Update, May 28, 2016, 9:07 pm:

Trump has not only called Gonzalo Curiel, the federal judge handling the lawsuit over Trump University, a "Mexican" but also a "hater" a word reminiscent of his accusation that many, if not most, Muslims around the world "hate America" and that therefore all of the 1.6 billion members of this religion on this planet should be barred fron entering the United States:

The following is exactly what Trump said about Judge Curiel at his May 27 San Diego rally, according to POLITICO.

"I have a judge who is a hater of Donald Trump, a hater. His name is Gonzato Curiel,..I think Judge Curiel should be ashamed of himself...I'm telling you, this court system, judges in this court system, federal court, they ought to look into Judge Curiel. Because what Judge Curiel is doing is a total disgrace, OK?

Let us think about the above words for a minute. If Trump is so eager to engage in racial slurs and vindictive threats against a judge whom he disagrees with when Trump is only a candidate and a private citizen, how independent can we expect the judiciary to be if Trump accedes to the enormous powers of the presidency?

What would happen to judges who issue decisions or take actions that Trump might disagree with, particularly on the super-sensitive issue of immigration on which Trump has such extreme views? Where would America's separation of powers under the Constitution be? What would happen to our democracy?

In this regard, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's attempt to defend Trump by assuring us that democracy and the Constitution will somehow survive if Trump becomes president are particularly chilling, How many presidents have we had whose supporters in their own party have had to say, in effect, "Don't worry, our candidate won't really be a dictator - our democracy is strong enough to outlast even him."

The following are McConnell's exact words, according to POLITICO.

"But what protects us in this country against big mistakes being made is the structure, the Constitution, the institutions, no matter how unusual a personality gets elected to office...There are constraints in this country. You don't get to do anything you want to..."

This may seem reassuring to some people who are not worried about electing a president who is so prone to use racial slurs, threats and personal attacks against anyone who disagrees with him, on immigration or any other issue. I doubt that very many people who care about America's democracy will find it reassuring.

The above two POLITICO articles are:




The following is my original post:

A frequently heard argument in defense of Donald Trump's attacks on Mexicans and other minorities is that he is only trying to highlight the need to enforce the immigration laws and protect America's borders more effectively, something that other politicians in both parties have given lip service to but allegedly never taken seriously.

Trump himself has claimed, with a good deal of justification, that he is personally responsible for putting immigration enforcement issues at the front and center of this year's presidential campaign by calling for a Wall along the Mexican border, mass deportation of 12 million unauthorized immigrants and banning all Muslims in the entire world from entering the US purely because of their religion.

But are Trump's attacks on minorities, including his statements that Mexican immigrants are "criminals" and "rapists" and that many or most Muslims around the world are filled with hatred for America, made purely out of concern over a perceived need to beef up immigration enforcement in order to protect the American people against crime, terror and job losses? Or is immigration enforcement only being used as a smoke screen for a deeper agenda, one involving the age old attempt by would be authoritarian leaders to seize power by appealing to fear and prejudice against unpopular minorities in general?

Two recent incidents in indicate that Trump's attacks on minorities are motivated by factors that go beyond immigration law enforcement issues, because they involve openly racial attacks on individuals who are obviously US citizens and therefore could not possibly be "illegal" immigrants.

One of these targets is a federal judge, and the other is a United States Senator.

At a contentious May 27 rally in San Diego that attracted vigorous protests from Latinos and their supporters, Trump attacked the federal judge who is hearing the lawsuit against Trump University, Gonzalo P. Curiel, as being "very hostile" toward him, and then said, according to the Los Angeles Times, that:

"the judge, who happens to be Mexican, which is great, I think that's fine..."

The obvious question is why, if that was really fine with Donald Trump, the judge's ethnic background had anything to do with this lawsuit. To give an example, suppose that Trump, when he turned down Bernie Sanders' offer for a debate, had said that Sanders happens to be Jewish.

Of course, Trump said no such thing. But if he (or Hillary Clinton, or any of Trump's primary opponents) had made such a reference, it would have been on headlines all over America as a throwback to a time when anti-Jewish sentiment was rampant in the United States.

However, based on the way that most of the media have covered Trump's campaign to date, we should not be surprised if Trump's latest anti-Mexican slur disappears from the news in another day or two.



In another incident, CBS News reports on May 25 that, at a rally in Albuquerque, NM, which also drew its fair share of protesters, Trump called Senator Elizabeth Warren "Pocahontas" for once having claimed to have Native American ancestry. If there is any minority group in America that has nothing whatsoever to do with immigration, it is Native Americans.

(This is unless one refers to the white Europeans who came to this country to try to exterminate Native Americans as "immigrants".) See:


At least, one could argue, Donald Trump is not a hypocrite. He doesn't try to conceal the ethnic prejudices which seem to come him so naturally and with he appears to be so comfortable.

But, given that his draconian proposals for dealing with illegal immigration and the threat of terrorism go hand in hand with demeaning comments about Mexicans and Muslims in general; and that his proposals to make drastic reductions in legal immigration by eliminating H-1B visas and labor certification green cards are hard to separate from his speeches mocking Indian and Chinese accents; and that he is now attacking American citizens on ethnic grounds over issues that have nothing to do with immigration, is there not a reasonable, or even compelling basis for concluding that Trump's immigration policies are driven by a deeper and broader bias against non-white ethnic and religious minorities in general, and not just by the perceived merits of the immigration issues which form such a major part of his campaign and his appeal to working class white voters?

For more on the danger that anti-Asian prejudice may be on the increase in America, which, if true, could explain both Trump's demeaning comments about Asian accents, but also his proposals to eliminate a major part of America's skilled worker visa system, (not to mention his tirades against alleged currency exchange rate manipulation by China and Japan) see:


Roger Algase is a New York immigration lawyer and a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School. For more than 35 years, he has been helping primarily skilled and professional workers obtain work visas and green cards. His practice is primarily focused on H-1B specialty occupation and O-1 extraordinary ability work visas, J-1 training visas, and green cards through labor certification and opposite sex or same sex marriage.

Roger's email address is algaselex@gmail.com