The uproar over Trump's openly racist attacks against an immigrant Congresswoman, Ilhan Omar (D-Minn) and three of US-born colleagues has led to an extraordinary vote by the House to condemn this latest example of presidential bigotry against nonwhite immigrants..Sadly, the vote (as usual, whenever race and immigration are at issue) was along party lines.

Only four House Republicans had the courage to join the Democrats in condemning Trump's vilification of the four duly elected Representatives as individuals who should "Go back home". because they "Hate America".

See, The Guardian, July 16:

House passes resolution officially condemning Trump's racist attack on congresswomen

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2019/jul/16/trump-news-today-live-racist-attack-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-resolution-republicans-latest

But if Trump is hoping for his white supremacist immigration agenda to stand up in the federal courts, he is his own worst enemy. His mouth and his tweets are the best arguments that his opponents have in blocking his attempts to overthrow the principle of racial equality which has been at the heart of America's immigration system for the past half century.

A July 16 Washington Post article, summarizes the growing record of Trump's court defeats in cases involving his immigration agenda. See:

Trump's racist comments can be used against him in court as judges cite them to block policies.

This list includes:

1) Trump's being forced to rewrite his bigoted Muslim ban three times before the Supreme Court narrowly approved what Trump himself complained as a greatly "watered-down" version.

2) Blocking of Trump's attempt to end TPS for brown immigrants from places which he has called "shithole" (i.e. nonwhite) countries.

3) Trump's court defeat and final capitulation on his attempt to add a citizenship question to the census in order to increase white power in Congress.

The article could also have mentioned the court decision striking down Trump's attempt to bar immigrants entering the US irregularly from applying for asylum. Trump is also facing what would appear to be the inevitable court defeat of his latest attempt to ban Central American asylum seekers by forcing them to apply for asylum first in the dangerously unsafe third countries that they pass though to get to the US.

This latest order makes a cruel mockery of the basic principle of both US and international asylum law, known as non-refoulement. i.e. not forcing asylum applicants to go back to places which are known to be dangerous and unsafe.

See: Politico, July 16:

ACLU files lawsuit to block Trump's seeping asylum ban

htttp://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/26/aclu-files-lawsuit-to-block-trumps-sweeping-asylum-ban-1417800

The above report quotes ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt as saying:

"This is the most extreme use of an asylum ban yet...It clearly violates domestic and international law and cannot stand."

This raises the question: Why does Trump keep making specious court arguments that are so embarrassingly "contrived" (to quote Chief Justice Robert in the census citizenship case) and are constantly contradicted by Trump's own racist attacks on immigrants that even his own DOJ legal team tried to resign en masse from defending him in the census litigation, because they could no longer tolerate being forced to lie to the courts to support his white supremacist immigration agenda?

The only answer that makes any sense is that Trump does not really care what the courts say or do. Yes, he has to back down from openly defying the courts, as he had threatened to do with the Supreme Court in the census case.


Continually making false arguments in court to justify unlawful actions against nonwhite immigrants, and to impose a white supremacist agenda on American citizens as well (as in the census case) - arguments which are constantly contradicted by his own racist statements, to the point where Trump's own administration's lawyers are unwilling to defend him - this shows a basic contempt for the entire judicial system and the rule of law itself..

This could have dangerous consequences for the future of democracy in Donald Trump's America.



Roger Algase
Attorney at Law