A horrifying July 7 story in the Washington Post about an Iranian man who was stomped to death and burned four years ago in the UK after repeatedly calling for police protection in vain illustrates the most fundamental reason of all why it is so important for the Supreme Court to strike down Donald Trump's Muslim ban executive order in toto.

Whatever the alleged "facially legitimate" (see Mandel v. US, 1972) "national security" pretext of the order might be - in this case, barring almost the entire population of six almost 100 per cent Muslim nations from entering the US so that the government can review its immigrant "vetting" procedures "temporarily" (i.e. as long as Trump is president - no rational person could possibly think that the ban order is meant to last for only 90 days), it is clear that the real purpose of the ban is to promote hatred and discrimination against all Muslims, including the estimated 3 or 4 million who are US citizens.

Where this can lead to is illustrated, not only by the shocking increase in hate crimes against Muslims (or people who may be mistaken for Muslim, such as Sikhs) in the US, but by the appalling story of a disabled Muslim man in the UK who knew that his life was in danger because of repeated threats from his white neighbors, and who called the police over 70 times begging for protection only be have his pleas ignored and to be brutally murdered anyway.

For the full story, see: Washington Post:

Stomped to death and burned, a Muslim immigrant's fate offers a tragic lesson in U.K.

(I do not have a link - please use Google.)

See also the BBC story,


One can only hope that the Supreme Court will rise above absurd legal quibbles such as the baseless argument to the effect that the courts cannot look into the real motives for Trump's Muslim ban because his executive order is, allegedly, "facially legitimate and bona fide" according to a non-binding dictum of the Supreme Court in the 1972 visa denial case mentioned above; or the almost comically absurd distinction that Trump's State Department is now making between Muslim grandparents, who are now barred from entering the US, and Muslim step-relations and in-laws, who are permitted, and strike down Trump's entire bad faith and meretricious (from the Latin word meretrix - look it up) Muslim ban order - including every single word of it.

The current controversy over whether or not Muslim grandparents should be allowed into the US according to the Supreme Court's June 26 order regarding Trump's Muslim ban also has a far more sinister antecedent - namely the German government's obsession between 1933 and 1945 with how many Jewish grandparents a person might have had in order to be eligible for deportation to a concentration camp, extinction in a gas chamber and cremation in an oven. See:

Jewish Virtual Library: The Nuremberg Laws: Background & Overview


What starts of as a farce and object of ridicule, in this case Trump's ban on grandparents from the six targeted Muslim countries, can end in tragedy and horror.

No one can rationally accuse Trump of anti-Semitism or supporting genocide against any group of people. That would, by far, be even more ridiculous and absurd than Trump's Muslim ban order itself.

But scapegoating any racial or religious group as being dangerous and undesirable, whether as in Trump's March, 2015 interview with CNN when he said "I think Islam hates us", or whether some 80 years ago, in the 1930's, as Joseph Goebbels pronounced: "Die Juden sind unser Unglueck!", can have terrible consequences.

This is what is really at stake in Donald Trump's Muslim ban executive order that is now before the Supreme Court.

Roger Algase
Attorney at Law