Image 01 Image 03

British Parliament to Debate Banning Trump from UK

British Parliament to Debate Banning Trump from UK

In response to petition

In the wake of Donald Trump’s call for a temporary ban on Muslims entering the U.S., the UK saw a huge response to a petition that calls for Trump to be banned from the UK.   While there is a petition against banning Trump, it has, so far, only 39,537 signatures.

With 560,000 signatures on the petition for a ban, the UK parliament has tempered its initial stance and is now set to debate the Trump ban after all.

The Guardian reports:

MPs are to debate calls for the US presidential candidate Donald Trump to be banned from the UK following his controversial comments about Muslims, after more than half a million people signed a petition.

The government signalled last month that it would not refuse Trump entry after he was widely criticised for saying that Muslims should be banned from entering the US.

However, the call for the sanction to be imposed on the businessman will now at least have a hearing in parliament after the House of Commons petitions committee announced on Tuesday that it was scheduling a session in Westminster Hall on 18 January.

. . . .  The prime minister, David Cameron, has condemned the remarks as “divisive, stupid and wrong” but made clear he did not support banning Trump.

Watch the report:

The debate is just that, a debate.  It’s not clear that anything will come of it or that this decision to debate is more than a political reaction to quite a bit of outrage among UK citizens.

The debate later this month will be led by the Labour MP Paul Flynn, a member of the committee. Its chairwoman, Helen Jones, said: “By scheduling a debate on these petitions, the committee is not expressing a view on whether or not the government should exclude Donald Trump from the UK. As with any decision to schedule a petition for debate, it simply means that the committee has decided that the subject should be debated. A debate will allow a range of views to be expressed.”

Among the people the UK has banned are Michael Savage, Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, Mike Tyson, Martha Stewart, and the late L. Ron Hubbard.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


T-rump isn’t JUST a sleaze. He’s a crazy, corrupt sleaze.

But the UK shouldn’t ban him…or most of the people they HAVE banned. He’s great for comedic value. And, like Ron Paul, some of his ideas are even worth hearing.

    holdingmynose in reply to Ragspierre. | January 6, 2016 at 11:25 am

    I don’t follow your logic in calling Trump a sleaze based on the article you linked. The execrable Congressman Alan Grayson has already gone on record saying that he will sue to challenge Cruz’s candidacy if he is nominated based on his Canadian birth. Trump is just indirectly referring to that possibility. Personally I don’t see it as a problem. We currently have an Indonesian citizen as President so a Canadian would be an improvement.

      Ragspierre in reply to holdingmynose. | January 6, 2016 at 11:39 am

      “Trump is just indirectly referring to that possibility.”

      This is what is called “de minimus bullshit”.

      You must be holding your eyes, too. T-rump is going “birther” on Cruz. He’s a sleazeball, and no different in this regard than Grayson.

        PhillyGuy in reply to Ragspierre. | January 6, 2016 at 1:16 pm

        Simple solution for Terd. Release his long form birth certificate and all his immigration papers. Then prove his Mom was an American citizen at the time of his birth. After that, the courts can rule on whether he is a natural born citizen.

        There is absolutely no doubt he will get challenged. None whatsoever. Terd can laugh this off all he wants but the other side will play hardball with him.

          Ragspierre in reply to PhillyGuy. | January 6, 2016 at 1:24 pm

          Amanda Carpenter @amandacarpenter

          Donald Trump Sept 2015: Cruz’s citizenship “checked out by every attorney…Ted is in fine shape.” Did Trump change lawyers?
          5:24 PM – 5 Jan 2016

          No. He’s down in polls, and he’s willing to go sleazeball, just as he’s willing to embrace the ethanol lobby in Iowa to continue subsidies.

          Is Cruz’s mother a naturalized citizen?

          Ragspierre in reply to PhillyGuy. | January 6, 2016 at 2:18 pm

          Are you ignorant about EVERYTHING…???

          She was born in Wilmington, Delaware.

          I wasn’t talking to you Rags, and stop projecting your feelings of inadequacy upon me and others.

          Radegunda in reply to PhillyGuy. | January 6, 2016 at 3:34 pm

          Gary Britt: 1. Did you not notice that Rags answered your question? 2. Of all the charges that might be thrown at Rags (with whom I’ve sometimes differed), “feelings of inadequacy” is one of the least plausible.

          Barry in reply to PhillyGuy. | January 6, 2016 at 8:55 pm

          “She was born in Wilmington, Delaware.”

          My feelings about this be damned, but the problem seems to be a lack of proof of this. I had not been aware of this issue. I don’t know if there is a birth cert, if his mother was born like my grandmother, no birth cert issued (born at home, no doctor, no feds or state officials around), or what. The d’s will make this an issue. And trump already has by simply speaking about it. Cruz needs to answer it or it will not help him.

          Ragspierre in reply to PhillyGuy. | January 6, 2016 at 10:03 pm

          I say that T=rump’s mother was a Gruppenführer at Auschwitz.

          Prove me wrong.

          See how this game is played?

          Barry in reply to PhillyGuy. | January 6, 2016 at 11:26 pm

          “See how this game is played?”

          Yes, and Trump is playing it to perfection. I don’t have to like it but it is working. You on the other hand have no clue. Appeals to trumps mother aren’t going to help.

          Cruz needs to put this to bed, quickly, or it will cost him. There is no upside to this, no harm to trump since the question already exists.

          You said she was born in Del. That was my understanding as well, one I never questioned. Is it provably correct? That is the current question. Can you answer that or not? If not, then there is an opening for Cruz’s opponents, like it or not. I simply don’t know the answer nor can I find it.

          Ragspierre in reply to PhillyGuy. | January 6, 2016 at 11:40 pm

          She was born in Delaware. Prove she was NOT.

          You can’t disqualify on a “doubt”.

          Milhouse in reply to PhillyGuy. | January 6, 2016 at 11:47 pm

          His mother’s birthplace is not in dispute. Nobody doubts it. I don’t understand why you’re even raising it.

          Barry in reply to PhillyGuy. | January 7, 2016 at 12:01 am

          “You can’t disqualify on a “doubt”.”

          I’m not on the “disqualify” bandwagon. I am hoping he puts this to bed quickly.

          You should try not to be so confused.

        I raise it because I saw it mentioned elsewhere (I do not recall where). As I understand it, his mom was a canadian citizen when ted was born. That does not mean she was not a US citizen also. Given that fact, the only question, it seems to me, was Ted’s mother an American citizen? If so, there cannot (to my mind) be any issue. If not, then there might be a problem.

        Like it or not, Cruz will have to answer this if he doesn’t want to lose support. Dirty politics or not, he needs to answer it quickly and put it to bed.

        You can get all buthurt and defensive as you will, it will not change the reality. At this point I have no doubt that Cruz is “natural born”, but he is going to have to put this to bed. Too many can question it, given he was born in canada, to a non-citizen father, and he held a canadian passport until he decided to run for President. Too much ammo there to let it just fester. If mom was an easily provable US citizen, get it out here and put it to rest and call trump an idiot and slimy.

          Milhouse in reply to Barry. | January 7, 2016 at 3:33 am

          Ted Cruz has never held a Canadian passport. I don’t know where you got the idea that he did.

          Nor do I know where you got the idea that his mother was ever a Canadian citizen. I know of no source for this claim. (Even if it were true, it’s very unlikely that she would have renounced her US citizenship, so it wouldn’t matter. But I don’t know of any source at all for it. The only source I’ve seen cited is his father’s NPR interview, in which he doesn’t say it. Some malicious liar seems to have invented this claim out of whole cloth.)

          Some people elsewhere online are saying that the father said he and the mother were Canadian citizens at the time Ted was born. That plus some people are saying a record of Cruz’s mother’s birth certificate can’t be found in Wilmington Delaware. I agree with Barry it is in Cruz’s best interests to put this to bed quickly. Put out a copy of mom’s birth certificate and anything else needed to put this to bed. As Trump has noted the democrats have already promised to make an issue out of this so it is in his best interests to take care of this immediately.

          Trump continues to say he likes Cruz, believes he probably is constitutionally qualified, but that it would be in Cruz’s best interests to get this handled quickly.

          The Washington Post says, by the way, that Trump’s handling of all this has been Brilliant.

          Assuming that Cruz’s mother did become a Canadian citizen as claimed by some citing statements of father, then whether Cruz’s mother lost her USA citizenship when she became a Canadian citizen seems to be the key question. Did she have dual citizenship or not?

          I haven’t seen anything indicating an answer to that question. Did Canada allow dual citizenship at that time or require newly naturalized citizens to renounce their citizenship in other countries in order to become a Canadian citizen?

          Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | January 7, 2016 at 8:07 am

          Where are you getting this “citing documents” bullshit? From the Conservative Tree Sloughs or some other nutters?

          Put up your sources. “Citing documents” sounds like someone’s effort to make lies sound more “official”.

          Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | January 7, 2016 at 8:29 am

          “Trump continues to say he likes Cruz, believes he probably is constitutionally qualified…”

          The Prince of Passive Aggression, T=rump LIES constantly. He “liked” Dr. Carson, too, while insinuating he was a psychopath!

          The man is a sleaze-ball and a coward. BTW, he also said he thought Obama was sincere and his tears real WRT his gun control speech.

          Barry in reply to Barry. | January 7, 2016 at 10:19 am

          “Ted Cruz has never held a Canadian passport”

          Yes, quite correct. Misspoke, I meant he held Canadian citizenship. Sorry for the confusion.

          Milhouse in reply to Barry. | January 8, 2016 at 2:33 am

          Some people elsewhere online are saying that the father said he and the mother were Canadian citizens at the time Ted was born.

          Some people elsewhere online are lying thorugh their f—ing teeth. The interview is online, anyone can listen to it or read the transcript, and see that he never said any such thing.

          Milhouse in reply to Barry. | January 8, 2016 at 2:35 am

          That plus some people are saying a record of Cruz’s mother’s birth certificate can’t be found in Wilmington Delaware.

          How could anyone know this? Surely Delaware doesn’t make the records of living people publicly available, does it?

          Ragspierre in reply to Barry. | January 8, 2016 at 8:22 am

          But that’s the way our Bierhall Britt rolls…with “some people say” and “citing statements”.

          He’s a common, everyday lying SOS. He knows it AND likes it.

          Barry in reply to Barry. | January 8, 2016 at 8:21 pm

          Just to update this thread, Cruz has released mom’s BC, which should put this issue to bed. Only the morons can now question his “natural born” status.

      Ragspierre in reply to holdingmynose. | January 6, 2016 at 11:52 am

      Soopermexican is one of those squishy, RINO, belt-way establishment types who are crytpo Hellary supporters and amnesty flacks…

      …or he has eyes in his head, and doesn’t like Duh Donald.

      If this Cruz isn’t constitutionally qualified to be president worry catches on enough with voters we can expect “me too Teddy” to suddenly copy Trump and announce his own worries about whether he is constitutionally qualified or not to be President.

      Given the rise in tbe level of hyterical spittle flying from Rags mouth, it is going to really be entertaining to see just how deranged Rags will become should Trump really go after Cruz.

      BTW you correctly stated the fact that Grayson and others will bring suit to litigate the nature of Cruz’s constitutional qualifications if he is nominee, which is all that Trump noted and only in response to a direct question from reporter. It was hardly a direct attack by Trump.

        Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | January 6, 2016 at 1:29 pm

        Rush Limbaugh disagrees with the tongue-bath boi at Cabana del Trumpo.

        There is no lie he will not tell in defense of his little yellow god.

          There is no hom9phobic slur that Rags will avoid in his attemts to bully people into supporting Cruz.

          I rest my case, the proposition, stated many moons back, has been proved.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | January 6, 2016 at 2:02 pm

          Trying to slime me with a PC dog-whistle won’t stop me from opposing your lies to bolster the guy you’re queer for (as anyone who reads your screeds knows).

          I can’t ‘bully’ anyone into supporting Cruz. I just stand up for him, as I have others unfairly attacked. Hey, I even oppose banning Duh Donald from the UK!

          Bullying is the province of you Trump suckers. You’re known for it!

          Yep, homophobic.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | January 6, 2016 at 3:37 pm

          Yep. Lying, bullying, cowardly SOS. Just like always.

          But consistent with your little yellow god’s PC positions vis women, blacks and Hispanics.

          So, there’s that…

          Radegunda in reply to Ragspierre. | January 6, 2016 at 3:49 pm

          Trumpsters have set a pattern of treating any scrutiny or criticism of Trump as unfair, outrageous, unethical, etc. They’ve also set a pattern of excusing or explaining away every one of Trump’s sins and inconsistencies and absurdities — while holding every other candidate to the strictest standards.

          Someone on another site pronounced one off-key pronouncement by Cruz to be disqualifying, and then went on to endorse Trump — who is permitted an unlimited quota of off-key pronouncements (because “He’s not PC!” “He’s unfiltered!”), and who, unlike the other candidates, is not expected to show a record of conforming actions to words. (Self-serving actions are not dispositive in this regard.)

        Oh oh… Rags head will explode in 1..2..3….

        Team Obama Joins Donald Trump’s Attack On Ted Cruz’s Citizenship. “It would be quite ironic if after 7 or 8 years of drama around the president’s birth certificate if Republican primary voters were to choose Senator Cruz as their nominee,” he said. “Somebody who actually wasn’t born in the United States and only 15 months ago renounced his Canadian citizenship.”

        and Ann Coulter agrees it is false for NYT to claim Cruz is natural born citizen

        I don’t know whether Cruz is or isn’t natural born citizen. I would say it is likely that he is, but this question has never been decided by the supreme court and Trump makes the valid point that if Cruz is nominee, there will be immediately filed one or more lawsuits seeking to establish he is not qualified constitutionally to be president and these questions and lawsuits would dog him throughout general election campaign.

        Clean up on isle 3 please….. LOL

          Latest PPP poll just out in New Hampshire.

          Trump 29%, Rubio 15%, Cruz 10%

          Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | January 6, 2016 at 3:56 pm

          Golly, Baghdad Bob… I really HATES to disappoint you.

          But you just admitted that Obama, Grayson, and T-rump are going birther on Mr. Cruz. A team de sleaze-ball!

          That’s what I’ve been saying. Coulter, like you, is queer for Duh Donald. And, boy, can she pick ’em…!!! What’s her average on POTUS picks?

          Since you have SOME legal training, tell the people here what “settled law” means. Give us your considered opinion of how long it would take a Federal district judge to laugh a challenge to Cruz out of court. I’d say it wouldn’t last long enough to allow you to lie about it.

          Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | January 6, 2016 at 3:59 pm

          …but we’d kinda expect a NE liberal “Republican” to do well in New Hampshire, right?

          I mean, he’d by gawd BETTER…

          Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | January 6, 2016 at 4:12 pm

          Ann Coulter


          TED CRUZ CAN RUN FOR PRESIDENT! I worried on @seanhannity @ his Calgary birth, But his mother was a US citizen, so he was born a citizen.
          1:01 PM – 14 Feb 2013

          Ann sometimes has some trouble with her memory…

          Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | January 6, 2016 at 4:17 pm

          Mark Levin; Constitutional scholar and Conservative.

          My head is just fine, Baghdad Bob. You must be a lil’ punch-drunk. DrunkER.

          Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | January 6, 2016 at 4:31 pm

          “Repeating your wishes as facts isn’t going to make them so,” [T-rump spokeswoman] Pierson wrote in a private Facebook post from March 28. “Ted Cruz is a natural citizen by BIRTH and is eligible to be President.”

          “For those constantly citing otherwise is plain whiney and the most unintelligent way to prop up your choice,” she continued. “So, your candidate is just going to have to bring it in the debates. Good luck!”

          Don’t you feel dirty, Baghdad Bob? You should.

          Milhouse in reply to Gary Britt. | January 6, 2016 at 11:53 pm

          Rags, it’s not settled law that NBC means “citizen at birth”. The question has never been before any court. But it does now seem to be settled law that the question is not justiciable, and therefore it will never come before any court. The Ds established that precedent 7-8 years ago.

          John Nolte to Levin, It doesn’t matter if Levin is right. What matters is what the democrats and DC Media will do. Trump is doing Cruz and the Party a favor by bringing this out now. Democrats would love to make issue out of this in general election. Here are just a few of his points.:

          If Cruz is on the ticket, you can bet the farm that Democrats and the DC Media have already gamed out an October Surprise centered on creating a political storm over Cruz’s natural born status. Moreover, all it would take is one federal judge to hurl a massive monkey into that wrench.

          Exhibit A: The Clintons are the Original Birthers. If they went after Obama over this issue, who doesn’t believe they will go after Cruz?

          Exhibit B: High-profile Democrats are already vowing to sue over Cruz’s eligibility.

          Exhibit C: The White House proved yesterday that at the highest levels, Democrats are fully prepared to make this an issue.

          Exhibit D: We’re still waiting for independent verification that Cruz’s mother was indeed an American citizen. Wouldn’t now be a good time to drop that shoe, however it falls?

          Even if you side 100% with Levin on this issue, tell me how unrealistic it is to imagine a federal judge ruling on October 21, 2016, that Ted Cruz’s citizenship status is questionable. Cruz is running for president. We can’t just take his word on this.

          Trump may well want this cleared up NOW so he can pick Cruz to be his VP. Trump is just trying to take care of Cruz and the GOP.

          Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | January 7, 2016 at 1:09 pm

          That’s Levin last night, screwing you and yours to the wall, Bierhall Britt.

          He challenges anyone to debate him on the matter, so you should call him up.

          You and Duh Donald have been joined by Jerold Rivers (Geraldo Rivera), John McAnus, and a half a Nanny Pelosi. You should be SOOOOOOOoooooo proud!

          Shit just rolls out your ears, like Duh Donald. His only concern is the interest of the GOP!

          Even you are not so stupid…

          Oppooosie. You really ARE that stooooooooOOOOOOOooooopid.

          As usual Rags you miss the point or refuse to uncover your eyes and see it.

          Nolte isn’t saying Levin is wrong on the constitutional analysis. Nolte is saying that Levin is giving bad political advice if he refuses to recognize that the democrats will certainly make hay out of these attacks. The attacks don’t have to be accurate to be effective.

          Nolte (and Trump) are saying it is to Cruz’s benefit to put this issue to bed now rather than just keep ignoring it.

          Cruz should produce his mothers’ birth certficate showing she was born in USA and should produce documentation showing she either never was a Canadian citizen or that if she was a Canadian citizen that she didn’t renounce/wasn’t required to renounce her USA citizenship to become Canadian citizen. His mother certainly may have had tax reasons to become Canadian citizen so she didn’t have to pay USA income taxes on income from her Canada business.

          Even McCain and Rand Paul are saying his status to be president isn’t clear. Cruz needs to clear this up as a matter of good political sense.

          Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | January 7, 2016 at 3:16 pm

          “Not one vote will change on the strength of this crap”.

          That is the gist of Levin’s statement. He’s right.

          And, of course, you’re lying. As always.

          Cruz should let this Trumpian attack roll off his back, as he has been. You and Obama, Grayson, Trump, McAnus, and all the other team de sleaze-ball can try to keep this going. It WILL cost you with conservatives.


          Barry in reply to Gary Britt. | January 7, 2016 at 6:46 pm

          ““Not one vote will change on the strength of this crap”.”

          I disagree. This will hurt Cruz over time if he doesn’t put it to bed. It should be easy.

          All the nonsense about what is/isn’t a natural born citizen is immaterial. I’m quite certain Cruz’s mother was a US citizen, which puts the whole thing to bed. Just prove that and tell everyone to fuck off. Telling everyone to fuck off without producing the proof leads to further questioning/distraction. This should be simple.

          Barry in reply to Gary Britt. | January 8, 2016 at 8:23 pm

          Updated: Cruz has released moms BC. This issue is done.

      Milhouse in reply to holdingmynose. | January 6, 2016 at 11:44 pm

      Whether 0bama is or ever was an Indonesian citizen is irrelevant. There is nothing in the constitution — not a single word — that bars a foreign citizen from the presidency, so long as he is also a natural born US citizen. 0bama finally released his birth certificate, the real one, so we know he is one. End of inquiry.

      Is Cruz one? The question is not one of facts but of law. Nobody disputes the facts: He was born in Canada, to a mother born in the USA, and under US law at the time he automatically became a US citizen. He believes (and our good host here shares that belief) that “natural born citizen” means “citizen at birth”, and so he’s eligible.

      I believe, following Blackstone, that it means “born under the protection of US law”, so I believe Cruz is not eligible. However I no longer care. I’d rather have an ineligible president who cares about the constitution than an eligible one who spits on it. I’d rather have Walker, Perry, or Jindal than Cruz, but they’re not available and he is.

      The Democrats have already spent the last 8 years establishing the precedent that the eligibility clause is not justiciable. Now they can regret it at their leisure. Grayson’s suit will be dismissed without a hearing, just as all the suits against 0bama were. They have to be. And thus will the Dems be hoist by their own petard.

        I believe for Obama that some had said at the time of his birth there was a federal statute in place that said if a child is born to a USA parent under the age of 21 or something and the mother had not lived in the USA for X number of years out of y years in total then the child would NOT be a USA citizen. I believe this is why it was claimed to be relevant whether Obama was born in USA. His mother at time of birth was under the age specified in the statute and may not have qualified under the years living in USA rules.

        Ragspierre in reply to Milhouse. | January 7, 2016 at 8:00 am

        8 U.S.C. §1401, the class of people considered “nationals and citizens of the United States at birth” includes the following:

        (g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years

Okay, they ban him today.

Then, if he wins it all in November, what’s the next act?

The POTUS is a persona non grata in the UK.

The British: always there when they need us.

    Milhouse in reply to pfg. | January 6, 2016 at 11:58 pm

    That’s easy. It’s entirely up to the minister whether to ban him or not, and the minister can change his mind at any time. It’s not conceivable that a minister in a Tory government would ban a sitting US president. And with that nutcase Labour just picked as its leader, the Tories are pretty much guaranteed to be in government for a long time (even if they need UKIP help).

This is a debate only; there is no vote at the end of it, so no actual banning. I believe that under parliamentary rules they have to have a debate if there are enough signatures which this petition did.

Oh hell no. If we have to put up with Piers Morgan, you have to put up with The Donald.

And crap like this is exactly why we left the “Empire”. Good grief, what do they have to worry about, someone shedding light on their surrender to Islam?

The UK, was quick to let the Islamists take over their country for votes that they brought to Parliament. Now their ” Claws,” are into everything. We are not falling for this ” Stealthy,” takeover that their weak leaders like ” Cameron,” to allow this to happen.

So, let me get this straight. Trump suggests that America temporarily ban Muslims in light of the terrorism going on in the world perpetuated mostly by Muslims. The UK is upset because of this suggestion to ban people and in response, are going to ban someone. Seems legit.

    Milhouse in reply to khunley73. | January 7, 2016 at 12:01 am

    No, they’re debating whether he should be banned. Whether he is banned is up to the minister, who doesn’t need to pay any attention to the debate’s outcome.

    Of course the UK has the right to refuse admission to anyone it likes, for any reason or no reason at all.

Well said

buckeyeminuteman | January 6, 2016 at 4:10 pm

Who would want to go to England anymore, anyway? It’s crawling with dangerous Muslims. Too bad they didn’t ban them from entering.