No, actually. 

We on the rational left employ standards to judge what is fair and unfair, not just what we may want personally. 

In this case, it is clearly unconstitutional and unfair to deny entry based solely on nation and religion. And since it doesn't even appear to have any practical security benefit it's hard not to describe it as bigoted. It's an arbitrary measure targeted to a very specific ethno-religious group. 

The closest parallel in a western democracy I can think of in history is either segregation the US or the isolation of Jews in the early days of Nazi Germany. Hitler didn't go straight to box cars and death camps, he started with labels and restrictions. You have to work up to the really impactful stuff I suppose. 

So there are very good substantive reasons to call it hate crime. Tell me again what your reasons are for thinking it's not?