October 11, 2019 should go down in America's immigration history as a day of celebration and relief that one of the most bigoted and overtly racist policies that any US administration has attempted to impose on immigrants in the past almost 100 years, ever since the infamous "Nordics"-only national origins immigration act of 1924 was enacted, was blocked (at least temporarily) by no less than three separate federal district court judges - in the states of New York, Washington and California.

I refer, of course to the Trump-Miller Public Charge rule, which after two years of pushing and prodding by Stephen Miller, Trump's in-house anti-immigrant Torquemada and Svengali, was finally announced this past August, and was scheduled to go into effect on October 15.

The new rule was rammed through without any input from Congress and included a hugely expanded definition of "Public Charge" far beyond anything that Congress ever intended in this terms' long history. The Trump-Miller rule would have taken America a long way back toward reinstating the infamous whites only immigration act of 1924.

See, Common Dreams, October 11:

Federal Court Strikes Down Trump's 'Racist Wealth Test' Designed to Punish Low-Income Immigrants


But the three separate injunctions that were issued on October 11 (only two of which - those in district courts in the states of New York and Washington - were nationwide in scope), are only temporary. One can be sure that Trump will fight as hard as he can to reinstate this bigoted rule - going all the way to the US Supreme Court which has already upheld his overtly racist Muslim Ban and "Remain in Mexico" policies if necessary.

In his decision to issue a preliminary injunction against the new rule, which would have made immigrants who were self-supporting but who were also using or deemed "likely" to use Medicaid, food stamps, public housing, or another items in a long list of public benefits that millions of legal immigrants and American citizens are now using to protect the health and welfare of themselves and their families ineligible to receive green cards or other immigration benefits, Judge George B. Daniels of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York wrote the following in a lawsuit by the States of New York, Connecticut and Vermont and the City of New York against the DHS and USCIS :

"The Rule is simply a new agency policy of exclusion in search of a justification. It is repugnant to the American dream of the opportunity for prosperity and success through hard work and upward mobility. Immigrants have always come to this country seeking a better life for themselves and their posterity. With or without help, most succeed. "

Judge Daniels' decision also states:

"No less important is the immediate and significant impact that the implementation of the Rule will have on law-abiding residents who have come to this country to seek a better life. The consequences that Plaintiffs must address, and America must endure, will be personal and public disruption, much of which cannot be undone. Overnight, the Rule will expose individuals to economic insecurity, denial of their path to citizenship, and potential deportation - none of which is the result of any conduct by those such injuries will affect."

Judge Daniels added:

"It is a rule that will punish immigrants for their receipt of benefits provided by our government, and discourages them from lawfully receiving available assistance to aid them in becoming contributing members of our society. It is impossible to argue that their is no irreparable harm for these individuals, Plaintiffs, and the public at large."

What Judge Daniels did not mention in his decision, however, was the overt racial "animus" against nonwhite immigrants which clearly motivated the new Public Charge rule - the fact that it would obviously impact legal immigrants from less affluent part of the world and in skew the entire legal immigration system toward admitting mainly, or only, in a immigrants from white Europe (or as Trump reportedly put it in a January 18, 2018 White House meeting: "Countries like Norway ). in a reversion to the openly white supremacist "national origins" immigration act of 1924.

The only difference between the 1924 law and the Trump-Miller rule almost 100 years later is that the former was based on the fake and long since discredited "science" of Eugenics, i.e. inherent racial superiority, while the latter is ostensibly based on economics. But in the ultimate goal of establishing white supremacy as America's official immigration policy, there is little if any difference between the two.

Only impeachment can put an end to Trump's agenda of anti-immigrant racism and hate before a 2020 election which may be even less free from foreign interference and Republican attempts to suppress the vote by minority and other pro-immigrant U.S. citizens than was the case in 2016.

Roger Algase
Attorney at Law