutely indispensable for our security, for the stability of nato. that is what we are going to do. he's entirely right as every other president before him have come to the u.k. that donald trump should receive a state visit.
>> mr. speaker, does the foreign secretary realize that based on the strength of our leadership and its candor rather than the weakness and compliance and does he recognize how much it undermines the special relationship when we have a prime minister fawning over the president rather than standing up to it. >> it should be obvious to the meanest intelligence that we have not complied meekly with this policy, but we have sought changes and improvements so to
protect the rights of u.k. nationals and dual nationals who may have been born in the countries that have been identified. >> well-said. thank you mr. speaker. we not be judged by the company and is the prime minister can down [inaudible] >> i referred to the honorable lady earlier. the prime minister during the time in which the repercussions of that executive order were being felt in the u.s. alone was actually in transit to turkey and was involved in another. pardon visit where she secured a fantastic deal for this country and agreement to supply turkey with british made fighter planes. >> the u.s. has been a leader in the world and this policy has let the u.s. down and the world down.
would the foreign secretary confirmed whether he knew that the prime minister knew ended and what did he say that she should say in response before the executive order was signed and if he did know, did he make any preparation that advances this coming into law? >> i've answered that question already. i don't comment on the conversations that take place between the prime minister and her office. >> thank you, mr. speaker. over 4000 of my constituents and over 100 of them in the last few hours since the foreign secretaries on us each so is clearly not convincing many people. what opportunity will you have that this does go ahead to visibly protest? >> i am delighted that 100 of his constituents have been waiting with bated breath to get back to that question finally. i can't remember what it was. all i can say is that the use his constituents are important. they clearly disapprove of the prospects of a visit by the president to the united states.
i must humbly respectfully say to them it is in the interest of this country but as with every other president of the united states, donald trump should come to the u.k. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i'm grateful to the secretary of state coming to the floor of the house this afternoon. with the largest democracy on air, has excluded foreign nations whose citizens have killed the most american citizens in the american homeland over the last 40 years. is this a decision of defense that clearly one because it's not the kingdom of saudi arabia. egypt.s not arab emirate. the
are you sure they're not making a mistake? >> the honorable member -- i think i will point out for the third time that the countries in question was drawn up not by the trump administration but by the obama administration would they affect or unfairly restrict measures on people traveling from those countries. >> order. grateful to the foreign secretary and two colleagues. >> thank you, mr. speaker. >> we leave the house of commons gosh --
thehank you for giving me courtesy. of course i would want to hear. ther. speaker, i think for kindness. in the question to the foreign secretary, she snapped at him a bit at the end. canine solution in return. no offense intended and i apologize to the honorable lady if she was. >> i think we should leave it there. honorablee right gentleman. >> wednesday, we will have prime minister's question time with prime minister theresa may live and 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span two.
announcer: today the senate debates the challenge for the next transportation secretary. that begins today at noon eastern. coverage follows of the confirmation vote. c-span's washington journal, live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. morning, ahis discussion of donald trump's executive orders of extreme vetting. the announcement of a supreme court nominee and administration cabinet picks. we will talk about congressional reaction to the trump administration travel ban. be sure to watch c-span's "washington journal" coming up this morning at 7:00 a.m. join the discussion.
>> since justice antonin scalia nominee of president was not considered. we will have live coverage of president trump's announcement of supreme court nominee. then we will open lines to take your comments. >> congressional democrats, led nancyse minority leader pelosi and senate minority chuck schumer protested trump's executive order restricting travel from seven majority muslim countries. this protest from outside the supreme court is 45 minutes. [chanting