[R] signifies the Member has declared an interest. [W] signifies that the question was tabled in Welsh.

I now call on Dawn Bowden to ask the second urgent question. Dawn Bowden.

What assessment has the First Minister made of the impact on dual nationality Welsh Muslims of the announcement by the US President of a 90 day travel ban on nationals from several majority-Muslim countries? EAQ(5)0424(FM)

Can I thank the Member for the question? Despite assurances from the foreign Secretary yesterday, there is still considerable uncertainty about the impact of the travel ban. We will press for certainty, and I made it clear to the Prime Minister yesterday that the travel ban policy is beyond any rational defence.

Thank you for your response on that, First Minister, and can I also thank you for your speedy condemnation of the disgraceful action taken by the President of the United States—action that is in contravention of the Geneva convention, international law and, probably, the constitution of the United States? In sharp contrast, the British Prime Minister’s condemnation has been slow in coming, and has been mealy mouthed at best. Despite the potential impact of the executive order on British nationals, her initial response was simply that immigration policy is a matter for the USA and for the Government of the USA. It’s clear that her special relationship with the President did not lead to him giving her any special forewarning of what was to come.

Donald Trump is a man who feels it’s okay to mock those with disabilities, he’s a misogynist of the very worst kind and he’s an advocate of torture, all of which he’s tried unsuccessfully to justify. His attempt to justify this policy has also been equally risible, when he said,

‘To be clear, this is not a Muslim ban…This is not about religion—this is about terror and keeping our country safe.’

Well, if Donald Trump wants to keep his country safe, maybe he should do something about gun control, because frankly Americans are far more of a danger to each other than anyone from any of the seven countries whose nationals are affected by this ban. Not one single American citizen can be identified has having been killed in a terrorist attack by anyone from any of these countries.

But, as you identified, First Minister, it’s not just the anxiety and distress caused to Muslim communities by the 90-day travel ban, the executive order also places a ban on the US refugees programme for 120 days and puts in place an indefinite ban on refugees from Syria. Trump’s executive order, coming on Holocaust Memorial Day, of all days, is indefensible, flies in the face of the moral duty of all us to help refugees, and, as we’ve already seen this week, can only serve to heighten religious and racial intolerance. He has sought to demonise an entire religion, and I’m reminded how actions like this can lead to atrocities and even genocide. The holocaust didn’t start with gas chambers. It started with religious demonisation and intolerance—

You do need to come to a question now.

So, will the First Minister reaffirm his position, and add his voice to those calling for Donald Trump not to be afforded the honour of a state visit to the UK at this point in time, and will he call upon the Prime Minister to show the same backbone as other world leaders in both unequivocally condemning Trump’s actions and taking whatever action is necessary to persuade him to reverse this decision?

I’ve already said my view in terms of the visit. What is clear over the last few days is that a ban was imposed without any rational basis. Of the terrorist attacks that have taken place in the US over the years, not one person has come from those seven countries—the twin towers people didn’t come from there. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, two countries where terrorists have come from, there is no ban on them, giving rise to the suspicion that it’s because of the business interests that exist in those countries by certain businesses in the US. So, there is no rationality to this policy. Secondly, of course, it was so badly executed that customs officials, border patrol officials—CBP officials as they’re called in America—had no idea how to implement it. It’s clear that the order was put in place without taking the advice of experts. One piece of advice I would give to the US President is this: it’s not a sign of weakness to take advice; it’s a sign of strength. Nobody can know everything, and we see the consequences as a result.

We know that British citizens were not able to travel to or through America as a result of what happened. There is the well-documented case of the Iranian vet who was stuck in Costa Rica. And we’re still not clear as to what the true position is. Sir Mo Farah—somebody who has done so much for British athletics, somebody who is such a great model for so many young men and women, was not sure whether he would be able to rejoin his family and children in the US as a result of this order. Despite the fact that that was made public, it took some hours for the UK Government to make representations, not just on his behalf, but on behalf of so many other people who are caught up as part of this ban. It’s not rational. It’s not justified. My experience of the people of America, as I’ve said publicly already, is that they are warm and courteous people; they are a welcoming people. This is not what America is about. People might say, ‘Well, why should America be judged on such high standards?’ It’s because of the high principles that the republic is built on. America is the leader of the free world, is the biggest democracy economically, though not in population, in the world, and it will be judged to higher standards than others, and it would expect itself to be so. What price now the words on the Statue of Liberty? So, my plea is quite simply this, that US security policy—and it is difficult, of course, in the modern world, to control security—should be based on rational decisions, based on the advice of experts, rather than taking a decision that appears to be easy, but proves to be hugely complicated and unfair in its execution.

At a meeting in Bangor last night I had the privilege of saying that Wales is a country that welcomes people that are fleeing from war, famine and persecution. Do you agree that one response to Trump’s terrible actions is to emphasise that Wales is a welcoming country, and that welcoming actions are the best way of actually showing that? There is good work being done by the Government under the Syrian refugee programme, but, on 19 January, the equalities committee heard that only 27 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children were actually living in Wales. The committee was surprised that the number was so low, and the committee’s trying to understand why that is the position. Can you give me an assurance that your Government will do anything to move aside any obstacles so that we can be a truly welcoming and hospitable nation in actions in addition to in words?

There is no obstacle in that regard. We are reliant on Whitehall officials in this regard. We said quite openly in 2005 that Wales is a country that’s open to refugees, and I established a committee at that time to work with local government and others to ensure that people would be welcome when they come to Wales, and that remains the case now. Although there have been few people coming to Wales, those principles are still our guiding principles as a Government.

I agree with my colleagues that this ban is totally divisive, unacceptable and inhumane. It will only succeed in stirring up hate and fear of Muslims and exacerbate an already dangerous situation in the world. Stigmatising people because of their nationality cannot be defended, and I note that several federal judges have halted the deportation of visa holders, believing the ban to be unconstitutional.

Will the First Minister confirm the ban only applies to individuals travelling to the United States from one of the seven named countries? The ban does not apply to UK nationals travelling from one of those countries to the US, even if he or she was born in one of those countries. On the question of dual nationality, can the First Minister also confirm that someone holding dual nationality with one of the listed countries travelling to the US from outside those countries is also not covered by this order? However, a UK citizen holding dual nationality with one of the listed states travelling to the United States from a listed country may face extra checks.

And, First Minister, another area that Muslim countries, alongside the rest of the world, are also very concerned—and tit for tat can create an unprecedented problem for the whole world. Does the First Minister agree with me that all UK citizens, whether they hold dual nationality or not, deserve the right to be admitted to the United States in a fast and efficient and civilised manner, because that country is a beacon of human rights, as we all understand? Thank you.

Well, I only know what I heard Boris Johnson say in Parliament. I also know that the German Government is not convinced that that is the interpretation that is wholly correct. We have to wait and see what is said in writing, actually, not just what is said orally to any British Government Minister, and we’ve not seen any written confirmation of that. My concern is that the situation on the ground in the US changes on a regular basis. There are reports of officials on the ground being given conflicting advice within a short space of time. So, it’s hugely difficult to understand what the situation will be, and it needs to settle, of course, as quickly as possible.

But at the heart of this is a fundamental misunderstanding of where the nature of the threat comes from. Most people who are the victims of Islamist terrorism are Muslims themselves, as the people of Turkey will tell you, as the people of Syria will tell you. The problem with an order like this is that it gives the appearance that, somehow, all Muslims are the same. Now, he knows that’s not the case; I know that’s not the case. A very small minority of people are Islamist in Islam. The people who committed genocide in Srebrenica were not representative of Christianity even though they called themselves Christians. They were a very small group of people who were bigoted in themselves. It’s the same with Islamist terrorism.

What struck me was, given the different responses from the UK Government and the Iranian Government, how reasonable the Iranian Government appeared to be. Now, we know that Iran, over the years, has had a record of supporting movements of terrorism across the world. Iran is on the right track now, I believe; some way to go in terms of the way that we would see Iran, but certainly Iran has come some way from where it was. But the US is a country built on accepting refugees. Yes, of course, it has its issues with security, and those issues of security must be dealt with appropriately. But to issue a ban on seven countries, apparently at random, then execute it in such a way that no-one really knows what’s happening—you know, that doesn’t do the US’s image any good. And we need the US to be in a stable position for the good of all the democracies of the world. Unfortunately, the impression that is being given at the moment is that it does things at random, without any kind of rational explanation, and we all see of course what appears to be turmoil in some cities in the US. That’s in no-one’s interest, and I hope that sensible voices prevail soon.

Well, the First Minister makes some fair points, but will he accept that the restrictions that have recently been introduced are temporary, pending the introduction of enhanced vetting procedures, and that the immigration and security policies adopted by the American administration must be a matter for them and for the American people? We wouldn’t want them interfering in our immigration and security policies in this country. When President Obama was foolish enough as to attempt to intervene in the Brexit debate, it blew up in his face, if that’s not an inappropriate metaphor in the context of this question. Therefore, we have to be very careful in this place, as indeed in the UK Parliament, before expressing grandstanding views that may well be counterproductive in terms of changing the policy of the United States Government.

Is the First Minister aware that the executive order is actually based upon legislation that President Obama signed in relation to the visa-waiver programme in December of last year, and that the seven countries on the list are the seven countries that were removed from the visa-waiver programme of the United States Government, and that, in 2011, President Obama did exactly what President Trump has now done in relation to Iraq, where he placed on hold all applications for entry to the United States from Iraqi citizens? There was no protest then, as far as I can recall, in this Assembly. I’m wondering why there is a protest now.

A man came to America, he was an Iraqi, he had helped US forces, he was a translator—he was denied entry. In the end, he came and he was denied entry. What kind of message does that give, that, where people help US forces in the fight against Islamist terrorism, they are then dropped as a result of the help that they give? He cannot surely defend that. He cannot surely defend a policy where people who are permanent residents of the US, green-card holders, were also turned away because no-one understood what the regulations actually meant. It’s not if they’re temporary or not—wrong is wrong at the end of the day. People were turned away, they were not allowed—. An Iranian vet was not allowed transit through the USA on her way home to Glasgow from San José in Costa Rica. How does he—? Is she a terrorist? How does he defend that?

The reality is that we must be very careful not to give the impression, which plays into the hands of ISIL, that this is a clash of religions. ‘What do you expect the US to do apart from this?’ Then he said—it wasn’t heard on the microphone, but I heard him—he said, ‘What about the twin towers?’, he said. Can I remind him that none of those involved in the twin towers atrocity, which is what it was, came from those countries? They came from other countries that are not included on this list. Why? Why is that? No rational explanation has been given for that.

We have to remember as well two things. One of our biggest allies is Turkey, itself an Islamic country. Secondly, in order to win the battle against ISIL on the ground, you need Iranian ground troops to do it. The last thing you should be doing is creating a problem with the very country—you may not agree with many of the things that go on there—you are relying on to defeat an evil organisation like ISIL.

At the heart of it is, I think, a complete misunderstanding about Islam. Shia and Sunni Muslims have been killing each other in many countries for many years. The impression that’s given is that there are some people who seem to take the view that somehow Islam is all the same religion. [Interruption.] Well, I can tell him. I can tell him this: it wasn’t that long ago when the main security threat to the UK came from Catholics. So, does that mean that Catholics should have been vetted as they entered the UK? Could I remind him that Christians were killing each other in Northern Ireland for 25 years? Could I remind him that people calling themselves Christians were beheading women and children on bridges over rivers in Bosnia and Herzegovina, that there were massacres taking place in places like Srebrenica?

We cannot say that any religion has a monopoly on evil, but what I do hope is the US regains its ability to see sense.

Thank you, First Minister.