On December 5, a three-judge 9th Circuit panel lifted temporary injunctions that had been imposed against enforcement of the bigoted Trump-Miller Public Charge exclusion rule which had been imposed by US district court judges in the states of California and Washington. The fact that this rule is aimed mainly against legal family-based and diversity immigrants form Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Latin America and is intended to restore white supremacy as the foundation of America's legal immigration system, as was the case prior to 1965, is beyond serious dispute.

While the 9th Circuit's order has no immediate effect, since nationwide injunctions against the Trump-Miller rule, by two other US district court judges remain in effect, the decision, by Circuit Judges Jay Bybee and Sandra Ikuta, both appointed by President G.W. Bush (Judge John Owens, who was appointed by President Obama, dissented) should come as a stark warning to immigration supporters.

This warning is that even the nation's most traditionally liberal Circuit Court may be in danger of endorsing something akin to Attorney General William Barr's proto-fascist "Unitary Executive" theory. According to this theory, the role of the federal courts is to "get out of the way" (to quote USCIS director Ken Cuccinelli) of the Trump-Miller agenda of taking America back toward the white supremacist, "Nordics only" immigration regime of 1924. It will be remembered that this openly bigoted law, which effectively banned most immigration from outside northern Europe, gave impetus to the fascist ideology which came to dominate Europe in the 1930'sand up until 1945.

In its decision, the 9th Circuit panel effectively gave Stephen Miller, whose far right racist views on immigration have just been made even more obvious in a trove of nearly 1,000 emails supporting the 1924 immigration law as a guideline for current policy, Carte Blanche to write his own bigoted immigration laws covering all aspects of our legal immigration system, without any interference from the other two branches of the government.

Indeed, Judge Bybee, who wrote the lengthy, 72-page majority decision, also took the remarkable step of a writing a concurring opinion in which even he expressed some concern that such a sweeping regulation had been promulgated without any input from Congress. Judge Owens, the Obama appointee, penned a brief, pathetically weak dissent, which did not mention any of the substantive issues .

I will discuss this decision, which could signal the beginning of the end of non-European legal immigration in America for decades to come, unless immigration supporters speak out and take action to oppose the bigoted, authoritarian Trump-Miller immigration agenda, in more detail in Part 2 of this 2-Part series.

The two cases involved are:

San Francisco v. DHS and State of Washington v. DHS.

A summary of the decision and link to the full text are available at politico.com:


Roger Algase
Attorney at Law