his ban was a temporary ban. that's what he said in his speech in south carolina. you will note that the chinese exclusion act was not a ban.rary it lasted 60 years. the immigration acts of 1924 not a temporary ban on asians and reasons. arabs. they lasted 30 years. so his form of nativism is i'm afraid toh say and martin luther king would sure agree with me is something which the history of the united states regrettably is full of. trump is in a long tradition but that doesn't mean we should ban him. arguments that have been made against the ban, i think are absolutely valid and i will this, no one has said it but i will say it in this debate. the united kingdom were to ban donald trump from coming be theitain, that would biggest boost for his campaign in america that we could possibly give in terms of terms of the

payoutism of the united states not wishing other countries to them, to try to shape and determine the outcomes of their elections. be a spectacular own goal. i remember the guardian attempt of 2004 to stop george bush from becoming reelected in that campaign. think a very misguided "guardian" journalist, they had letter campaign to the people in ohio. they identified ohio was a key swing state, and they got some of their readers to write to individual electors in that state, urging them not to vote for george w. bush. needless to say, i'm sure members of the house will not be surprised to know that he carried ohio and was indeed reelected as president of the united states. that campaign was often cited as the way in which foreigners, people try to intervene in the election of another state, could

get things completely wrong. there he happy to give way. ther. >> i am very grateful. >> i am very grateful. does the honorable member not difference in the discussion? we are not seeking to improve what happened in the american presidential candidate elections or the elections to follow. we are talking about what we can here, we're talking about asking the home secretary to be consistent in her approach, the approach she's used in relation to 84 other preachers, in this country. we are talking about the united kingdom, not anywhere else. >> i fully appreciate the honorable lady's remarks. as far as she's concerned, that in her own mind. i'm asking the people of america. how would they interpret the ban? they don't have the luxury of lucidity and understanding how our conventions and debates work.

way.ery happy to give >> you make my point for me. it is all well to say to let donald trump come here and have the discussion with us. he wishes to ban people like me. to go to the united states of america and to make the case for the muslims of this country who peace andve in harmony not represented by diish. >> i appreciate her remark. as others have observed, the answer to his ban is not to ban him. that does not make any sense to me. i'll explain briefly. he is banning muslims. in his own mind, he is saying muslims constitute a danger to the united states. that's what he thinks. on those grounds, he is banning them. now we are doing the same thing if we were to ban him. we are saying that donald trump represents a danger to the united kingdom and on that him frome are banning coming.

the implied logic is exactly the same. the circumstances are different but the logical force is exactly the same. i'm quite happy to give way. >> i thoroughly disagree with the honorable member saying it is exactly the same. it is not exactly the same. donald trump says he wants to ban all muslims because of their religion. 1.6 billion people he wants to ban because of their religion. the reason why members are asking for him to be banned is because of the rhetoric and sentiment and the values he has expressed. that is different from banning someone because of their religion. i hope that point is clear. >> i have been very generous, in my interventions, but i want to clarify that point. time.t have much as i repeat, the grounds upon which he is banning muslims is not because of their sex, but he believes they constitute a danger to the united states. that is the grounds -- i'm just

logic --ng his explaining his logic. i don't agree with it. i'm saying any case to ban donald trump would be on the basis that he is a danger to our well-being. logically it is the same. >> on that point about 1.6 billion muslims, thank god there are 1.6 billion trumps. it would make our lives very, very difficult. say.astly, what i would veryi would say in a engaging and enlightening debate -- what i would say, beyond the immense publicity -- and it's no hugeto say he has publicity at the moment so any more would not make a difference. we have seen throughout his campaign, at the beginning of his campaign, a growing crescendo of excitement of interest in the campaign. the very fact of this debate, as someone else observed, is generating and stoking that excitement.

i will not take any more interventions. i can see the lady itching in her seat. but i will resist that temptation. what i am saying is we are simply adding fuel to this whole media circus, and this is playing exactly into his hands. a ban would be a headline throughout the world. it would simply reignite all the publicity that he generated with his outrageous policy. and would exacerbate the situation, would make it more likely that he would be the eventual victor in the republican nomination fight and may well, who knows, win the election in november. then we would be in this absurd situation in which we would have banned the president of the united states from coming to britain, which is insane. it is an insane situation to be in. people who say he has no chance of becoming president, this is my final point. look at the leader of the

opposition. essex, i'meone in not sure if it was york, made put 10 poundsving on him at 200 to one. i can assure you the chances of donald trump becoming president one.ar greater than 200 to >> i think the question for the home secretary is this -- is conducive to the public good? talknk we've had a lot of in this debate about buffoonery, terms like "blunt directness." if i were muslim -- and i'm not. i speak as a gentle atheist. i would find that repulsive. the thought that i should be excluded from the united states of america for no other reason than i was a muslim. i am proud to represent the dartmouth, and from dartmouth nearly 400 years ago, the

pilgrim fathers sailed to the and they sailed to escape from the kind of religious persecution that we are addressing today. we have seen the results in europe of what happens when you demonize an entire people for no other reason from their race. so i don't think we should trivialize this discussion. i think it is a really important debate. nor do i think the results of the u.s. presidential election will be decided on whether or not we, in this house, whether the home secretary decides to exclude donald trump. in fact, i would argue, should donald trump be excluded from one of the u.s.' oldest allies, that would send a clear message to the people of the united states about what we feel about those who demonize an entire people for no reason other than their religion. that said, i don't think there is any realistic prospect that the home secretary will ban donald trump.

but let this house send a clear message to muslims in this country, to british muslims, that we value you, that we value your contributions, that we will take this petition very seriously. and that perhaps those arguments about religious freedom matter as much now as they did 400 years ago. i welcome everybody across the pond in the united states who may be following this debate back to my constituency. the most beautiful constituency of britain. to come and see where the pilgrim fathers sailed from dartmouth. the anniversary is in 2020. i would say to them all and donald trump, just reflect on the consequences of your kind of religious bigotry. this is not a laughing matter. think again. and if you visit this country, take time to visit the mosques,

take time to meet muslims. take time to understand just how profoundly offensive and dangerous that kind of thinking is, and there is no place for it in this country or in the united states. >> thank you. 25 years ago, i was in new york ofy and out of some sort mawkish interest perhaps in his notoriety, i visited -- i did two things related to mr. trump. i visited the trump tower, sort of a black and gold edifice to a certain sorts of narcissism. and then i read his book, "the art of the deal," which was pretty similar in many ways. these things weren't very edifying and his activities since haven't got any more say.ing, i would we have in this country a long

history of civilizing tolerance, developed out of conflict, deliberation, and progress. this place, westminster hall, is resonance particular in that history where overbearing attitudes have been brought into line with the timeing of the day, some with force, even when held by the most powerful. king charles was sentenced to death just a few yards from this place. mp's here represent their constituents by leave of those who send them. the sensible ones keep close to mind the summary nature of the decisions of public opinion. which can end it. those from whom the public withdraws their support have somewhat better prospects than past, happily. no longer do political disagreements lead to duels, disembowelment, or decapitation. there is a settled and more elections,ystem of debates, votes and law courts to we musts and for this all be grateful.

when a terrorist menace threatens our hard-won civilization with a throwback to barbaric and outdated methods of dealing with difference, and brings them to our shores, it is right that we oppose it in the strongest terms. our american cousins feel differently. they are conscious of freedom, borne of escape from religious intolerance, as we just heard. they need to be self-reliant and their ownire to make economic destiny. and their own strong and democratic legal institutions which have been formed under disagreement, too. when they speak, we should listen, even if we disagree. we should be robust with them when necessary and encourage them not to take retrograde steps. and so back to mr. trump, the donald. the orange prince of american self-publicity, more public now than usual because he will be running for president, if he wins the nomination as republican candidate, and possibly be close to the presidency should bernie sanders and not hillary clinton be selected as the democratic candidate.

he has said things which many of us would not and the addition of celebrity has been somewhat grotesque. to say that he would then -- ban muslims from entering too simplistic, wrong.ul and but i don't think there is evidence that he does not believe in democracy itself, so talk of fascism is a bit overblown, notwithstanding his bedtime reading might have left desired, as we heard earlier. expressed andy exploited by mr. trump, people's terroristbout the challenge needs to be addressed. however, we need to work positively with muslim communities, not demonize them. what better place for his mischaracterizations to be debunked than here in the u k, the crucible of modern democracy, where heads are no longer loved for dissent. who would not want to watch and be prodded on "have i got news

for you." bad opinions and characters have been allowed in britain before. not a few of them homegrown. we would not want to allow him any victimhood with which further to hoodwink people. i hope honest british muslims would have their say and even more people would then decide not to vote for him than to use their good sense. knows?riously, who up close, we may get to see what is under that hair. david.k you, sir this petition with our half a -- over half a million is a welcome indication of the scale of theseion in which we on islands treat the xenophobia of trump. i am here to sum up for the snp although i doubt many parties do

an actual policy on donald trump. thankfully it's not been needed. i do not necessarily support a complete ban on mr. trump from entry into this country but it's clear his bigoted remarks against muslims, mexicans, and against other minorities, but particularly his remarks about utmost, deserve the condemnation from all sides of this house and all parts of society. i am proud of the petitioners and all of those who signed the petition for rejecting the outrageous xenophobia and man.aphobia of this i hope they would not take too hard too much this issue. there have been interesting arguments on both sides today. are against banning but oppose donald trump and everything he stands for have thoughts of bringing him here to

educate him. i did not really have the same understanding as other honorable members have had when they meant that when they've said i'd like to take him to my to theuents and take him mosques to meet muslims. perhaps they thought that maybe those people would teach him a thing or two, and they would be absolutely right to do that. the strongest argument i feel in favor of banning him is simply the argument of inequality. -- of equality. i think the minister needs to answer, is it correct when other members say there are other similar, treated extremely differently? that is something he has to answer. indeed, the very fact that this petition was so popular highlights three worthy and important points. the first is that we in these islands reject wholeheartedly of discriminating against anyone on the basis of

their religion. the second, it points out that individuals of power such as trump are happy to demonize others but could never consider that they themselves could be treated in such a fashion. thirdly, the public revulsion in this country and the united states because let's not forget outcry in the united states from the many good people in that country to the statements of this public figure, highlighting the fact statements goes against all of the enlightened ande that is tie the states united kingdom together. while we can recognize the statement was distasteful, we should also note the hypocrisy of the son of an immigrant, of a religious minority, being so bigoted against other migrants and minorities. >> would the lady give way? >> that's fine. [inaudible] >> i'm afraid this debate in the far more nuanced.

all the republican candidates in this election are expressing the traditional american view that america is a melting pot. it does not matter where you come from, but you had to be loyal to the flag and america. there is a feeling in america -- now, trump may be articulating this in a extreme way. and but to deny that many ordinary people in america are worried about their americanness is to deny the real debate, which is a valid debate. >> [inaudible] just to say we are not so tight for time as we thought about 10 minutes ago. the debate can continue until 7:30. emma glauc lin. >> thank you. just to the honorable member, he talks about republican politicians but there are other politicians, there are other activists in the united who don'tamerica agree with what he -- his situation.of the

i want to look at donald trump. his firsthe boy, as name suggests, he is the son of a scottish immigrant. that.apologize for like countless others, his mother left the homeland during the great depression and went to the land of liberty. this desire for economic opportunity is the same thing that motivates many migrants from many other countries to go to america today. the mexican migrants who trump so roundly defames have engaged in the same quest that his forbears undertook. as a man who purports to be proud of his new york heritage, he would do well to look to lady liberty for some advice on immigration. of course, we would also do well to remind donald trump, as the son of a scottish presbyterian, of the countless generations of immigrants who left the shores for the u.s. in search for religious toleration. the puritans may have gotten a when they landed on

plymouth rock. but they certainly went on to forge a society where your religion was to a greater or lesser extent, irrelevant in life. while some faced anti-catholic presidents when they ran for they were always able to fall back on the fundamental bigotryat religious goes against all the enlightened values that america shares with europe. it is easy for those of us protected by this parliamentary bubble to consider proposals and astoric such as trump's being distasteful, opportunistic. some thought it was funny and a crude. but all of us in public life have a duty to work for the common good and to oppose discrimination. i don't think anyone would disagree with that. >> [inaudible] >> i thank the honorable member for giving way. the honorable member said she hoped the

secretary would consider this thatdifferent from those have been raised. this is considerably different from the other cases in that is a presidential candidate. if a presidential candidate was banned and then became president, that in no circumstances, the ability to links and discuss policy on a whole range of issues would difficult.y >> that's why i'm summing up and i think both sides of the argument. i am just a bit more in oppositionous in my to donald trump, the person. the way i see it being different because he is a presidential candidate, he should be less likely to get away with these things because he has far more influence over many more people. when you have someone -- yes? honorable friend? david.k you, sir the point is, donald trump wants to ban parliamentarians from this parliament from entering

america, so he should not be a presidential candidate. >> i completely agree with that. he should know better. myself whenmile to i heard arguments from members opposite saying that we should interceding in any of these political processes. yet we have tried to stop him from visiting the country. when you have someone of his prominence running for the most powerful political position on this planet, actively encouraging discrimination as state policy, that example leads low-levelss acts of bigotry and hatred which will deported. i want to turn to some of those examples which have been and the rise -- not just what donald trump said but like and islamaphobia.

a friend of mine who is a counselor spoke after the paris attacks of his son being afraid to walk to school because he was seeing the headlines on the front pages of newspapers. one in particular claiming that a significant percentage -- i think it may have said a majority -- of muslims supported terrorism. that child was frightened to go to school. when muslim children are going to school, they are being called terrorist and bombers. they have absolutely no theection to any of terrorist activities going on. today, david cameron announced funding to assist an english language lesson. i agree, we should be supporting people to integrate, we should be supporting people, not forcing people, but my understanding is this funding is for muslim women. what has religion got to do with the english language? how will that work? will muslim women be routinely

tested to see their english language skills are up to snuff? has my honorable friend beside me already passed that test? does she have to take a test in english? it is ridiculous. indeed state that the money was for muslim women, not women who don't speak english, but muslim women, and that's just not an that is wrong, islamaphobia. language is so important. we would all do well to mind the language we use. donald trump, it was not just the language he used, it was the intent behind a prepared statement. in prewar europe, the jews were forcibly registered. donald trump called for muslims be banned from coming into the country, but to be registered and tracked. to my mind, there is no difference between that and to

what they did to the jews in prewar europe. that leads me to a number of questions i have for the minister. firstly, does he agree with his colleagues that the impact of donald trump saying what he did is no greater and no more dangerous than their constituents saying it to each other? secondly, is he comfortable that somebody like donald trump would automatically be allowed to come into the country when i know several people who cannot get their wives or husbands into the country even for visits. are they not as deserving of the rights to visit this country? allowed to be into the country, will the immigration toister expect donald trump retract what he said before he comes here? if the president of china had called for all christians to be refused entry into china, would he still have been invited to

this country last year? saying, we have been oh, but he's the president. so many have said he might be the president. >> [inaudible] >> i'm going to finish my sentence. he's the president or he's got the right to offend. lots of my constituents think like that. would he get the same treatment that donald trump is getting? >> on that great point about banning heads of state, it is widely known that mecca has been banned for christians for years.s of yet we entertain and have entertained the king of saudi arabia. mecca and medina. are banned for christians. >> i would say, there are a number of other people that are not comfortable cozying up to -- the u.k. government cozying up to them for a number of other reasons, saudi arabia amongst them. the minister agree with me? i am not expecting the minister to write all of these down, but i live in hope.

does he agree with me that my getsable friends always passionate speeches about her personal commitment to equality for all. and is it acceptable for us to stopped my man who honorable friend and her children from entering the united states and finally, the my finalstion, question, not my final statement, will the minister condemning the nasty, abusive, racist tweets that my honorable friend has sat here receiving on account of her daring to speak out against does he thinknd donald trump's anti-muslim statement may have contributed constantlye she is having to put up with? i have completely lost my place now. no, i haven't. i haven't. donald trump is on the record saying his second favorite book after the bible is "the art of the deal" written by donald trump. perhaps it would be more beneficial if he spent more time

reading the constitution of the united states. as president obama's press secretary pointed out -- >> [inaudible] >> i certainly will. >> i thank the honorable lady for giving way. made a very good speech. one point about the constitution of the united states, donald trump has suggested that ted cruz cannot stand for the presidency, either. cruz, he's the other republican candidate. against it's not just the muslims but against other people. more importantly, where is the republican party going with two candidates, one as bad as the other? >> i agree with that, and it is a matter for that political party, but that is a good point to raise, may be a good reason for us to be supporting hillary clinton to become the next president. forgot i'm not

allowed to comment on the presidential elections. as president obama's press secretary pointed out, donald trump's statements make him unfit to be president because he cannot pledge to uphold the constitution of the united states if he doesn't believe in liberty and freedom from discrimination. or is he going to amend the constitution on his own, and how would the people of the united with that?up and where his right wing rhetoric may help him to pick up votes in the primary, in the general election, the mass amount of voters will be horrified that such an individual could lead them on the world stage. trump believes himself to be plainspoken but i don't believe to --ppealing -- and i understand the arguments around people who do not want robotic politicians who just churn out pre-rehearsed press statements -- but there is a huge difference between that and what we have here. and i don't believe appealing to prejudice as a

language of common sense of people here or in the united states. as tempting as it is is to give trump a taste of his own medicine, tempting to bar him, would he love it, would we be giving a gift to him? as some have argued, would only give him more publicity? or is the argument stronger that if we let him in, we will give him publicity because having said what he said, causing such controversy, he will be on every tv program and chat show spouting his nonsense? i do see an argument for allowing him to come in and do that because i don't believe he will be able to help himself and he will say things that will render him chargeable and guilty , able to be prosecuted for inciting racial hatred.

finally, i am just going to respond to the comment that he is not a martyr. surely the argument cannot be that we only want to ban martyrs, only want to charge murderers. there is another crime that has an impact on people's lives. maybe not mine but on many people's lives. finally, there have been many suggestions on that side that we should keep quiet about this. . members of the public who signed the petition, some here today, so that they should just keep quiet. i am going to hand by letting everyone know that i have a .arking today it is martin luther king day and i'm encouraging everyone to sign that today. i will quote martin luther king who said the ultimate tragedy is not the oppression by the -- bad of the back people, but the silence of that from the good people. we will not be silenced. like many others here, i

welcome this debate. it is a good thing that 600,000 or so members of public have brought this to the attention of the house. viewsy, a wide range of amongst the public, across all political parties and across the house itself. powerful speeches and powerful interventions. but an important aspect in all of the speeches this afternoon, we are united in condemning the comments of donald trump on it issues such as mexican immigrants, muslims, and women, and we should celebrate that whenever view we take of the proposals in the petition before us. i like to take the opportunity to add my name to the list of those condemning the comments that have been made. before turning to the specific question of whether donald trump should be banned from entering the u.k., i want to spend a couple moments on a wider context.

donald trump made his comments in the aftermath of the san bernardino shootings on the second of december. that is when he was at his height in relation to those con -- comments. he was not the first and will not be the last to make comments about a community in the wake of a terrorist atrocity. we have to be clear, responsibility for terrorist , notlie with terrorists with the communities that they purport to come from. we must be clear what we say about that, even when he is not clear about what he says. that does give me the opportunity to bring to this concern about the rise in hate crime here in the u.k. hate crime has been increasing, as has been mentioned. in 2015.ne up 18%

the number of offenses involving religious hatred has more than doubled in the past three years. concern, but it is not uniform. spikes after an atrocity. there is always a reaction in terms of hate crime. just last month, in my constituency, i had convened a meeting with somali women, who i was concerned to hear from. we spent the afternoon discussing their concerns. this was in december after the paris atrocities. the one thing they raise with me over and over again was that day , muslim women in my constituency, were very concerned that they were being as ated that day, week, result of what happened in paris. they perceived it and felt it.

ony said it was happening the buses, trains, when they were shopping, etc. spike after atrocities, and we had be united in our values, that that should be done with. i know the government is now tracking muslim hate crimes, and that is welcome. i know there are a number of steps to do with hate crime. dominica -- minister can point out what else is being done. i do join with other comments in saying that many people here want to send a message to the muslim community about how much we value them and what they bring to our society. >> [inaudible] on that point, i am extremely grateful for giving way and the sentiment he makes in terms of talking about the muslim community. i also think it is important to put on record, the muslim

community condemns all types of bigotry, racism, regardless of who is biking in. he seems to be a misconception that for some reason we think it toacceptable for muslims speak in derogatory terms about people of other religions. it's important to put on record that is absolutely not the case. wherever they bigotry or hatred speech is coming from, it is not acceptable, regardless of who is delivering the message. that.nk you for i do want to say something about this debate this afternoon, about this simplistic approach. he says he wants to ban all muslims, so we should not ban him. it is far too simplistic. what lies at the heart of his belief that muslim should be banned is that he thinks they are all dangerous. that is not buffoonery.

that is absolutely repugnant. that is not what leads anyone in this debate, anyone who signed this petition, to suggest that donald trump should not come here. that is why his comments are so offensive to that whole community, and of course to women and the mexicans as well. because of the assumptions and the belief that lies behind them. i do not any way condone what donald trump said, but i do not think it is right to say that if all of them, that all of them are dangerous, whatever group they may be. ,hat you are saying is, some very few from a certain group might be dangerous. i do not condone the logic. i do not condone the policy, but in this house of commons, we

have to give fair dealing to the views that have been expressed. i'm grateful for that intervention. i think we have to be very the viewsout equating of people in this house, members of this house who have called for a ban, and that of donald trump. i'm afraid on my part, they do edge toward treating a whole community as a suspect community. each and every member, but this has happened before in history, many other contexts, were a whole community has been treated as a suspect community, and we have stood against it in the past and we should do so now. one of the measures -- >> [inaudible] this debate can be tied up into whether mr. trump has made

outrageous comments or simply, as some of us believe, hate speech. are others that have been banned from the country for saying the same things. >> i'm grateful for that intervention. i will deal with that in a second. obviously, one of the measures available to government is to ban and the individual from entry into the u.k., and that is a power that has been used by successive home secretaries in many occasions. many examples have been put before the house this afternoon. it is a power that should be applied equally to everybody, whatever their wealth or power. i think that is important. i do not hold of you that because someone is a presidential candidate, that that gives them any special category. they should be judged in the same way as everyone else, all on the basis of what they have said or done. honorable gentleman

agree that the consequences of this kind of hate speech are greater when they come from high-profile individuals? at the heart of the debate is whether or not donald trump's presence in the u.k. is conducive to the public good. we have heard repeatedly about the kind of harms -- the honorable gentleman himself has talked about the harms that we are talking about. >> i do accept the substance of it. certain words in the mouths of certain individuals are more likely to provoke a reaction. the question is what is the test for a band, whether it has to be linked to public disorder and violence rather than something offensive. i will come to that but i accept the premise that different people will provoke different reactions, sometimes according to who they are. simplye narrow point is, because he has wealth or power or a particular position should not affect the application of the rules to him as it would to anybody else.

the threshold for banning is relatively high, and the power is really used. the test is whether an , whether their exclusion would be conducive to the public good. in 2005, it was already mentioned, that was extended to unacceptable behaviors. it is worth just going through the way in which those behaviors were set up as a list of indicative factors in 2005. four examples justifying terrorist violence for the furtherance of a particular belief. seeking to provoke others into terrorist attacks. fomenting other serious criminal activity or fostering hatred which may lead to injure community violence in the u.k. the touchtone has always been words which provoke a response

which has an element of disorder or violence. so it is quite high of a threshold. an example has been given of some of the cases that have fallen under those provisions. they were given at the outset of the debate. no doubt, i think, that some of comments have been offensive, shocking, and disturbing. i join with those that say they are not funny, they are repugnant. but they are just that, offensive, shocking, and disturbing. i do not think that, in and of provoke a enough to at this stage on the basis of what has been said so far. i do go back to a principal that was set up by the european court of human rights almost a quarter-century ago in relation where our government

and the sunday times were slugging it out over spy capture. isy said freedom of speech one of the foundations of a democratic society. it is applicable not only to favorable ideas, but as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend. the point of the court was making was an important one. freedom of speech is not needed for speech which is welcomed. you do not need a protection for speech where people treat with indifference. it is only relevant, it only matters, when you get into the sphere of offensive speech, shocking speech, that is the whole point of the protection of free speech. in this context, therefore, this speech, however offensive, shocking, or disturbing, is, in fact, protected, under what we

consider freedom of expression. how does that translate? i would not want donald trump around for dinner to express his views. i do agree with others that we should invite him to join us in our various constituencies to meet with members of various religious orders, faiths, communities. you came here, he would be very busy because he would have to go to several constituencies already. it is an incredibly diverse multicultural community. see a u.k.p would very different to the picture that he painted. should he be banned from entering the country on the basis of what he said, no, in my view, he should not. , farould be met with words

more powerful than his own. i do accept this is a judgment those noti respect only this afternoon but other occasions, to express the contrary view that this is so close to the line, that donald trump should have action taken against him. but in the end, we should be guided by our own values and not those of donald trump. our own values include a deep belief in freedom of speech and a deep belief in multi faith and , where societies everyone feels secure, and everyone feels respected. thank you. it is a pleasure to be here under your chairmanship. can i also asked the outset congratulated the honorable member from newport west for the manner in which he has opened this debate, underlining the reasons why we are debating this issue, the importance in this

parliament that we attach to petitions, though supported by the public when they reach a threshold, so that that actually provides voice for the public in this house. i think that has been an important addition to our processes. to underlineright that shared sense of history between the united kingdom and the united states, and the relationship we have enjoyed between us over a considerable period of time. debate has also come as we are debating issues of freedom of speech, underline the value and importance of this , and ources on that ability for all different views, different perspectives to be able to argue those points clearly and effectively through the impassioned debate that we have had this afternoon. before i respond to a number of

the points raised during this debate, a few things i want to say on the outset. britain is a successful multiracial multi faith multiethnic country. our strength derives from that diversity. life in our country is based on fundamental values that have been shaped by our history. they are supported and shared by the overwhelming majority of the population. the rule of law, democracy, and individual liberty. freedom of expression. the mutual respect, tolerance, and understanding of different faiths and beliefs. these make the foundation of our successful pluralistic nation. they unite us and help our society to thrive. i am proud that our country has so many vibrant, diverse immunities constituting people of many faiths.

and i celebrate the contribution made by british muslims in this country in every sphere and in every walk of life. from those who fought in the trenches in world war i, and thought fascism in world war ii, to the business men, doctors, nurses, teachers, members of our armed services, and members of havehouse, some of whom made powerful and impassioned speeches this afternoon, and they are proud to be both british and muslim without any contradiction. yes, the threat from terrorism both at home and abroad is serious and real. andave seen the damaging corrosive effects of extremism in our communities. but suggesting that the solution is to been muslims who have done nothing wrong ignores the fact that extremism affects all communities, and hatred can come

from any part of society. it ignores that muslims are themselves far too often the targets of extremism and hatred, and that around the world, many muslims are killed by terrorism. more than any other group. it also gives secret to the false view that muslims cannot live a purposeful and fulfilled life in the west. such assertions are fundamentally wrong, and as a country, we could not be clearer in saying that. if we are to defeat the threats we face, we need to work together. we need everyone to play a part in stopping the poisonous spread of extremism and helping to protect vulnerable people from being brought toward a twisted ideology. it is that approach this government is seeking to foster, because we have seen the devastating impact radicalization can have on

individuals, families, and communities, and because around the world more than a billion and a half people of different nationalities, different outlooks, and different political persuasions live peacefully practicing the muslim faith. we must protect those who might -- be vulnerable to the pernicious influence of faithlization, work with groups, community organizations, and mosques across the country. this is a job for all of us and we continue to work in partnership with communities of all faith backgrounds to challenge those who spread hatred and intolerance. we must work with the overwhelming majority of people of this country who abhor the twisted narrative that has seduced some people in our those whond challenge use a warped version of faith to undermine our fundamental values. many of the contributions from honorable and right honorable

members this evening has focused on donald trump's call for a temporary shutdown of muslims entering the united states. the prime minister has said the comments are divisive, unhelpful, and quite simply wrong. and i read his views and profoundly disagree. in mr. trump's comments about london inand in particular, again, he could not be further from the truth. we should all be proud of london's state as one of the most diverse and tolerant cities. and the police's role on keeping the entire city safe, working in all communities to protect people from radicalization. i pay tribute to their tireless work. i will give way. you mention the prime minister and will you commend the prime minister's articles in the time today where he said the key to good race relations is full integration, and the prime minister points out there is

still a worm a large number of muslim women who do not speak english and who are not in the jobs market, and he wants to improve the situation. movie commend the prime minister? the policy that the prime minister is right to identify today seeking to ensure that language is there to ensure that we help migrants to better participate and integrate in everyday life. that is the building block between the policy the prime minister has rightly identified. and how equally he has been prepared, i think, to look at those uncomfortable fax, on the fact that 22% of british muslim no orin 2011 spoke limited english, compared to only 9% of british muslim men. therefore, it is how we can target that support, those communities, in the greatest need. that is precisely why louise

casey has been engaged in her work to go about that. >> the point that i was making earlier, making this available for migrant people who do not than english is different saying you must do it if you are a muslim woman. it should not be a religion, it should be aimed at people who require the support. >> david, this is not a muslim only scheme. the point that i rightly make is it is targeted on those communities that are most affected. equally, why i make the point about the 22% number that i make, which the prime minister has highlighted in the context of his speech today. to address the issue of exclusion, the home secretary has the power to exclude a national from outside the european economic area and refuse them entry into the u.k. if the secretary of state has directed the persons exclusion

from the u.k. is conducive to the public good. this power is derived from the royal prerogative and is exercised by the home secretary in person. exclusion decisions are not taken lightly or in isolation. secretary makes every decision on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the information available and a wide range of policy and operational factors. these factors include views from , includingrnment from the good department of communities and local government, and the foreign commonwealth office. the factors also include consideration of any interference with the persons human rights under the european convention on human rights come as subject their article 10 rights to respect the freedom of speech. you have also underlined some of those factors, some of those elements that are part of the policy that we adopt in considering matters of exclusion . but the home secretary uses her power to exclude foreign nationals to protect us from national security threats, to

protect us from radicalizing's and hate preachers, and to protect us from people who seek to undermine our core british values. at policy is not targeted any particular community. it is targeted at all those who advocate hatred or violence, regardless of their origins or beliefs. as home secretary has prevented neo-nazis, islamist extremists, and anti-muslim hate creatures from entering the u.k.. she has excluded more preachers of hate than any other home secretary before her, 103 since 2010. and she will continue to use the exclusionary power against those who seek to do us harm. now the government has a long-standing policy of not routinely commenting on those who are being considered for exclusion, for sound legal reasons, and i will maintain that position this evening. but what i can say is that the u.s. remains our most important

bilateral partner. it is in the u.k.'s interest that we engage all presidential candidates, democratic and republican, even though we may disagree profoundly on important issues. where there are clear differences of opinion, the most effective way to influence our american partners is through a frank and open exchange of the fuse. in taking on those arguments. today's robust debate, as i think, has provided a platform to do just that. i think the minister for letting me in again. the hometer says secretary has a policy position of not commenting on people that are being considered for the exclusion list. dos that mean that he cannot confirm nor deny that donald trump is being considered for that exclusion list? >> as i say, we do not comment on individual matters, but i would say, on the chance that

the exchequer has underlined -- the best way to defeat nonsense like this is to engage in robust democratic debate and make it his -- donaldt trump's abuse -- are not welcome. we have also had comments in relation to donald trump's comments with respect to investment in scotland. that matter it is for the scottish government. the u.k. has never given mr. trump awards or appointments, honorees, or otherwise. mr. trump has threatened to withhold investment in scotland in the wake up call to ban him from the u.k. over the years, mr. trump has made a number of statements about his gale of investment in the u k and his willingness to maintain them. the u.k. is the number one destination for inward investment and the world bank has ranked the u.k. as the sixth easiest place to do business.

so any organization making promises on investments in the u.k. should live up to those promises. in conclusion, we will not win extremism byinst demonizing communities and tarring an entire religion because of the actions of a few, and we will not defeat the threats we face by acting in isolation. we will win the fight by working together, standing shoulder to shoulder of people of different faiths and backgrounds, defending our values, and by showing that division, hatred, and hostility have no place in our society. i think the triumph of today is we have had the debate, it's been seen by many people outside , including the united states, and they have seen parliament added to best. we have had a diverse debate from a diverse parliament. i believe it reinforces the need for the petition committee, a young committee, experimental committee that is going very slowly, building a role here,

and this was a subject chosen not by any politicians but by people who initiated and signed that view. i think we are all touched by the accounts by those of the muslim faith about how devastating these threats from donald trump are. i believe all that was said today will enhance the standing of this parliament and will reinforce our relationship with our great allies in the united states. question is this house has considered petition 11403 and 114907 relating to the exclusion of donald trump from the u.k.. -- the ayes

a >> a petition to barter mr. trump received more than 565,000 signatures in the u.k.. the the home office has authority to ban someone from coming into the country, not the parliament. on wednesday, we have more international coverage from the british house of commons with prime minister's questions. on c-span2e wednesday at 7:00 a.m. trump speaksnald at liberty university, then governor john kasich in new hampshire talking about teen alcohol abuse. later, a ceremony marking the life of martin luther king, and

junior. on the next washington journal, a look at unemployment and u.s. labor force anticipation. our guest is from the american enterprise institute. gara lamarche on his organizations activities. then, ryan lovelace. washington journal is live every morning at 7:00 a.m. east turn and that you can join become precision with your calls and comments on facebook and twitter. >> at c-span takes you on the road to the white house and into the classroom. this year, our student cam documentary contest asks students what issues they want to hear from the presidential candidates.

c-span's road to the white house coverage and get all of the details about our student cam contest at c-span.org. republican presidential candidate donald trump spoke at liberty university in lynchburg, virginia. he talked about his desire to build a wall between the u.s.-mexico border and to bar muslims from entering the country. this is 50 minutes. [applause]

>> well. let's get these teleprompters out of here and have some fun. the first thing i said to joy when i got here was, would is that record. we will dedicate that to martin luther king, that great man. that is a little bit of an achievement, i will tell you that. here.an honor to be it is an amazing story what has gone on with liberty university. when you think of all of the , a lot was not easy. i have read a lot about it will stop liberty university is like a rocket ship. a really great rocketship. the jury has done. i knew his father a little bit.

but i knew him a lot from the standpoint of what he did. to be compared to his father just a little bit -- to be compared to his father is really an honor for me. so i want to thank jerry for saying that. [applause] know, it is very interesting -- and everybody wants to come here. they do not have this kind of a crowd, but that is ok. i will say this, when jerry was saying nice things about other people, this was very smart and this one's get in this one scud and trump reminds me of my father, i said, that is the best compliment of all. to beould be very proud here. you're going to have amazing futures. we had a debate recently and the debate -- watch the debate? everybody? ok?ry political place,

it was an amazing evening for me. we did fine. we did well. people's came out over that and they keep going up. i will not go over that. somebody said, why do you always discuss the pool? i am in seventh place, first place. i said, when you are in first place you discussed goals. it is true. happened ands have now they keep coming out and we go up and up and up. we had 32% last week. people are dropping out rapidly. when you are at 42% you know you are not totally wasting your time. i would take 42% if we had three people, not 14. nbc wall street journal just others,, 33%. cbs and 41%.

cbs, 35%. gravis, 34%. i am not going to bother you. i will tell you in south carolina we're at already 5%. way, way above anybody else. in iowa, cnn was 34%. the closest is iowa. i love iowa. i am going there right after this. i am going up to new hampshire. going to win. everybody keeps and, don't say that, say i think i'm going to win. i am going to win iowa. i have done great. we have done great with the evangelicals. the evangelicals have been amazing. the tea party has been amazing. we're doing really well there. we will see what happens. surprise a lot of people by winning in iowa and then we will clean the table. we will go through new hampshire, south carolina, right

to the roof. i think we can do really something special. are going to protect christianity a and i can't say that. i do not have to be politically correct. trump: we're. going to protect it, you know. 2 corinthians. is.e the spirit of the lord it is so true. that the one?, is is at the one you like? i think that is the when you like, because i loved it. and, it is so representative of what is taken place. look at what is going on throughout the world. if you look at syria, if you are a christian, they are chopping up heads. if you look at the different

places, christianity is under siege. i'm a protestant, presbyterian to be exact. private. very, very proud of it. we have to protected because very bad things are happening. i do not know what it is. maybe.ot hand together, other religions, frankly, they are banding together. ityou look at this country, has got to be 70%, some new 5%, some people say even more, the power we have somehow we have to unify. we have to band together. with to do a really large version of what they have done at liberty. liberty university is done that, you have created one of the great universities. anywhere in the country, anywhere in the world. that is what our country has to do around christianity. so, get together folks and let's do it. because we can do it.

[applause] -- no matterwhere what i go, we having tremendous crowds and we are drop -- crowds. mobile alabama, 35 thousand people. no matter where we go, even here, i understand you have rooms all over with the various equipment to show on the screens. you have a much better location than they do but i will not tell them that. you have rooms all over with the media equipment and no matter where we go, because i will tell you, this is a movement. as a movement going on. we want to take our country back. our country is disappearing. you look at the kind of deals we make. you look at what is happening. our country is going in the wrong election. ithas got to be stopped and has got to be stopped fast. we cannot go another four years.

i know maybe hillary will be here and maybe you can play this back. another foure years of barack obama. we cannot have another four years of hillary clinton. [applause] mr. trump: i watched that debate last night with the three of them. one of them is in there, what is he doing? he was the mayor of baltimore, his big claim to fame. became governor and did a horrible job. he was constantly mentioning my name. donald trump, donald trump. i said, why does he have to talk about me? and then the other two, you have a socialist who is here, actually. i was given a say you have a socialist, it could be much worse in that. and you have hillary. did anybody watch that debate last night? tremendously high taxes, things will not happen with the

military. we need to build our military so big, so strong, so powerful, that nobody, nobody is going to mess with us. we have to do it. [applause] know, someone recently said our military is the least prepared it has ever been. i get listing of different things. naval base,, a everything is for sale. it is for sale. we cannot have that. did, going to build it build it strong, hopefully never have to use it. we will build it so strong nobody will ever want to mess with that. that is what we have to do. cheaper thanhat is the nonsense we're doing now. people are laughing at us. we cannot need isis. i see it on television. these generals get up and they are being interviewed on

television. i do not want generals to be interviewed. one of the generals just recently, when you think of the isis threat? he said, they are very tough. can we beat them? he said, well, it is going to take a long time. i do not want that kind of general. i want to a general where we knock the hell out of them. [applause] and, my generals, by the way, they are not going on television. ok? so the enemy can learn all about . how about president obama recently? we're sending 50 people over there, our finest. why does he say that? they have a target on their back. they're looking for those 50 people right now more than any other people. what is have to say that? why can't he just do it and not talk about it? right?

why can't he do it and not talk about it? [applause] mr. trump: when the war started, i was very opposed to it. i used to take a little heat on that. now, i get a lot of credit for. but in 2003-2000 or, i said if you do that you are going to destabilize the middle east. the cannot them out pretty easily, the one that is not knocked out will take over. so we knock out a rack, and iran is taking over the middle east. we knock out iraq, and iran is taking over the middle east. we have totally destabilize the middle east. it is a disaster. you look at this new iran deal, you look at how bad and one-sided it is, you look at how one-sided this deal is. yesterday i heard, we are getting our hostages back. some people call them prisoners,

some people called them hostages. i don't care. the, we're getting them back. and then i said, why wait a minute they are getting seven back, we're getting for. they said five, but the other one they cannot find. i tell you what, that is strange. that is another thing we will be looking into. we're getting for back, they are getting seven. they are getting 14 off of the it will watch list. these are real bad customers. they are getting all sorts of advantages. unbelievable advantages. they are going to be an immensely wealthy country, an immensely wealthy terror country and they are getting $150 billion. so, when our sailors were captured last week, i said that that is one of- the saddest things i've seen. those young people on their hands into knees in a begging position with bugs defined them

with guns and then we talk like, it is ok. it is not ok. it is lack of respect. we cannot let that happen to this country. it is lack of respect. we're not going to let it happen to the schedule. we're going to be strong. we're going to be vigilant. we're going to have powerful and strong borders. look what happened this morning. if you have been seeing her reading the news, three people have just been kidnapped in iraq. because they see what the heck -- we pay $150 billion for four people. three people just this morning and this is going to take place for all of them. they should have come back as part of the deal three years ago when they started talking about the deal, not now. [applause] mr. trump: what should have happened, what should have happened is our representatives -- first of all we need people who negotiate properly, not

people like john kerry who does not have a clue. i will have those people, know those people. we will have those people. what wentyou look at on, our people, all you had to do is go in and say to the persians, very good negotiators, great negotiators. air known for it. they are sitting across the table. fellows. and in this case, it is all fellows. i hate to tell this to the limit. they are little bit behind effect. they have not figured out yet that women are maybe we better than men but i would get myself in trouble with men. we wantsay, fellows, our prisoners back. will make a better deal. we want our prisoners back. they will say, no. we will say, that is ok. do not worry about it. by. it up, leave the room.

-- get up and leave the room. they will: 48 hours in cebu want our business -- they will call and 48 hours and say, we want our business back to stop and will say, by the way we will not review any money. you don't want to put it in their face. just say, look, we have been mismanaged, ms.-run. we do not know what the hell you are doing. is that true or what? [applause] we have been mismanaged. we of $19 trillion in debt. now maybe 21 main dollars. and --diculous budget, we can't give it to you. sorry.

could've said it, you could got the prisoners out years ago for nothing. without giving them these people. who, by the way, deserve to have been in prison. thanks were serious. ?nd the interpol people forget about it. these are bad people. said they made this incredible deal. but everybody makes good deals with the united states, because the world is marked and they use their smart people and they use their most cunning, streetwise people and they know what they are doing. we have people who do not know what they are doing. we want to be politically correct, like jerry-senior would say. politicallye correct and it is just not working. one of the reasons people are showing up for me and the polls are showing up for me -- it is went to an ivy league school and all of that stuff, smart guy. had an uncle who was a

professor at mi t for decades. a brilliant guy, dr. john trump. we can all be politically correct, but it takes to much time. it takes too much time. and a lot of it is just wrong. i will give you an example. was the last time you saw merry christmas? you do not see it anymore. they want to be politically correct. if i am president, you are going to see merry christmas in department stores, believe me. believe me. to see it.ng you're going to see a lot of things. but that is one example. you go shopping today, you do not see it anymore. you hardly see anything. you see walls. tainted red. you say, that is great. wonderful. we're going to be saying merry christmas again. i have friends who are not christians, they like to say merry christmas. they love it. everybody loves it. but we have taken it out of our

the capillary. our vocabulary. i love you! mr. trump: i love you too. thank you. you never know that is. yesterday, i came home and said to my wife, darling, how do you like this? she said, that's good how many people were there? they focus on my face, they never show the crowds. so she said, how many are there. peopleld say, how many were there, darling? and i would say, the place is packed i had to have 15,000 or 18,000 people. in one case, we sent away 7000. you didn't see that? and she said, no. they focus on your face. the cameras are in a fixed

position. theyured if they are fixed could not move. except, every time there was a protester those cameras were like a pretzel. i love the protesters. we don't have any, honestly. i love the protesters because of the cameras rep and that corner, they would not talk about the protesters they would say, wow, that place is packed. because it is a movement. but i have to say the press is very very dishonest. now, not all of them. but most of them. very dishonest. very, very dishonest. and actually, i have never seen anything. i have seen financial press and they play games. you know, numbers or numbers. this political press is brutal. now, 25% are good. percent are great. that is not acceptable. do you agree? the camera check.

i colored the camera trick, but they don't show. it the camera trick, which they do not show. but ia silent majority, think i'm going to up the little because it is no longer so silent. it has become a noisy majority. people want to see greatness for our country. they want to see things happen. they want to see things happen. and, they are not seeing it. these politicians are all talk, no action, they do not get it done. when i say we're going to build a wall, they say, but you talking about the cannot build a wall. and i say what you talking about? china. china. think about it. 2000 years ago, china don't great wall of china. this is a serious wall.

and, they did not have komatillar tractors or sus. stop that because it is coming out of japan now. they say, you cannot build a wall and i say, not only can i build it and they are saying, you cannot build a wall, can you? they don't know how to fix the infrastructure. our bridges are kremlin. our roads are crumbling. we spent $5 million in the middle east, and our country is going to hell. we have got to bring it back. we have got to knock the hell out of isis. i did not want to go to iraq, but i did not want to get out the way we got out.

because what happened, and i have said this for years. i probably said this last time i was here, years ago. take the oil. take the. oil.the keep the oil. to the victors go the spoils. we lose thousands and thousands of unbelievable people. with wounded warriors who i love all over the place. we get?iraq, but nothing. and i ran now take several iraq. i read made a great deal with one hundred 50 billion. two weeks he came to me, that deal is nothing. they made the really greatest deal, they took over iraq. they have been fighting for iraq for ever. under different names. but they have been fighting. but they were the same militarily. they fight and fight and fight. , 10 feet left, left, rest. would drop hussein gas, people would say it was

unfair and to stop. this went on forever. and it would of gone on forever. so what did we give iran? we give them 100 and -- $150 billion. they don't have to develop weapons anymore, they can buy them they have so much money. how about this? we see something wrong always think something is wrong, so we have to wait 24 days before we go in. but before the 24 days start, there is a whole procedure. so who knows how long it could take. it could be six months. in certain locations, it is called self-inspection. they have the right to self-inspect. so we call upon we say, listen, we hear you are building a nuclear weapon. and they say, oh no you do not have to worry. we will self-inspect. we say, thank you very much we appreciate it now we feel much better. deals we make.

sergeant bergdahl? anyone ever your sergeant bergdahl? you get sergeant bergdahl, a dirty rotten traitor. people died going after sergeant bergdahl. we get bergdahl, they get five of the great killers that they have wanted for the last nine years. the people they wanted, so we knew he was a traitor. who would make deals like this?

who does this russian mark obama. -- does this? obama. [applause] mr. trump: obama is a disaster. take a look at our trade deals. we're going to lose $500 billion, trade deficits of with china. with japan, 100 billion dollars. we're talking about one year. had you have a country, they say, will trump does not believe in fair trade. i want to be able to say, at least we're breaking even. how do you lose those kinds of numbers? i love china, by the way. ideal tremendously with china. good deal of a building in san francisco or china. i own condos through china. i do business with china. in fact, my daughter is here. as of august? stand up, of oregon. in fact my daughter is here.

is ivanka? ivanka deals with china all the time. i have thousands of deals with china, mexico, hispanic people. two there leaders are cunning for our leaders. look at what they are doing. the biscoe, from chicago, folks. -- nabisco, from chicago, folks. say, stop this. we're losing our manufacturing jobs. good colleges and i see students and they are borrowed up to the neck. everything. the biggest album is, they

graduate, the study, they do well. wonderful,ally they're proud of themselves. they come out, they cannot get a job. we have got to create jobs. we have got to bring back the jobs from china and japan and all of these countries that are has off. -- that are with us off. to build the wall, folks? you tell me. who is going to build the wall? mexico. everybody knows. easy, you have no idea. and the reason is easy, for me, i just build a 92-story building. when you build buildings, building a wall is like hitting some blank. -- some plank. ding! but i have got to make the wall

of you to fall. why? because someday they are going to name the wall trump wall. people can still come in, but they will come in legally. they will go through a process. one of the people i'm running nice, religious people, i can't say bad. am i allowed to say bad in this room? but the other day for the first time i heard it, one of the folks said, we're going to build a wall. i was like, what's going on? nobody said that before system of they're all coming my way, you know. they're all coming my way. the only problem is they don't know where to begin. they wouldn't know where to begin. they'd -- it would be one of those walls, not one of these walls. if you got up there, you'd be really scared coming down.

we can do it for the right price. i don't know if you saw "saturday night live," where they said, the wall, but just so you understand, the reason they're going to pay and the reason it's easy for a businessman to understand this, mexico is making a fortune on the united states. now, china, i love them. they're great. i'm not holing it against china. the largest bank in the world is a chinese bank a tenant of mine. i don't hold that against them. mexico, i don't hold it against mexico. you see what's happening with the crime and all, i don't hold that against mexico. if their politicians can do it, i hold it against our very stupid leadership in this country. i don't hold it against these other countries. i mean if they can get away with it, let them do it. i want to get away with things. i could go into story after story after story and i used to use the word incompetence. but it's not strong enough.

you know? i used this eother word, you now the word i talk about, i use the other word and they say, he's plain spoken. i wrote "the art of the deal" and many best sellers. who has read "the art of the deal,"? i always say a deep, deep second to the bible. the bible is the best. the bible blows it away, nothing like the bible. but "the art of the deal," in fact, there's a few of them over there. but "the art of the deal" was the best-selling business book. obama didn't read it. kerry didn't read it. we can always do something with our country. i always used the word incorp. tent. i'm not being funded by guys i'm all street that -- self-financing my own campaign. i'm not taking funds.

s that nice? so we can do what's good for the country. in other words, we are going to do what's good for the country. and i tell people all the time, and use ford as an example, you could use nabisco and other countries. you're going -- you've got a lot of inversion going on, companies leaving the u.s. because taxes are too high. they're leaving, it's called corporate inversion. it's a disaster. they're leaving for lower taxes or because they can't bring their $2.5 trillion back into the country. they can't do it. but take ford, i use this as an example. it could be anybody. any company that go into other countries. but take ford. $2.5 million. they've taken a lot of stuff out of michigan. they're closing other things. they're going to build this massive thing, heard $2.5

billion for one place, they're going to make cars, trucks and parts. the president offord wrote me a letter telling me it's a good thick, it's not. good company, run very well, good product. i love ford, i love chevrolet, i love all of our products. we want to buy u.s.a., right? but they wrote me, and i said, the story. let's say a stiff like jeb bush is president. let's say jeb bush is president. ok. low nrbling person but that's ok. let's say jeb becomes president. jeb is fun. they'll go to him he has $128 million he got from doe no, sir, special interests, everybody. lobbyists. so ford will hire one of the lobbyists, they'll -- look, i know this game better than anybody. i've been plying this game for a long time. i changed sides. i was total establishment.

now i'm like the worst thing that ever happened to the establishment because i understand the game. so now they go to, let's say jeb, they say, mr. president, this is a bad thing. i agree it's bad, i agree it's bad. we can't allow this to happen. he'll get a call from lobbyists or special interests. mr. president, they gave you $5 million. you can't not make this deal. did they? another one will call, mr. president, they gave you $2 million, you've got to take care offord. ok, i'll do it. we lose the jobs, we lose all the different things. with me, they're going to call. hillary, just as bad, even worse. hillary, they'll call, they're going to call hillary and they're going to say, madam president, by the way, i want to see a woman president soon but not her. she's a disaster. she's a disaster. she's a disaster. [cheers and applause] . and just think of the corruption

and the scandal. we don't want to go through it. you don't want to go through it. we want to see winning. win, win, win. i always joke, i say, we want to see win, win, win, constant winning, and you'll say if i'm president, you'll say, please, mr. president, we're winning too much, we can't stand it anymore, can't we have a loss? and i'll say, no, we're going to keep win, winning, winning, we're going to make america great again. and you'll say ok, mr. president. ok. but they'll call hillary with ford, right? they'll call hillary. and they'll say, madam president. she'll do the same thing. because her donors gave her a lot of money and they need money for the next election. by the way, the only time politicians really work right is when they're sort of like retiring. like the gentleman over there, the congressman. he's a young guy. he retired of his own volition because he knows what's going on in washington, which i have

great respect for. some of them retire and get a little tougher. with ford, you take a look. they call them, now it's president trump. so [cheers and applause] so they call president trump and say, mr. president. you have to do this. ford has been great and wonderful. what are they building in mexico for? they're going to build. remember this, cars, trucks, and parts, they're going to sell them across the border, no tax. you say, we're all smart people, how does that help us? we close plants and we open new plants in mexico and they sell and there's no tax. so they're going to say, no, no, no. we're going for it. i'll say if you go forward, that's fine. but for every car, truck, and whatever else you're building, you are going to pay a 35% tax every time it crosses the border.

we have to. or we're not going to have a country left. everyone is ripping us. everyone is ripping us. i don't want to do that because i'm a free trader, i want free trade. but we've got to be smart here, folks. we've lost seven, eight, some people say 10 million jobs, we've lost 50,000 manufacturing plants, we're getting killed. and the quality of our jobs is terrible. you saw that in the last report. they have this phony number, 5.2%. everybody that quits looking for a job is considered statistically a person that has a job. it's a phony number. your probable real number is like 22%, 23%. if you look at crowds like this, if we were at 5%, 5.2%, nobody would be there. although they might be there because the military is so badly run with this president. probably there for other reasons. basically, you wouldn't have the kind of crowds and the kind of

poll numbers that we have. so i'll tell ford the following. look. got to move your plant back. they'll call me, have a few people call me, doesn't matter, they didn't give me any money. jerry was right. they don't own me. self-fund they don't own me. i'll say, look, mr. president offord, i'm sorry, you've got to build here or we're charging you a tax. i'll say, think about it overnight, he'll call me back the next day, i guarantee you, 100%, he'll say, mr. president, we have decided to build a plant in the united states. ok, that's what will happen. it has to happen. it has to happen. free trade is good but we have to be smart about it. or we're not going to have a country left. so when this started, and i call it a journey, on june 16, the escalator, has everyone seen the famous escalator?

i was coming down to reporters, it was like the academy awards, i'd never seen so many cameras in my rife. jerry said, it's very hard for somebody to run for president. very hard for somebody that's very successful, i've heard this all my life, to go into politics, especially if you're going to run for president. you're exposing so much. you're doing deals and deals, plus you don't do this. who would have known i was going to do this. i love doing debates, i never debated before. politician decisions do it all the time, they're all talk no action. on top of them most of -- on top of that, most of them are not even good debaters. you'd think they could debate properly. some of the things they say is incredible. but we're coming down the escalator and i said to my wife, ok. we have to do it. i've just seen so many stupid things. i say we have to do it. we've got to go and we've got to do it. and she said if you want to do it, i'm with you 100%. she's been so supportive.

and i got on, thank you, i got on the escalator and we're going down, i'm waving, and i'm saying wow, and i went up and started talking about illegal immigration. and boy, did i take it. for two weeks, rush limbaugh said the most he's ever seen a human being take. when i speak about success, a lot of people asked me to -- ask me to speak about success, i love speaking about it because i can help people. one of the things is, you've got to love what you do but you can never, this applies to so many young, incredible people in this room, you can never, ever give up. you can never give up. if you give up, you're not going to make it. i've seen people over the years, i went to wharton and i know people that have been phenomenal , but they zrnt that drive, that stick to itiveness, they didn't

make it over guys that are not as good, not as smart but they had the drive. so you've really got to never, ever quit or give up. so i said. so important. i figured i'd get out of politics for at least two sentences. but it's so true. just don't quit. and for you, always, always go into a field you love. you've got to love it. if you don't love it, you're not going tore successful. even if people say, oh, you should, you've got to love it. if you don't love what you do, you're never going to be successful. that's beautiful. i make you proud to be an american. stand up. and do -- did i ever meet you before? no. that's very nice. thank you, man, thank you. but we mean that. we mean it. very nice. so, i took a lot of incoming as rush said, he's a great guy, tremendous incoming. and i stuck. and i even doubled down.

and then all of a sudden you had tremendous stats coming out which were terrible but tremendous numbers. and you saw the kind of crime the woman in los angeles who was raped, sodomized and killed by an illegal immigrant you saw the kind of horror going on, not only in terms of border, not only in terms of coming in, not only in terms of drugs pouring across drugs which are yoing go rr are going to ruin the fabric of our country, coming across the border but in terms of the sheer volume. people started to say, you know, trump is right. if i didn't talk about imlegal -- illegal immigration in my opening remarks, i don't think you'd be talking about it today and it's one of the most important things anybody is talking about. one of the most important things. so when it started out, i

started talking about the different things. common core, very bad. got to educate your children locally. very bad. [applause] second amendment, very good. we've got to have the right to protect ourselves. very good. when we have people, the whole gun situation is under siege, now they're talking about we want to give less bullets, take bullets away, they are talking about, you can't let it happen. by the way in paris, which has probably the toughest gun laws in the world, and france, had bullets been going the other way you wouldn't have had 130 people killed and plenty more to follow who were so badly injured. in california, recently, two weeks ago, where you had the 14 people killed and others to follow because of the tremendous injuries, but then you had the 14 by these two radicalized

people. the people that were killed gai them wedding parties. they held wedding party, they knew them, they were friends. they went in and killed 4 people. if we had a couple of guys like him or him or definitely him with the white hat on, with a gun strapped and the bullets would go the other way, you would have had problems, you wouldn't have had it to the same extent at all. we need the second amendment, don't let anybody take it away. if i get elected, it's totally protected. totally protected. we have to do something and these are the things i talked about. we have to do something about super p.a.c.s. super p.a.c.s are now running the country. they're running our politicians and our politicians aren't doing what's right for all of us. we've got to get rid of the super p.a.c.s. we want to have an idea of who's what's being put up and who is

doing it, got to get rid of the super p.a.c.s. with paris, pretty much the start of paris, all of a sudden paris happens and my poll numbers went way up and i didn't know what happened? then cnn did a big poll and a big study and they said, trump is number one by far on the military. by far on protection. by far on the border. by far on isis. because they see me, because of my very strong stance on illegal immigration, it's an offshoot, i won't let the syrians that we have no idea who they are, they want to come into our country, they may be isis, it may be the great trojan horse of all time. who knows. we cannot take a chance. i want to build a safe zone, some place in syria, but what's happening in germany is a disaster. what's happening in brussels, you look, what's happening all over europe. europe is being absolutely

swamped and destroyed. what's going on with the crime and the problems. and it could be some sinister plot. you look at these migration you look at the lines and you look at the tremendous amount of young, strong men in those lines. and you say, what's going on? obama wants to take in thousands and thousands of people. we can't do it folks. we can't do it. we don't know anything about the people. we're going to do a free zone and a safe zone, we're going to do something where we have to get the gulf states, they have nothing but money, got to get them to fund it, got to get them to put up the money. without us, they wouldn't be there very long. we protect them. with the military, by the way, we're protecting countries that are behemoths. we're protecting countries that are so rich so powerful so incredible, south korea, we protect south korea. i have many friends that have buildings in south korea, but we're protecting south korea

with 28,000 soldiers in the line. between the maniac and south korea. we're protecting them. they pay us peanuts. we pr protect germany, we protect japan, we protect countries nobody knows about. before the oil price went down saudi arabia was making $1 billion a day. we protect them. they pay us like practically nothing compared to the cost. they've got to pay up. they've got to pay up. everybody has to pay up. we can't do this anymore. we've got to run it like a business but with heart. we're going to create great health care, get rid of obamacare, going to terminate it. we're going to repeal it and replace it. and now you see the signs, the stock market is starting to go down, a lot of bad things. i've been saying this. we're riding a big, fat juicy bubble. giving out loans for nothing. you look at what's happening with our money. you look at what's happening with the federal reserve.

so we're riding a bubble. it could be really ugly. but right now you're starting to see at least the beginning signs of it because the stock market, which was the only indicator that things were good is starting to go down. what's happening is, with paris, i took a different turn. now i'm back and really back to security and security for our country and great, great military. we're going to build that military. great, great military. and people are loving it and people need it and they don't have confidence in the politicians and they don't have confidence essentially in the other candidates. when you're leading by the kind of numbers i'm leading by, they don't have confidence in the other candidates. because they understand politicians. we've been dealing with politicians for the last so many years, we're so tired of dealing with these people, they're no good for what we have. so we're going to do things that can be done. we're going to fix our military.

we're going to take care of our vets who are the greatest people, most incredible people. they're treated horribly. i mean, our vets, our vets are treated worse than illegal immigrants in many cases. you see what's going on. our vets are not being treated properly. we're spending tremendous amounts of money. the corruption in the v.a. administration and the veterans administration is beyond belief. we're going to fix the situation so our vets are taken care of the way they should be taken care of. we're going to do all of these things and we're going to create security. we're going to have great security. so in a nutshell, number one, it's an honor to be here again. it's an honor in terms of martin luther king to have broken the record work dedicating the record to the late, great,

martin luther king. but it's an honor. and very simply, and i didn't used to say this, two or three weeks ago i wouldn't have said it but i think i can say it now because i've seen so many people, we have such amazing people, sharp, smart, energetic, they're amazing. i was saying make america great again. i think we can say now, we're going to get things come, going to get apple start building their computers -- computers and things in this country instead of in other countries. i honestly think i can say, and i've said it for the last two weeks and i mean it 100% or i wouldn't say it, we're going to make america great again, greater than ever before. and we can do that. and we're going to win and we're going to win a lot. i want to thank you. i want to thank jerry and becky and everybody. we love you all. you're a special school a special university. and a -- and amazing people. thank you, everybody.

thank you. thank you, everybody. thank you. [cheers and applause] >> with donald trump calling on christians to quote band together and unify in today's address, where does this put the republican frontrunner and the rest of the g.o.p. field? joining us from lynchburg, virginia is chief political correspondent for cbn news, david brody. thank you for being with us. david: thanks, steve. host: your takeaway from the speech this morning? guest: there's so much to shift through. it's open mike night for donald trump. you never know where he's going to begin and end. i would say this, it's interesting that donald trump, speaking at liberty university or any other audience, he says the same thing. he is not tailoring the speech to evangelicals necessarily. yes he quoted a couple of bible verses but i'm talking about, he

was talking about strong words against isis and all of that. so the point is, he will just say what he's going to say no matter where he's at. that's part of his authenticity he had a snafu there, he talked about two corinth clan -- corinthians rather than second corinthians, the audience corrected him or tried to correct himmle that's something ke we can talk about afterwards. he's not running to b be senior pastor of a church. if he was trying to run to be senior pastor, he probably wouldn't get that job. but he's running for president of the united states. evangelicals are good with strong ladgewadge, not salty language but strong leadership language. host: and you talked with donald trump after his speech. what was his demeanor? what did you learn? what was your overall takeaway from your conversation with him? guest: it's interesting you ask me his demeanor.

ve interviewed him several times since 2011. though very cordial in private, this time he was not just cordial but very, how do i say it? very relaxed, very calm, very tranquil which was interesting. it was much -- it was even more tranquil than he normally is in private. he's different in private than when the cameras are rolling in public. there's a different donald trump a softer side. i thought his demeanor was very tranquil. having said that as it relates to the interview, we started out, i want to clarify the two corinthians mentioned in the speech. he said you're right, i should have said second corinthians he, did clear that up. but one of the thicks -- things he said which was interesting, i asked him to compare himself as it relates to evangelicals and

the message he wants to get across he said ronald reagan wasn't -- here's he exact quote, ronald reagan didn't read the bible every day seven days a week but he was a great president and he was a great president of christianity. and i think this is what donald trump is going to say to evangelicals. i talked to him before and in kale he said, if they're looking for the perfect evangelical candidate i'm not the guy. but he's hoping they'll look past that and see that he can make, quote, great deals, huge deals, for this country and he is banking on evangelicals going with that as a strategy for victory rather than the best evangelical type of candidate. host: his tact tick is to try to drive down number nrs ted cruz who has support among evangelicals. if donald trump is able to

whittle away with that -- at that, it would help him in iowa. guest: there's no doubt about that. donald trump, we talked about this, but donald trump coming in second place in iowa is a huge ictory for donald trump. second place ay is for losers, but many are out of the race by now. but there he is getting 19%, 20%. around there. of the evangelical vote. so donald trump is a player with evangelicals. i don't think there's any question about that. what i've seen out there is there's different types of subsets of evangelical voters. there's the i'm sick and tired of it, the solutions oriented evangelical voter and the i wear it on my sleeve evangelical voter.

the i wear it on my sleeve maybe . huckabee or cruz or santorum the solutions oriented might go for kasich or jeb bush. the i'm sick and tired of it evangelical, who kneel they've been played like political pawns by the republican establishment. these are the folks donald trump is dapping into. they may give donald trump a chance over even a ted cruz or someone else that might be more serious about their faith walk. host: which may in part answer the question you posed in an op-ed for "usa today" writing that donald trump's appeal to evangelicals is real, how in the world did this happen? guest: right. think i went on to say it's a "dr. phil" show waiting to happen. i think there's something to be said about political

correctness. donald trump has no appetite for it. neither to evangelicals. donald trump said some very strong things and he doesn't back down. evangelicals also say strong things and don't back down. what do i mean about strong things? they're strong when it comes to their faith. jesus is the only way to heaven. the bible is the word of god. these are strong, moral, absolute positions that evangelicals take. donald trump doesn't back down either. he might not have the biblical position he's arguing for. but they like that chutzpah, if you will, from trump. you feel that -- you throw in the path that he's been ridiculed enor lousely by the media and evangelicals have been ridiculed for standing strong for their faith and saying jesus is the only way to heaven. there's a kinship between the two. i think that's part of the psychological experiment we're seeing at play this week.

host: david brody is chief political correspondent for cbn news, joining us. he sat down with donald trump, his interview will air on the christian broadcast network. david, thanks for being with us. guest: thanks, steve, all the best. >> c-span takes you on the road to the white house. best access to the candidates at town hall meet, speeches, rallies and meet and greets. we're taking your comments on twitter, facebook and by phone. and always, every campaign event is available on our website, c-span.org. >> coming up on c-span, ohio governor and republican presidential candidate john kasich in new hampshire talking about teen drug and alcohol abuse. then attorney general loretta lynch as a ceremony marking the life of dr. martin luther king jr. later the british house of commons debates banning donald trump from the u.k. over remarks

about muslims. >> on the next "washington journal" a look at unemployment and u.s. labor force participation. our guest is robert doar of the american enterprise institute. marche on his organization's efforts to recruit wealthy progressives for national and state elections. later, ryan lovelas with a look at donald trump's liberty university speech. "washington journal" is live every morning at 7:00 a.m. join the conversation with your calls, and comments on facebook and twitter. >> tuesday the senate energy and natural resources committee looks at the outlook for energy and commodity markets. live coverage at 10:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span.