Update, May 20, 9:26 pm:

See also, Juan Escalante:

It's not just rhetoric. Trump's policies treat immigrants like me as animals


Update, May 19 at 2:56 pm:

For anther comment on how Trump's dehumanizing "animals" attack endangers all immigrants, not just gang members, see The Atlantic:


Update, May 17 at 1:26 pm:

For a great comment on the inhumanity of both Trump's racial attacks on Latino and other non-white immigrants and the unspeakable cruelty of his border family separation agenda, see Republican columnist Jennifer Rubin's excellent column in the May 17 Washington Post:

Republicans are blowing their cover on DACA

(I do not have a working link to this article - please go to Google to access.)

As Rubin puts it very succinctly, "America is sullied" by Trump's vilification and treatment of immigrants and by those who support this agenda.

My original comment appears below:

When the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals famously struck down Trump's Muslim Ban executive order last year on the grounds that it was motivated by unconstitutional "animus" against Muslim immigrants based on their religion, Trump's lawyers tried to defend his Islamophobic statements as mere campaign rhetoric which should be disregarded, now that he is the president, not just a candidate.

This defense will certainly not be available if immigrant advocates try to use Trump's much more recent statements referring to mainly Latino immigrants as "animals", including what one news outlet, not without justification, called his latest "racist anti-immigrant rant" at a May 16 White House meeting.


While Trump's defenders and opponents will no doubt spend a lot of time and ink arguing over whether Trump's latest attempt to emulate Adolf Hitler by demonizing and dehumanizing a targeted group of people was aimed only at MS-13 gang members. or at mainly Latino unauthorized immigrants in general (and what difference does it make? The Nazi editor of Der Sturmer, Julius Streicher, used to publish lists of Jewish "criminals" and was later executed for war crimes as a result), the federal courts are already looking into the question whether Trump's ongoing expressions of hatred against Latino and other non-white immigrants may be used to invalidate parts of his deportation agenda, not only his Muslim ban orders.

POLITICO legal analyst Josh Gerstein reports that the issue of whether Trump's cancellation of DACA was motivated in part or in whole by prejudice against Latino immigrants is now being looked into by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.


Gerstein reports as follows:

"Disparaging remarks that President Donald Trump made about Latinos and Mexicans surfaced Tuesday [May 15] at a key appeals court hearing on the Trump administration's bid to end the program protecting so-called Dreamers - immigrants brought to the U.S. illegally as children.

As a three-judge 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel considered whether to lift an injunction ordering the government to continue the Deferred Action for Childhood Program, Judge John Owens repeatedly raised the question of whether racial bias played a part in the decision to wind down DACA."

Gerstein's report continues:

"Owens formulated his questions in constitutional terms, asking about
'equal protection' claims, but a lawyer for DACA recipients jumped at the chance to talk about Trump's inflammatory statements.

'The president both before and after he took office referred to individuals from the very countries they're coming from as drug dealers, as druggies, as criminals, as bad individuals,' said Mark Rosenbaum of Public Counsel."

This exchange took place the day before Trump's latest assertion (though by no means the first one) that at least some Latino immigrants were not even human beings. One can only wonder how this latest expression of "animus" toward non-white immigrants will play out in the course of a pending ACLU lawsuit against Trump's brutal, if not openly sadistic, plan to separate immigrant children from their parents at the US border in order to "deter" unauthorized entry, or in other lawsuits which may very likely be filed in the future against other parts of Trump's agenda of limiting immigration to the US from non-white parts of the world and expelling millions of non-white immigrants from the US.

For a report on the ACLU lawsuit, see:


One point is beyond dispute, however. If one wants to use the term "inhuman" in the immigration context, that term is not appropriate to use about people from any country who may wish to come to or remain in the United States, no matter how much Donald Trump may be bothered by their ancestry, race or religion.

The word "inhuman" applies much more readily to Trump's mass deportation and exclusion agenda in general - whether against Latino mothers seeking asylum for themselves and their children, Muslim refugees trying to escape war and persecution in the Middle East, or African and Haitian immigrants whom Trump wants to keep out of the United States because their skin color is not as light as that of people in "Countries like Norway."

To summarize, Trump's "animals" comment about Latino immigrants leaves him open to the possibility of more federal court findings of animus against non-white immigrants which could, conceivably, jeopardize much of his inhuman anti-immigrant agenda.
Roger Algase is a New York immigration lawyer and a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School. He has been helping mainly skilled and professional immigrants from diverse parts of the world receive work visas ad green cards for more than 30 years.

Roger believes that immigration law must be looked at, first and foremost, from the perspective of racial justice and human rights. His email address is algaselex@gmail.com