I do not see how they can ban Trump when they are allowing ex-ISIS fighters to return to the U.K. it would be even more crazy than it is now
If the government wanted, sure. Being a head of state doesn’t entitle you to enter any country without it’s government’s consent.
Whether the government would continue to ban him would be a different matter entirely. The answer would almost certainly be no.
Generally, non-citizens have to prove their worthiness to receive permission to be in a country, whereas citizens enter by right. That’s sort of the point of citizenship. The fact that some of the citizens are worse than some of the non-citizens doesn’t mean that the worthier non-citizens have to be let in.
Countries have the sovereign right to refuse entry to anyone they choose, President or not. It would create one hell of an international incident, but we are perfectly entitled to do it.
There’s no conceivable constellation of political forces that would produce a Home Secretary who would do such a thing. A demonstrative petition indicates an opinion: beyond a certain threshold it triggers a formal debate in the House of Commons, which may or may not stimulate those in a position to do anything about it, to do so. Since none of them were or ever would have been willing to do so, as became clear in the debate, it remains no more than a very public demonstration of opinion by a large number of people on his proposals for banning Muslim immigration to the US.
As for the citizenship thing, if he were to turn up at an airport claiming British citizenship, but without having registered and obtained a passport, he would presumably still be treated as a US citizen, since one has to assume the airline had checked him in on a US passport, otherwise they wouldn’t have allowed him to fly.
If he had got a British passport, then no, he couldn’t be excluded, as things stand.
This is interesting. When I applied for Canadian citizenship via a Canadian-born mother, I did have to prove my parents’ marriage (this is no longer required); I just submitted a marriage certificate. However, my understanding in that case was that the citizenship was pre-existing, but just needed to be demonstrated to be recognized.
Even though the qualifications are the same, and presumably stem from the same legal principles, it looks like Trump is only eligible, not actual-but-undocumented.
Sorry, I was referring to the British citizenship issue (for Trump). AFAIK any parent can confer Canadian citizenship and has for a while (in fact, before 2008 I believe it only took a Canadian grandparent); the British law before 1983 said only the father in a legitimate marriage conferred citizenship; but when the law was changed, those who were previously excluded because only their mother was British could apply to change that - they were not retroactively declared citizens at birth, but could apply and the good character test applied.
I knew what you meant; I was trying to contrast the two systems.
Interesting, reading this site, my parents could have just registered my birth late, up until my early 30s! I effectively registered my own birth.
Trump has a slightly greater hurdle in the character clause, which I haven’t heard of in any other jus sanguinis situation (but I am far from expert).
The distinction is that the typical situation is that you were and always have been a citizen based on birth, the authorities were just not aware of you. The point with Trump 9and the argument about McCain) was that they were not citizens at birth, but rather the law was unfair and changed. In McCain’s case, it was ambiguous and assumed to be the automatic; in Trump’s case, he was not a British citizen and had no right to request citizenship until the law changed (1983) so the people who wrote the law tossed in a proviso “you can apply - but don’t send us your trash…” I suppose it still makes the law sexist (no such restriction on paternally-enabled citizenship), but, hey, it’s Britain.
I think whether you can regain Canadian citizenship may depend on why you gave it. Black would doubtless have to give up his peerage to get it back. But Vaira Freiberga gave up her Canadian citizenship in order to become president of her native Latvia and a lawyer said he could get it back in a week. But I don’t think she is interested.
Not in the UK, oddly enough, where they have insanely-complicated and ever-changing citizenship rules as a legacy of their imperial past. There are numerous categories of UK citizenship, and not all of them have always carried a right of entry or abode in the UK (as terms like “British Overseas Citizen” indicate). Plus the UK has also, in the relatively recent past, practiced a form of internal exile in which certain citizens were permitted to enter or remain in part of the UK, while being excluded from the rest. (This isn’t practiced now, and I think the legislative framework that enables it has been dismantled, but if Parliament put it in place before they could do so again.)
None of this is directly relevant to Trump - the category of citizenship to which he is entitled, if he registers, does carry a right of entry into, and abode in, the UK, and so far as I know there is no legislation currently in place under which he could be excluded, if he held that citizenship. But such rights are not an automatic and inevitiable incident of British citizenship.
Trump would never apply for British citizenship for political reasons. So for the purposes of banning him from the UK he should be treated the same as any other US citizen. Assuming he loses the nomination I can see him being banned from entering the UK as a private citizen.
He would seem to match this category quite clearly - “Considered to be engaging in unacceptable behaviour by fostering hatred which might lead to inter-community violence in the United Kingdom”
See the list here:
It’s fairly clear that he’s not going to be banned from entering the UK - both the government and the official opposition spokesman have made it clear in the recent debate that they don’t favour a ban.
(Whether the Americans ought to try and prevent him from leaving the US, in order to avoid exposing the country to ever greater ridicule and derision, is another question entirely. :))
If he’s not banned by the UK its only because of his high profile and wealth. His comments against muslims clearly fit the category “fostering hatred which might lead to inter-community violence”.
I suspect that decisions about entry bans in the UK are hugely motivated by political considerations. But this cuts both ways; a fair number of those who do get banned might reasonably say that they were banned only because they had a high profile.
I think what saves Trump is not just his high profile and his wealth; it’s the fact that nobody in the UK takes him remotely seriously; he is a figure of fun on all sides, and therefore his bizarre views are unlikely to influence anybody.
He’s a sinister version of Bozo the Clown, basically, and however sinister Bozo gets, he’s still a clown. Trump should want to be banned from the UK; it would indicate that the British authorities take him seriously.
In practice, these sorts of concept are fairly tightly interpreted, I think - certainly as regards the law on incitement to hatred, which isn’t used that often. This sort of provision isn’t applied that often either. He’d actually have to be encouraging people to go out and beat Muslims up, for anything like that to happen.
Well, not just his high profile. He’s also the leading candidate for the GOP nomination for POTUS. While the UK can exclude a potential POTUS or even an actual POTUS, it wouldn’t exactly be helpful vis-a-vis the “special relationship.”
I very much doubt his wealth has anything to do with it. AFAIK, Trump’s UK investments are limited to a hotel at St. Andrew’s which everyone hates anyway.
Until someone actually votes in a primary, he’s the leading candidate for jack squat.
That is a pithy but inaccurate view. Sure, he doesn’t actually have any primary delegates yet, but that doesn’t mean he is not leading. Polls mean something, as does fundraising. Five plausible GOP candidates have already dropped out.