Update: October 7:

In what could signal the end of both legal immigration and birthright US citizenship for tens of millions of non-white immigrants and their US-born children, as well as democracy in America itself, Donald Trump has been successful along with his Senate enablers in strong-arming Justice Bett Kavanaugh onto the nation's highest court after a farcial FBI "investigation" which was about as free of interference from the top as a similar one would have been in Stalinist (or Putin's) Russia or Kim's North Korea.

It remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court will continue to exist as an independent branch of government, or whether it will just become a rubber stamp for Trump's white supremacist immigration agenda.

The kind of hatred against minority immigrants which Federal District Judge Edward Chen denounced in the TPS decision discussed below and which the 4th Circuit also condemned in the Muslim ban litigation before being reversed by the Supreme Court, even B.K. (Before Kavanaugh) is now set to become the law of the land in Donald Trump's United States of America - as our democracy itself - which depends on an independent judiciary, falls by the wayside.


My original comment appears below:


The Washington Post reports on October 4 that a federal judge in San Francisco, Edward M. Chen, has issued a temporary injunction blocking the Trump administration's plan to terminate TPS for about 300,000 immigrants who fled violence and disaster in Haiti, Sudan, Nicaragua and El Salvador. In Ramos v. Nielsen (see direct link to the decision in the WP's article) the Judge said that there were "serious questions as to whether a discriminatory purpose was a motivating factor" in the decision to terminate TPS, The decision also said that the administration "lacked any explanation or justification" for termination TPS in this case.

See also:

https://rewire.news/article/2018/10/04/judge-temporarily-blocks-trump-administration-from-terminating-tps-for-four-countries/

According to the WP report:

"He [Judge Chen] cited statements by President Trump denigrating Mexicans , Muslims, Haitians and Africans including his January remark about 'people from shithole countries' and his June 2017 comments that 15,000 recent immigrants from Haiti 'all have AIDS'".

(Presumably, the Haitian waiters or gardeners whom Trumps has recently sponsored as H-2B workers for his own Florida golf resorts are all in good health, however.)

In the same decision, Judge Chen also said that there were serious questions about whether the DHS decision to end TPS:

"...was influenced by the White House and based on animus against nonwhite, non-European immigrants in violation of Equal Protection guaranteed by the Constitution."

A link to the full decision is included in the WP's article entitled:

Federal Judge, citing Trump racial bias, says administration can't strip legal status from 300,000 Haitians, Salvadorans and others - for now

(The article can be accessed though Google. I do not have a link.)

This decision, which will no doubt be looked on with great displeasure by presumed Justice Brett Kabanaugh (who has also shown considerable negativity toward immigrant rights in general in his Circuit Court opinions, as I have written about in previous comments) if he is confirmed to the High Court, also raises the question whether the issue of Trump's racial animosities toward non-white immigrants, which he has not tried very hard to conceal either as a candidate or as president, will come up in future litigation relating to other parts of his immigration agenda.

On such example might very well be the sweeping expansion of the Public Charge exclusion grounds which DHS is now reportedly planning in order to carry out Trump's December 29, 2017 statement that extended family immigration, which was originally enacted in 1965 to benefit European immigrants, but has over the past half century benefited mainly non-European ones, is "horrible" and should be abolished. It would be very surprising if an attempt by the administration to use this provision, which in the past has been used to exclude Irish, Asian, Jewish and other unpopular immigrants (as CUNY history professor Hidetaka Hirota has documented and which I will have more to say about in a forthcoming comment) against Latin American, African, Muslim and other non-white immigrants does not come up as a topic for federal court litigation in the near future.

This is one more reason why immigration advocates should be very, very concerned about the lack of serious scrutiny being given to Judge Kavanaugh's fitness to serve on the Supreme Court. He may make an enormous difference in immigration policy in the future - and not necessarily one which would put any kind of brake on presidential power to use racial animus as a principal motivating factor in immigration policy making.

Roger Algase
Attorney at Law