In what can only be termed as an authoritarian coup by a Republican party which is increasingly, and with justification being compared to quasi-fascist right wing regimes in Hungary and other countries, See Brian Klaas, in the September 20 Washington Post:

American democracy can't withstand four more years of Trump

See also: The Guardian, October 26:

Republicans closely resemble autocratic regimes in Hungary and Turkey - study

Justice Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed and sworn in after her nomination by Donald Trump was rammed through the Senate by its Republican majority only two weeks before the November 3 presidential election, without giving the American people the chance to make their voices heard.

What doe this mean for the future of immigration? Not very good news, if one looks at Justice Barrett's dissent (while she was a circuit court judge) in the recent 7th Circuit case of Cook County v. Wolf, involving the legality of Stephen Miller's overtly bigoted new Public Charge rule. Miller himself has been quoted as saying that his rule is meant to be "socially transformative" - i.e. to eliminate most nonwhite legal immigration, according to many of his recently leaked emails.

In her dissent from a majority 2-1 decision granting a preliminary injunction against the Public Charge rule (which is no longer in force - the Rule went into effect on September 11 - already a dark day in US history for entirely different reasons), Justice Barrett ignored the obviously discriminatory intent of the rule,

She also ignored the long and shameful history of Public Charge being used as an instrument of bigotry against minority immigrants for almost the past 200 years. Instead, she took the narrowest possible view of both the impact and meaning of the term "Public Charge", limiting herself to a largely academic study of what this term may or may not have meant in past Public Charge legislation.

To be continued in Part 2

Roger Algase
Atorney at Law