Those who warned that Donald Trump's first Muslim Ban executive order issued almost immediately on becoming president 18 months ago was only the curtain-raiser to world-wide exclusion of non-white legal immigrants are now being proven right, as the fake "national security" pretext for the Muslim ban is now morphing into an even more phony "public charge" ban which could affect millions of Mexican and other non-European immigrants, as opposed to some 200 thousand caught up in the Muslim ban.

The only difference is that the initial Muslim ban caused widespread outrage among the American people leading to court action and the ultimate withdrawal of the order.

Now, a Trump adminnistration plan to impose a much wider ban based on absurdly inflated and distorted "public charge" grounds - which themselves had their origin in attempts to keep out Chinese, Jewish and other immigrants considered "racially undesirable" by the bigots of a century ago or more ago - and could affect many more immigrants than the Muslim ban, has caused hardly a murmur among the public and our politicians, and no lawsuit plans to date that I am aware of.

This increasing public acceptance of escalating authoritarian outrages against targeted minority groups is the way that a society loses its democracy, as the example of Germany in 1933 shows.

In the latest outrage involving the Trump administration's expanded use of the Public Charge exclusion grounds against legal immigrants who are totally self-supporting and have always been in compliance with our immigration laws down to the last comma, dotted "i" and crossed "t", the Houston Chronicle reports that a Mexican woman with a steady job and career in her country and a legal visitor visa, and who has made numerous trips to the US to visit her US citizen daughter and never overstayed by even a single day, was denied entry at the airport by CBP officers, had her visa cancelled and was barred from returning to the US for five years mainly on "Public Charge" grounds - because she used a legal US government program to help pay for a medical emergency on a previous visit.

Apparently as an afterthought, with no evidence other than the fact that she had made a number of legal visits to see her American family and always left on time, CBP also determined that she was inadmissible to the US as an "intending immigrant".

The Trump/Miller/Sessions message to immigrants, not only from Mexico, but from every part of the world, is becoming clearer and clearer with every new assault on the basic dignity and human rights of immigrants seeking to enter the United States in full compliance with our laws as written by Congress in accordance with our democratic system of government - not as unilaterally rewritten by the above triumvirate themselves.

This message is, obviously:

"We don't care what type of visa or other legal permission you may have. Don't even think of entering the United States unless you are 'Intending' - to be white."
Roger Algase is a New York attorney and graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School who has been practicing immigration law for 40 years. He concentrates mainly in the areas of skilled and professional work visas (H-1B); extraordinary ability business, scientific and artist visas (O-1); and green cards through PERM Labor Certification and family relationships. He also represents F-1 students who are beginning their business or professional careers.

Roger represents immigrants from diverse parts of the world. He believes that respecting the fundamental American values of racial equality and basic human rights in our immigration system is essential to maintaining our democracy - which is threatened today as rarely, if ever, before in this country's history.

Roger's email address is