Update, June 8, 12:02 pm:

Here is an appropriate comment about the potential dangers of a Trump presidency for our democracy and for minority immigrant rights from Stuart Taylor, Jr., a Journalist and Brookings Institution Nonresident Scholar, writing in POLITICO Magazine on June 7:

"Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell and their colleagues will no longer deserve to be leaders of their party, or of anything else, if they continue to support a man who is now attacking the independent judiciary for daring to hear and make public evidence plausibly alleged to implicate Trump University in predatory fraud. Not to mention his displays of contempt for our constitutional traditions; his appalling ignorance of the law, the nation and the world; his constant stream of lies; his lashing out like a narcissistic would-be tyrant against reasoned criticism; and his insults to Mexican-Americans and Muslims."

See: "Why Trump's Assault on the Judiciary Is the Most Dangerous Thing He's Done:

The GOP presumptive nominee has already made a long step toward authoritarian rule."


My original post follows:

The Donald Trump cancer in America's democracy began with his attacks on Mexican immigrants as "criminals" and "rapists" and his promise to build a Wall along the Mexican border (which, to anyone with a sense of history, has to bring back memories of the Berlin Wall, or even the Wall separating the Warsaw Ghetto from the "Aryan" part of that city under the Nazis).

It then continued with Trump's pledge to engage in ethnic cleansing (a/k/a mass deportation) against 11 or 12 million mainly Latino, Asian and black immigrants who are in the US without legal authorization, using a "task force" to conduct midnight raids which one of his presidential campaign opponents, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) aptly compared to "jackboots" (i.e. Nazi storm troopers).

Then this cancer spread to Trump's proposal to bar virtually every Muslim in the world from immigrating to or visiting the United States - a proposal that Trump later tried to tone down as only a "suggestion", but which he has never retracted, while insisting that most Muslims around the world are filled with "hate" for America.

When Trump's racial and religious attacks were limited to immigration issues only, many people ignored them or tried to downplay them as nothing more than legitimate immigration enforcement policy proposals aimed at curbing illegal immigration and protecting against terror attacks on US soil.

Warnings that Trump's extreme immigration proposals were like a cancer that could spread to attack the foundations of American democracy itself were dismissed by many as unfounded, mere "name calling", or even "irrational".

But, with Trump's continuing attacks against "Mexican" and Muslim judges as inherently biased and unqualified to serve in cases involving him personally (amounting potentially to quite a few cases - Trump has reportedly filed some 3,500 lawsuits during his career so far), more and more people are concerned about the health, or even survival, of judicial independence which is at the foundation of our democracy, or even survival of the rule of law itself, in a Trump administration.

This concern is shared, not only by many politicians in Trump's own party, as per the headlines over the past few days, but also by legal experts.

The Associated Press reports as follows on June 7

"Trump's contention that [Judge Gonzalo] Curiel is biased against him because of Trump's border plan is 'ridiculous', said Josh Blackman, a young conservative law professor at South Texas College of Law in Houston.

'If that's the new standard for recusal, every judge in the federal judiciary who has some ethnicity or religion or race that affects a case has to recuse,' Blackman said."

The AP article continues:

"American Bar Association President Paulette Brown said personal criticism of a judge undermines judicial independence.

'Anyone running for the highest office in the land should understand that the independence of the judiciary is essential for and effective and orderly government and justice system,' Brown said.

The AP also gives an example of a Jewish federal court judge who refused to step down in a case where his ethnicity had been raised as an issue, but who later did step down in that same case for an entirely different reason:

"Federal judges have repeatedly rebuffed calls to step aside from cases over race, religion or ethnicity. U.S. District Judge Paul Borman, who is Jewish, turned down a request to withdraw from a case of a Palestinian immigrant accused of lying about her role in a fatal terrorist attack. 'Like every one of my colleagues on the bench, I have a history and a heritage, but neither interferes with my ability to administer impartial justice,' Borman said."

However, as the same article explains, Borman later did withdraw from the case after discovering that his family had a financial interest in the Jerusalem supermarket that the woman had helped bomb.

Concern among legal scholars over whether Trump would respect the law as president goes beyond Trump's use of racial and religious attacks against the judiciary, according to the same AP story:

"'The concern is that [Trump] would act unbounded in the presidency, in a way that doesn't follow the law.,' said John McGinnis, a Northwestern University Law professor...

'Here it's just about Trump. said Case Western Reserve University law professor Jonathan Adler.

More troubling, Adler said, is that the recent comments seem to fit into a pattern of intemperate remarks Trump has made during the campaign.

'He said he would give military officers unlawful orders and expect them to comply,' Adler said, referring to Trump's claim that the military would follow his orders to torture suspected terrorists. Trump has since backed off on that.

The AP story also quotes Professor Adler as saying of Trump:

"He has repeatedly given indications he has no appreciation for the rule of law..."

To be fair, the same AP article also quotes one legal expert as trying to draw an equivalency between Trump and Hillary Clinton on the issue of lack of respect for the rule of law

"Former federal appeals court judge Michael McConnell, an appointee of President George W. Bush, says he is not encouraged by the behavior of the leading candidate of either party, citing Clinton's troubles over the private email server she used when she was secretary of state.

'They both
seem to think they're above the law'...said McConnell, who teaches constitutional law at Stanford Law School."

While no one, including Hillary herself, is arguing that her handling of emails was entirely beyond criticism, and granting that she is still under FBI investigation in this regard, a comparison between her and Trump for claiming to be above the law would carry more weight if Hillary had also engaged in racial and religious attacks on federal judges and supported the use of torture

The comparison would also have more force if Hillary had tried to intimidate her opponents by threats of retaliation, including "opening up" the libel laws to undermine the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech; and banning the entire membership of a major world religion from entering the US in violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of religion; while calling for surveillance of US citizen members of this religion, including their places of worship.

Unlike Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton has not done any of the above.

The link to the above AP article is:

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 mainly skilled and professional immigrants obtain work visas and green cards.

Roger's practice is primarily focused on H-1B specialty worker and O-1 extraordinary ability petitions, J-1 training visas, and green cards through labor certification and opposite sex or same sex marriage. His email address is algaselex@gmail.com