Could an Online Petition Actually Get Donald Trump Banned from the UK?

He went and did it. He went and said what everyone knew he probably would say at some point, but couldn't actually envision him saying because it just seems like—politically, morally, and personally—one of the worst possible decisions he could have ever made. But he did it: Donald Trump, following the tragic attacks in San Bernardino, said that all Muslims should be banned from entering the United States.

Sometimes right-wing populism goes too far, and there's probably no better example of that from the Republican presidential candidate race than this. Trump's remarks have done such a good job of pissing people off, in fact, that a Scottish university has revoked his honorary degree and an online petition launched to block him from entering the UK has already snowballed to nearly 400,000 signatures, meaning it must—by law—be considered for debate in Parliament.

The word considered is a big one there; plenty of petitions have reached 100,000 signatures—the number needed for politicians to consider debating a topic—but rarely do they actually make it to Parliament. So to better understand what kind of a chance the signatories have of achieving their goal, I spoke to immigration law expert Houman Mehr, from Westkin Associates.

VICE: So Parliament now might actually debate whether or not Trump should be banned from the UK. What are the chances, should they debate it, that he will be banned?
Houman Mehr: It's difficult to say, because the petition only grants the debate, it doesn't actually grant any insurance that it will happen. Now, when they debate it they will have to look at the feasibility of actually banning the potential future president of one of the biggest democracies outside the UK. But bearing in mind that what he has said is completely abhorrent in a democratic society, I would say that it is unlikely they would ban him unless he goes to more extreme measures. Teresa May has the power to ban him without him ever setting foot in the UK, but what I see happening is, in political terms, they will try and sweep it under the carpet, and if he ever does try to come to the UK they will look at it in more detail.

Now, there is a list of different reasons why they can ban him, and probably the most appropriate in his scenario comes under paragraph "320 (19)" of the immigration rules, and that's offenses being committed by someone else, which is essentially to say that if he were to come to the UK his extreme views would cause civil unrest. That's the one they usually use for hate preachers or people of that kind.

If someone who wasn't a multi-millionaire presidential candidate said: "No Muslims should be allowed to enter my country," would they be banned?
Well, if it was an average person, it probably wouldn't cause an issue at all, because if it was an average person the chance their speech would cause widespread civil unrest would be very slim. However, if that person was from a country that was less politically affiliated with the UK and maybe more hostile then it would be a lot easier to make that distinction. The closest example is actually Tyler, the Creator, who was banned in August for the same kind of reasons as people want to ban Donald Trump for.

What was the legal justification for that?
He was banned under the guise of not being conducive to the public good, under the assumption that his lyrics were obscene, which I think is a bit totalitarian. People like Chris Brown, Snoop Dogg, and Martha Stewart have been banned for criminal convictions, which is understandable, but the closest thing to this case in pop culture would be Tyler, the Creator.

Is there a precedent for this? Has anyone ever been banned from the UK for saying one sentence?
I don't think it has happened. But even with Trump it's not just this one sentence that has got everyone angry; it's everything he has said before. So when you present your evidence to the Home Office, it must be a really strong case to get someone banned, and needs to be based on reliable facts and not conjecture. Usually it's intelligence, provided by agencies like MI5, but it can also be open-sourced, so people on Facebook saying, "I'm going to start a riot" or "I will kill this person" can be used as evidence.

What constitutes hate speech when it comes to these kind of immigration issues?
It's relatively broad in this instance, based around what would be called a "protective characteristic." For example, if I say, "I hate everyone with brown hair," brown hair, in this instance, wouldn't be a protective characteristic. But obviously if you say: "I hate all Muslims," being Muslim is a protective characteristic. Now, what he has said, to me, is hate speech, but whether the Home Office would judge that to be hate speech is another matter, because he is not saying, "I want to kill all Muslims," he is just saying he will make it difficult for them to enter the country. So it's on the line, I'd say.

What's the lowest-scale thing you can do to be banned?
It's actually pretty broad, so anything from petty crime or even association with gangs or anyone with a bad character can get you banned. So even if you've been hanging out with people from a rough area, it can get you banned.

When was the last major change made to British immigration laws?
That was in 2005, when the Home Office included the "Unacceptable Behavior" clause, which meant anything could get you banned if it went against their definition of "British values," which could be anything from a perverse sexual fetish to being in a gang. So it's not the actual being in a gang that gets you banned, it's the crimes associated with being in a gang that get you banned. So even if you're not doing illegal activity you can still get banned.

What do you think about Donald Trump personally?
At first it was kind of funny because he was almost like a comic book character, but now it's getting kind of serious. But as a person, he is a horrendous man.

Follow Tom on Twitter.