The bitter controversy culminating in what can only be called a flawed FBI investigation (to put it politely) into serious criminal allegations of sexual misconduct against Brett Kavanaugh has had the unfortunate side effect of diverting attention away from an equally, if not even more important, consideration about his fitness for the lifetime appointment to the highest court in this nation which he has now received.

This consideration is, of course, whether he has the ability to be impartial and be bound by the law in making his decisions and issuing his opinions, or whether he will merely become a willing agent of Trump's agenda, including his avowed goal of undermining America's system of legal immigration to the point of destruction, or at least rolling it back more than half a century to the pre-1965 whites only regime that was instituted by the notorious "national origins" immigration act of 1924 which excluded almost everyone who was not from the "Nordic" countries of Europe - or to update it in Trumpian terminology, "Countries like Norway".

And let there be no mistake about this - that is Trump's goal, much of which is already being carried out by someone who might not unfairly be called Trump's immigration Torquemada, Stephen Miller.

Let us also be honest and realistic about this: Trump's agenda includes attacking almost every aspect of legal immigration in order to reduce the flow of non-white people into the United States. A London-based immigration lawyer, Karnig Dukmajian, lists some of the elements of this agenda in a September 5 article in the leading UK newspaper, Independent. See:

Be warned, if Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed to the US Supreme Court he will only strengthen Trump's invisible border wall.

There are many well publicized aspects of Trump's invisible "border wall" such as the Muslim Ban, ending DACA and TPS, extending family detention and most recently (though not mentioned in the article), the drastic proposal to use vastly inflated "Public Charge" exclusion grounds as a means to bar immigrants who are not from rich European counties, in a revival of the infamous use of this stratagem (as CUNY History Professor Hidetaka Hirota has written about extensively) to bar Irish immigrants in the mid-19th Century and Asian ones in the late 19th and early 20th.

Most shamefully of all, the Public Charge grounds were also used to deny what would have been life saving US visas to Jews trying to escape Hitler's Holocaust in the 1930'.

However, as Dukmejain writes, in addition to these well publicized perversions and distortions of existing immigration laws there are also equally dangerous parts of the Trump-Miller agenda which are more "under the radar'".

For example, Dukmejian mentions Trump;s "Buy American, Hire American" executive order instructing US visa officers to consider American "economic interests" as a grounds for denying visas to otherwise qualified applicants, even though there is no statute providing for visa denial on this basis.

Also highly disturbing, though not specifically mentioned, is Trump's frequently stated intention to end son-called "chain migration",(itself a highly pejorative, racially charged term) even though extended family immigration (which Melania Trump's parents just obtained US citizenship as a result of) is expressly permitted by current law.

In the context of using executive orders to make factors which are not in any statute grounds for denying visas, there is a disturbing parallel with one of Kavanaugh's immigration dissents as a D.C. Circuit Court Judge. As I have mentioned in a previous comment, Kananaugn not only disagreed with the majority over the issue of whether a Brazilian steak chef was qualified as an L-1B "specialized knowledge" employee, an issue about which there were admittedly genuine factual arguments on both sides, but Kavanaugh went way beyond the statute itself and roundly castigated the employer for allegedly not hiring enough US workers or giving them preference in recruitment, even though there was no such requirement in the statute.

Moreover, so far as I am aware from discussions about this case, the employer concerned had in fact hired numerous American chefs.

Going beyond anything found in the law itself in order to launch an irrelevant and unjustified attack on one of the litigants in an immigration case is not the hallmark of a judge who decides cases based on the law rather than according to his own personal or ideological views.

It is the hallmark of a judge with an agenda
- one which in this case happened to be similar to Donald Trump's agenda.of rolling back or abolishing most forms of legal immigration - even by highly skilled or specialized workers, if they are not from Europe.

Was this parallel between Kavanausgh's judicial "philosophy" in the above case (Fogo de Chao v. DHS, 3rd Circuit, 2014) and Trump's own agenda just a coincidence?

Or was Kavanaugh appointed to be Donald Trump's willing, "loyal" soldier on behalf of that agenda?

I will look more closely at this question in Part 2 of this comment, to appear shortly.

Roger Algase
Attorney at Law