When a Supreme Court divided along partisan lines upheld Trump's Muslim Ban executive order,barring mainly Middles Eastern and African immigrants, it deliberately closed its eyes to the overwhelming evidence of religious animus in direct violation of the Constitution that motivated the order (as the Fourth Circuit - not the nation's most liberal appeals court - described in its opinion blocking the Ban order.

The High Court has just upheld Trump's Asylum Ban directed primarily against Central American immigrants. Now, the attorney generals of 16 states have sued the Trump administration to block the Trump-Miller Public Charge Ban, which was unquestionably intended to, and undoubtedly will, have a devastating effect on immigrants of color from every part of the world if it is allowed to go into effect on October 15.

Will the Court also deliberately overlook the mountain o evidence described in the two lawsuits that have been filed so far that the new Public Charge rule will have an overwhelmingly disproportionate effect on immigrants of color and that it was motivated by intense racial animus? I If so this could be Strike Three against the principle of racial equality and justice which has been the law of the land in America ever since the Court's Brown v. Board of Education decision 65 years ago.

It could also mean the final undoing of the landmark immigration reform law of 1965 upholding the principle of racial equality, and could take America back to the bigoted 1924 immigration act which barred America's gates to almost all immigrants who were not from what Trump likes to refer to as "Countries Like Norway."

I will discuss the two pending lawsuits against the devastating Trump-Miller Public Charge rule in more detail in my next comment on this topic. This rule is clearly intended to, and very possibly could, keep America as a white-dominated nation in which immigrants of color are not welcome and have no rights at all for a generation or more to come.

Roger Algase
Atornney at Law