In a move that would make the ancient Greek word Hypokrites (originally meaning actors, or dissemblers - see my May 8 Immigration Daily comment dealing with the Kushner family's pitch to wealthy EB-5 investors at the same time that Donald Trump is promising to crack down on "visa abuses") seem woefully inadequate by comparison, the Trump administration's lawyers argued before the US 4th Circuit Court of Appeals on May 8 that the president's revised six country (down from the original seven) US entry ban, affecting at least 100 million people, more than 99 per cent of whom just happen by some curious coincidence to be Muslims, is not a "Muslim ban".

Reuters reports that Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall (apparently with a straight face, though the report doesn't specify) had the temerity to tell the Court, referring to the president's latest order, that "This is not a Muslim ban."

This brought the obvious rejoinder from one of the judges hearing the case, Barbara Keenan:

"How is this neutral in its operation as to Muslims?"

See also:

But, according to these and other press reports about the argument before the Court, the main issue was not whether the emperor had any clothes or not, since evidently no one took the idea that the executive order was aimed against anyone else but Muslims very seriously, but was rather about whether the Court is authorized to recognize that the emperor had no clothes, or whether only the little boy in the famous Hans Christian Andersen story is permitted to say that.

According to the DOJ's Kafkaesque argument, the Court is supposed to disregard Trump's clear statements that he wanted to bar Muslims from the US because of their religion, which he made repeatedly during the campaign, because he had not yet been elected or taken the oath of office as president at that time.

The truth, of course, whether the 4th Circuit ultimately decides to recognize it or not, is contained in the president's December, 2015 statement which continued to appear on his official campaign website right up until the right after the May 8, 2017 court argument itself, when it was suddenly deleted!

For that story and a direct link to the full December, 2015 Muslim ban statement, see:

Does the president now expect the 4th Circuit, and the American people, to believe that this statement never existed?

Much as Trump's Solicitor General may not have wanted the 4th Circuit to pay any attention to the December, 2015 worldwide Muslim ban statement, Trump's White House was not able to make it disappear from history by consigning it to the "Memory Hole" as in Orwell's 1984.

The entire statement will be reproduced in the second part of this comment. It is impossible to turn one's eyes away from the fact that, far from being merely a formal proposal that all the Muslims of the world should be barred from entering the United States, it is dripping with venom and animosity against the Muslim religion and those who belong to it.

Based on the actual language, tone and content of Trump's December 2015 statement, it would not be such a great exaggeration to compare it with a much longer and even better known and more publicized manifesto written by a young German politician from prison in 1924 - one which most of the world ignored or downplayed for far too long, and which even its intended victims refused to take seriously until it was too late, as The Times of Israel reminds us in a February, 2016 story:

(It is, incidentally, no accident that in this book, which it is not necessary to mention by name here since the entire world knows its title, the writer expressed his admiration for the philosophy of racial superiority embodied in a law enacted in the United States that same year, 1924, which by manipulating visa quotas according to national origin, effectively barred Jews and most other immigrants of the world who were not from the "Nordic" countries of Europe from coming to the United States; and that two of Trump's top immigration advisers, Jeff Sessions and Stephen Bannon, have also, within approximately the past two years, expressed admiration and support - while ostensibly claiming to do so for different reasons - for the same 1924 law whose principles and ideology inspired this well-known German writer.)

For the story about former Senator and now AG Jeff Sessions' support for the infamous 1924 law, see the Southern Poverty Law Center's January 31 Hate Watch column:

With the above by way of introduction, let us now look at Donald Trump's December, 2015 Muslim ban statement in more detail to see whether it would really be as appropriate to dismiss or ignore it as the president's lawyers are trying to convince the 4th Circuit should be done.

I will do so in the second part of this comment.
Roger Algase is a New York immigration lawyer and a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School. For more than 35 years, Roger has been helping mainly skilled and professional immigrants receive work permits and green cards without regard to ethnicity, religion or country of origin, in the true spirit of America. Roger's email address is