"On January 27, 2017, via executive order, which he titled Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, President Trump ordered the U.S border indefinitely closed to Syrian refugees fleeing the civil war. He also abruptly temporarily halted (for 90 days) immigration from six other Muslim-majority nations: Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. Human rights activists described these actions as government-approved religious persecution. The order was stayed by Federal courts. The Trump White House would go on to issue revised versions of the ban on March 6, 2017 and September 24, 2017. The Supreme Court eventually upheld the third version in June 2018, with Chief Justice Roberts writing for the majority that "The Proclamation is expressly premised on legitimate purposes: preventing entry of nationals who cannot be adequately vetted and inducing other nations to improve their practices". However, dissenting, Justice Sonia Sotomayor compared the opinion to one made in 1944 which allowed the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. In a Guardian editorial, writer Moustafa Bayoumi criticised the Supreme Court for upholding the Executive Order, commenting, "The Muslim ban ruling legitimates Trump's bigotry [...] and the racist view that Muslims are a unique national security threat because they are Muslims persists."
This paragraph alone, which took me less then 5 seconds to find, is proof enough to me of howw little value this article holds. The ban was aimed at specifically war-torn countries, countries that are known extremist hotspots. The ban, that, by the way, wasn't ever meant to be perminant, and was a list that Obama himself used. We can get into the effects of immigration from 3rd world countries... it's an issue that I share few opinions with trump on, but using this incident as proof of racism? It's a longshot at best.