Extracts from Commons
statement on US Immigration Policy
(Selby and Ainsty)
(Con): Many thousands of people will be comforted by the
fact that all British passport holders will be able to travel
into the US, and that those who have the legal right to be here
will be able to apply for a visa. Seven countries are on
President Trump’s list—their citizens are banned from entering
the US for a period of 90 days. Every one of those countries bans
Israeli passport holders from entering their country. Has the
Foreign Secretary had any representations from dual
British-Israeli citizens regarding that immigration policy, which
is similarly divisive, discriminatory and wrong?
: I am glad my hon.
Friend has pointed that out. I had alluded to it in an elliptical
way, but it is right that the House should be aware of that
discrimination and the ban that exists. By the way, the House
should reflect on the fact that all immigration and visa policies
are by their nature discriminatory as between individuals and
nations.
(Colchester) (Con):
The Foreign Secretary has touched on this point. Sixteen
countries currently forbid admission to Israeli passport holders.
What the US is doing is without question misguided and wrong, but
does my right hon. Friend agree that we should be consistent in
our condemnation?
: I am very grateful
to my hon. Friend for raising a point about which many Members of
the House would have been ignorant until this afternoon.
[Interruption.] There we go. Opposition Members knew it. In that
case, why did they keep silent?
To read all the exchanges, CLICK
HERE
Extracts from emergency
debate (Commons) on Changes in US Immigration Policy
(Newark) (Con): I
do not wish to diminish the topic that we are discussing, but my
wife, who is a British citizen, was born in Israel. She will not
be able to travel to Malaysia, where many people in this country
go on holiday, and she will not be able to travel to 17 countries
in and around the middle east. If the right hon. Gentleman cares
so passionately about this—and I do not dispute that he does—what
does he intend to do about that?
: I agree with the
hon. Gentleman about what he says. These are definitely important
issues. I do not want to sound like the old man of the sea, but I
recall the debate on intervention in Libya in which I supported
the then Government. A Back-Bench hon. Friend got up and said
that they could not support the measure—and different people had
different views on intervention—because there were many other
terrible things happening in the world, so what were we going to
do about them? Two wrongs do not make a right. This is, after
all, supposed to be our closest ally and the people who are
supposed to uphold human rights and the rule of law all around
the world. It is hard to lecture other countries on respect for
human rights if the President of the United States fails to do
so.
(Colchester)
(Con):...I just want to raise one final point. Of
course we should speak out and I very much welcome this emergency
debate, but if we are to speak with authority and credibility
then we must be consistent in our condemnation. As I said to the
Foreign Secretary this afternoon, 16 countries forbid admission
to Israeli passport holders. In recent years, we have granted
state visits to the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the
United Arab Emirates, all of whom forbid admission to Israeli
passport holders. If we genuinely believe that banning
individuals on the basis of their nationality is wrong—I very
much hope we do believe it—then let us condemn these policies
wherever they raise their ugly heads...
To read the whole debate, CLICK
HERE
