Update July 27, 4:34 am:

On July 26, the Supreme Court's Republican majority gave Trump permission to go ahead with building his fascist border Wall. This means that the majority of the highest court in this land sees the court's mission as enabling Trump's white supremacist immigration agenda, not acting as a brake on his drive for absolute power.

Our democracy depends on maintaining an independent judiciary. This latest decision could well mean that America no longer has such a thing in the Donald Trump Era.

Update, July 25, 12:55 pm:

For another comment on the decision blocking Trump's attempt to flout US and international asylum and human rights law by ending asylum protections for virtually all Central Americans, see Greg Sargent in the Washington Post (July 25):

A judge just smacked down one of Trump's most dangerous moves yet

My earlier comment follows:

Two conflicting July 24 federal district court rulings
regarding the Trump administration's latest "Apply in Mexico" rule which would effectively ban virtually all Central Americans from seeking asylum in the US,, no matter how desperate their situation, illustrate the danger to judicial independence and human rights arising from the way that Trump-appointed judges have been stampeded through the confirmation process in the Republican-controlled Senate.

In a ruling based on overwhelming evidence from national and international human rights organizations, including the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR), and which administration lawyers were totally unable to refute, that Mexico is an unsafe country for asylum seekers and does not have adequate asylum application procedures in place, Judge Jon Tigar of the District Court for the Northern District of California issued a temporary nationwide injunction against the Trump administration from enforcing this rule,

In his decision in East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Barr., Judge Tigar upheld the central principle of all US and international asylum law, known as non-refoulement i.e, that no applicant should be sent back to an unsafe or dangerous country.

Citing the US State Department's own report on Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, Judge Tigar wrote (in a footnote on page 35 of his decision):

"The non-refoulement principle is a 'binding pillar of international law that prohibits the return of people to a risk of persecution or other serious human rights violations."

The scathing tone of Judge Tigar's decision is a telling indictment of the Trump administration's attempt to distort and disregard both the factual situation in Mexico relating to asylum ,and the essence of US and international asylum law.

Non-refoulement may be a binding principle of human rights and international law for applicable to everyone else on this planet Earth, but it does not appear to be binding on Donald Trump, Attorney General William Barr and Stephen Miller (who can safely be assumed to be a driving force behind this new rule, given his open hostility to the idea of legal refugees ever setting foot in the United States).

At least this would be true according to a different district court judge, Timothy J. Kelley in Washington D.C. who refused to grant a temporary injunction against the same asylum ban rule in a different lawsuit brought by two other immigrant rights organizations, Capital Area Immigrants' Rights Coalition of Washington and Texas based Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services.

Judge Kelly, who, unlike Judge Tigar, was appointed by Trump, denied a temporary injunction in a decision from the bench on the specious, if not absurd, grounds that while he was not discounting the impact of the rule on asylum seekers themselves, the two plaintiffs had allegedly failed to show sufficient harm to their own organizations or to identify exactly which individual asylum seekers, or how many would be affected by the ban. See: MSN, July 24:

Federal judge allows Trump administration rule restricting asylum access to continue

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/federal-judge-allows-trump-administration-rule- restricting asylum-access-to-continue-AAENzsh

In a case involving shutting down America's asylum system for virtually all of Central America, denying an injunction to organizations with the mission of protecting asylum-seekers' rights on the above grounds for failure to identify or count individual asylum-seekers is nonsensical to the point of being irrational.

It is indicative of a judicial goal of upholding the "Rule" of Donald Trump's anti-immigrant agenda, not the Rule of Law. Up to now, an independent judiciary has been the main brake on Donald Trump's drive for absolute power in an America for whits only..

As more "Trump Judges" (to use the president's own description), are rammed through Senate confirmation by a compliant Republican majority, this vital protection against America's turning into a one-man dictatorship is becoming more and more in danger of crumbling away.

Cheer leading for Trump's white supremacist immigration agenda rather than independent and objective decision-making may soon become the new normal at the agency which is chiefly responsible, for granting immigration benefits, USCIS, whose new Trump-appointed director, Ken Cuccinelli crowed that Judge Jelly's decision was a major victory for the Trump administration, according to the same MSN report.

This latest example of Trump's attempt to place white nationalism above the Constitution and immigration laws of the United States in pursuit of his own drive for absolute power must inevitably focus, once again, on the question why the timid, cowardly Democratic House leadership is holding back from impeachment hearings.

Surely the mortal threat to America's basic principles of equality and human rights represented by Trump's and Miller's attempts to dismantle our race-neutral immigration system, separation of powers and rule of law itself, warrant impeachment more than the non-immigration related corruption and collusion allegations which are now grabbing the headlines.

Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Nadler, where are you?

Roger Algase
Atorney at Law