Trump's May 8 decision to tear up the Iran Nuclear Weapons Deal is a foreign policy question that beyond the scope of this immigration law discussion site, and I therefore make no comment on the merits of this action.

(This is despite the fact that the late 19th Century Supreme Court cases such as Chae Chan Ping v US (1889) which effectively held that federal power to bar Chinese and other non-white immigrants on racial grounds is not subject to the constitutional guarantees of due process or equal protection, reached this conclusion in part because immigration is purportedly part of foreign policy.)

However, from a strictly immigration law perspective, Trump's comment near the end of his speech about the effect of his decision on the Iranian people, as opposed to their oppressive and brutal regime, is highly significant:

"Finally, I want to deliver a message to the long-suffering people of Iran. The people of America stand with you."

Then, after condemning Iran's dictatorship, Trump continued:

"But the future of Iran belongs to its people. They are the rightful heirs to a rich culture and an ancient land and they deserve a nation that does justice to their dreams, honor to their history and glory to their god."

To be continued:

These are certainly stirring words - showing that, unlike many of his controversial cabinet picks, Trump has chosen speechwriters who are no less talented than those of any previous president. But how much does Trump really care about the Iranian people and his stated goals of doing "justice to their dreams"?

If the right to justice. the dreams, and the honor of people of Iran are so important to Trump, why are they on the list of people who are barred from entering the United States merely because they happen to live in a country whose citizens, along with those of several other almost 100 per cent Muslim countries, are barred from entering the United States solely because of their nationality?

Back at the beginning of this year, on January 3, Suzanne Maloney, deputy director of the Foreign Policy program at the Brookings Institution and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution for Middle East policy, wrote the following in a Foreign Policy magazine article about the effect of the effect of Trump's Muslim ban order (which most commentators and journalists still euphemistically insist on calling a "travel ban") on the ordinary people of Iran, especially those who share Donald Trump's opposition to that country's repressive rulers:

"Finally, the most important step that the White House could take in support of Iran's courageous opposition would be to remove Iran from the list of countries subject to Trump's travel ban. Iranians were justifiably affronted by the restrictions, in part because they were disproportionately affected."

She continues:

"Even as the restrictions were put in place, they blocked women's rights activists, victims of torture by the security services and other human rights defenders from entering the United States and shattered the hopes of many others who saw the United States as a beacon of hope and freedom."

Muloney adds:

"While their government may be reprehensible, there is simply no evidence that Iranian travelers pose a terrorist threat. The facts show just the opposite. The millions of tourists, students, immigrants and refugees who have come to the United States since 1979 have contributed greatly to American society and the US economy..."

She concludes:

"Ending the restrictions on Iranian travel to the United States isn't merely a symbolic step. Unfortunately, past experience suggests that unrest within Iran may force some activists and dissidents into hurried exile. All those who are risking their lives and their livelihoods to challenge Iran's repressive government should know that American support goes beyond words - that the country can be a place of refuge for today's human rights defenders, just as it has been for so many before them."

If Trump genuinely believes that the Iranian dictatorship is a danger to world peace because of its nuclear weapons program and wants to help the people who are being hurt the most by this regime, it would make sense for him to remove the "long-suffering" people of Iran from the Muslim ban list. Better yet, as Maloney also suggests in her article, he should rescind the Muslim ban entirely, in accordance with America's most fundamental ideals and its constitutional guarantee of religious freedom.

Unfortunately, while Trump may make an occasional nice speech in support of human rights, his entire immigration program to date, including but not limited to the Muslim ban, shows that he is more interested in looking for scapegoats and demons in support of a nativist, white supremacist agenda.

Postscript: The Washington Post reported on May 8 that one of trump's campaign managers, Brad Pascuale, is boasting to Trump's supporters that Trump can be trusted because he fulfilled a campaign promise to pull out of the Iran nuclear deal:"A promise made is a promise kept."

But didn't Trump also make a campaign promise to ban all Muslims in the entire world from entering the United States? Isn't his Muslim ban order also (as much as the courts would allow) "A promise made and a promise kept"?

And doesn't this completely demolish Trump's argument before the Supreme Court that the Court should disregard his anti-Muslim campaign promises in deciding on the legality of the Muslim ban?

Roger Algase is a New York immigration lawyer and a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School. He has been helping mainly skilled and professional immigrants from diverse parts of the world receive work permits and green cards for more than 35 years. Roger's email address is