Update, January 27, 8:59 pm:

For the latest about the outraged reaction to what AOC rightly calls the "shameful" decision by the Supreme Court's ideological Republican majority to allow Stephen Miller's Public Charge agenda of hate against nonwhite immigrants to move forward, see alternet.org (January 27);


Update, January 27, 6:25 pm:

Today is a sad day in the history of US immigration, because the US Supreme Court today lifted a lower court injunction against Stephen Miller's expanded, bigoted and invidious version of the infamous Public Charge rule, which has a 200-year old history of hate; first against Irish, then against Chinese, later against Jewish immigrants trying to escape Hitler, and now against all nonwhite immigrants.

How ironic that a rule which once resulted in Jewish refugees winding up at Auschwitz instead of being admitted to the United States was allowed o go into effect by the Supreme Court's ideological Republican majority in a 5-4 decision on the 75th anniversary of the liberation of that death camp.

Now this rule will be used against all non-European immigrants to the US in an even more virulent and bigoted form by the white supremacist Trump administration.

More about this ominous development will appear in my forthcoming separate comment on this issue.

Update, July 25, 9:59 a.m.

While the media continues to focus on an impeachment trial which Trump's Republican defenders are rigging to guarantee an acquittal, no matter how much evidence of abuse of power and obstruction of justice the House managers present against him, the main charges which should have been filed against him have been entirely ignored.

This is except for a progressive San Francisco-based group called Indivisible SF, which has drawn up its own model Articles of Impeachment against Trump for:

"Racist Bigotry"

especially against immigrants. For details, see


This model exposes Trump's entire immigration agenda as nothing but an attempt to exploit racial hatred for political gain and to divide America along racial lines. This should have been the central grounds for impeachment, just as racism was a major factor in the 1868 proceedings against President Andrew Johnson.

For more details see my upcoming comment on this topic. My original comment appears below.

Every time the Trump administration issues a new diktat against
legal immigration from nonwhite areas of the world, the media focuses on the details of the official pretext rather, than the broad pattern of racial/religious hatred and discrimination that constitute the real reason for the action, In the case of the Muslim ban, the media focused on the superficial excuse of a government "terror" list, even though Trump had made clear during his presidential campaign that his real motive was hatred of Muslims in general. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court majority bought into this same excuse and chose to ignore our Constitutional protection for freedom of religion and our immigration laws prohibiting racial or religious discrimination in the issuance of visas.

In the same way when the Trump-Miller administration issued the openly bigoted expanded version of a nearly 200-year old "Public Charge" rule that was clearly designed to eliminate most family-sponsored immigration from outside relatively wealthy Europe, the media focus was again on the superficial details.

The same was true with the latest H-1B restrictions, consisting of sky-high USCIS denial rates based, in many cases, on a distorted and biased interpretation of the term "specialty occupation". This is taking place under the leadership of a USCIS director who is on record as stating that the Statue of Liberty is a symbol of welcome for Europeans only.

We are now seeing the same media myopia with regard to Trump's attack on birthright citizenship through the device of prohibiting "birth tourism" - a practice which in the public image is mainly identified with women from China, even though other counties such as Russia and Nigeria are also allegedly involved.

"Birth tourism" is being attacked as an "abuse". An abuse of what? Does anyone seriously think that Donald Trump and Stephen Miller would be raising an outcry and that their supporters would be complaining about "abuse" if women from "Countries like Norway" gave birth while visiting the United States so that their children could be recognized as US citizens?

There is no evidence whatever for the Trump administration's Orwellian claim that a tiny handful of Chinese and other women, estimated at between about 10,000 and at most 30,000 per year, according to reports, in a nation of 300 million present any conceivable "national security risks" or that birth tourism "overburdens valuable hospital resources" or hurts American taxpayers, has any validity in fact. See, Washington Post

Trump creates new hurdles for pregnant women seeking U.S. tourist visas

To the contrary, the sole purpose of the new bar is to bring back the spirit of the almost 100 year period between the adoption of the 14th amendment's guarantee of birthright citizenship in 1868 and the enactment of the immigration reform law in 1965 when Chinese and other Asian immigrants were not welcome in the United States.

During part of this period, from 1868 to the Supreme Court's Wong Kim Ark decision in 1898, anti-Chinese bigots challenged the 14th amendment's application to any group of people other than newly emancipated African-Americans. Then, beginning with the first infamous Chinese exclusion law of 1882, Chinese immigrants were barred from becoming naturalized US citizens, a bar which lasted until 1943.

This openly racist bar against naturalization was also extended to all Asian and other nonwhite immigrants in the early 20th century. It is this regime of hatred and discrimination against Asian and other nonwhite immigrants that Donald Trump and Stephen Miller are now bringing back to America.

I will discuss America's dismal history of bigotry against Chinese immigrants, including especially Chinese immigrant women, in more detail in a forthcoming comment.

Roger Algase
Attorney at Law
Harvard Law School LL.B
Harvard College A.B.