BREAKING: Trump says he will 'immediately' deport two to three million illegal immigrants with criminal records - and insists he WILL build a wall

By Khaleda Rahman For Dailymail.com

(The Daily Mail) President-elect Donald Trump has said that he plans to deport two to three million undocumented immigrants immediately - and that he will be building his wall along the US-Mexico border.

In an interview with CBS's 60 Minutes that airs on Sunday - his first since winning the election - Trump insisted that he will build the wall that was a vital part of his presidential campaign.

'What we are going to do is get the people that are criminal and have criminal records, gang members, drug dealers, where a lot of these people, probably two million, it could be even three million, we are getting them out of our country or we are going to incarcerate,' Trump said.

'But we're getting them out of our country, they're here illegally.'

Link:

• BREAKING: Trump says he will 'immediately' deport two to three million illegal immigrants with criminal records - and insists he WILL build a wall

Donald J. Trump Statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration

(New York, NY) December 7th, 2015, -- Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on. According to Pew Research, among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population. Most recently, a poll from the Center for Security Policy released data showing "25% of those polled agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad" and 51% of those polled, "agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah." Shariah authorizes such atrocities as murder against non-believers who won't convert, beheadings and more unthinkable acts that pose great harm to Americans, especially women.

Mr. Trump stated, "Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life. If I win the election for President, we are going to Make America Great Again." - Donald J. Trump

Links:

• Donald J. Trump Statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration
• Poll of U.S. Muslims Reveals Ominous Levels Of Support For Islamic Supremacists’ Doctrine of Shariah, Jihad

Catholic Scholar Asks Why Bishops Haven't Denied Communion Over Ariz. Law

Published June 17, 2010 | FOXNews.com

A longtime Catholic scholar is suggesting that bishops consider denying communion to Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and other officials who support the Arizona immigration law.

Anthony Stevens-Arroyo, religious author and outgoing director of Brooklyn College's Center for Study of Religion in Society and Culture, wrote in a column that Catholic leaders are holding back in their condemnation of the law, opening them up to charges of hypocrisy. Given that bishops have in the past threatened to withhold communion to officials who support abortion rights and other issues that run counter to church teaching, Stevens-Arroyo questioned why they weren't applying the same practice here.

"In the face of hideous injustice, words are not enough. Will any of today's bishops deny communion to Catholic officials who vote for this bill and its spawn of imitators in other states? Has censure been voiced against the local sheriff Joe Arpaio (a Catholic) who has led raids on Latinos?" he wrote, while adding that he doesn't personally support denying political figures communion.

Arpaio is the Maricopa County sheriff both loved and loathed for his crackdowns on illegal immigrants in the Phoenix area. He is facing renewed attention, including from religious groups, after he announced this week that he'll launch another raid as soon as the law goes into effect July 29.

The Arizona Ecumenical Council is urging the sheriff to stop what it calls his "excessive, wasteful and divisive campaign."

However, religious leaders in the state said they had not heard anybody talking about denying Arpaio or others communion -- a Catholic sacrament and the mose important part of the Mass, when parishioners consume bread and wine representing Jesus' body and blood.

Jan Olav Flaaten, director of the Arizona Ecumenical Council, said he doesn't think anybody will withhold communion over the issue, though faith leaders have been lobbying against the law in meetings with state and federal officials.

Father Velasquez, pastor at Our Lady of Grace Catholic Church in Maricopa, Ariz., also said the regional bishop has not asked any churches to deny communion over the immigration law and that he doesn't think that would happen.

Though bishops have threatened to withhold communion to officials, like Vice President Biden and Rep. Patrick Kennedy, for their support of abortion rights, Velasquez said the immigration debate is completely different.

"There's moral laws that are not being broken. ... Every country has a right to establish their boundaries," he said. "The fact that you can have immigration rules is moral. There's nothing wrong with that. ... Abortion is always taking an innocent life."

The director of the Arizona Catholic Conference, which opposes the immigration law, also said he wasn't aware of any religious leaders talking about denying communion to Arpaio and others.

Stevens-Arroyo, whose column was published on WashingtonPost.com, could not be reached for comment. In his article, he said communion should not be exploited for "political" purposes, but suggested some bishops might want to use it in this case.

"I am against denying communion as a political tool, but I think bishops who have done so about other issues like same-sex marriage create a dilemma for themselves. If they do not treat violations of Church teaching on immigration with the same measure as other issues, they run the risk of scandal to Catholic America that sees loyalty to all of the Magisterium as essential," he wrote.

• Link

Obama Fomenting A Constitutional Crisis: Constitutional Lawyer Discusses Ramifications Of Controversy

By John P. Connolly, The Bulletin

12/01/2008

Controversy continues to surround President-elect Barack Obama's eligibility to serve as president, and a case involving his birth certificate waits for its day before the U.S. Supreme Court. A constitutional lawyer said were it to be discovered that Mr. Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen, it would have grave consequences for the nation.

According to the Constitution, a president must be a natural born citizen of the U.S. Mr. Obama's critics have failed to force him legally to produce his original birth certificate, and Mr. Obama has resisted any attempt to make him do so. Currently, only Hawaii Department of Health officials have access to Mr. Obama's original records.

Some of Mr. Obama's critics have said he was born in Kenya and have claimed he is a citizen of Kenya, Indonesia, or even a British subject.

Edwin Vieira, a constitutional lawyer who has practiced for 30 years and holds four degrees from Harvard, said if it were to be discovered Mr. Obama were not eligible for the presidency, it would cause many problems. They would be compounded if his ineligibility were discovered after he had been in office for a period of time.

"Let's assume he wasn't born in the U.S.," Mr. Vieira told The Bulletin. "What's the consequence? He will not be eligible. That means he cannot be elected validly. The people and the Electoral College cannot overcome this and the House of Representatives can't make him president. So what's the next step? He takes the oath of office, and assuming he's aware he's not a citizen, then it's a perjured oath."

Any appointments made by an ineligible president would have to be recalled, and their decisions would be invalidated.

"He may have nominated people to different positions; he may have nominated people to the judicial branch, who may have been confirmed, they may have gone out on executive duty and done various things," said Mr. Vieira. "The people that he's put into the judicial branch may have decided cases, and all of that needs to be unzipped."

Mr. Vieira said Obama supporters should be the ones concerned about the case, because Mr. Obama's platform would be discredited it he were forced to step down from the presidency later due to his ineligibility, were it to be discovered.

"Let's say we go a year into this process, and it all turns out to be a flim-flam," said Mr. Vieira. "What's the nation's reaction to that? What's going to be the reaction in the next U.S. election? God knows. It has almost revolutionary consequences, if you think about it."

Mr. Vieira said Mr. Obama's continued silence and avoidance in the release of his birth certificate is an ethical issue because of the dire consequences that could be caused by a possible constitutional crisis.

"If he were my client and this question came up in civil litigation, if there was some reason that his birth status was relevant and the other side wanted him to produce the thing and he said 'no,' I would tell him, 'you have about 15 minutes to produce it or sign the papers necessary to produce the document, or I'm resigning as your attorney," said Mr. Vieira. "I don't think any ethical attorney would go ahead on the basis that his client could produce an objective document in civil litigation [and refused to do so]."

Further, Mr. Vieira cited a fraud ruling in a 1977 case called U.S. v. Prudden, which he feels applies in this case.

"Silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a legal and moral duty to speak or when an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading," the ruling reads. "We cannot condone this shocking conduct ... If that is the case we hope our message is clear. This sort of deception will not be tolerated and if this is routine it should be corrected immediately."

Mr. Vieira said such an ethical question of representing a client who refused to produce such a basic document is important, even in a small civil case. The current question is concerning the man who potentially could have his finger next to the nuclear button.

"[The birth certificate], in theory, should be there," said Mr. Vieira. "What if it isn't? Who knows, aside from Mr. Obama? Does Russian intelligence know it isn't there? Does Chinese intelligence know it isn't there? Does the CIA know that it isn't there? Who is in a position to blackmail this fellow?"

Mr. Vieira explained all laws have to be submitted to the president. In the event that there is no valid president, then no laws passed by Congress in that administration would be legally null and void. Because of that, this case will probably not go away, even after Mr. Obama takes the oath of office.

"If you don't produce it, you think it's going to go away," he said. "There are all these cases challenging Mr. Obama, and some challenging secretaries of state, and they run into this doctrine called standing."

Mr. Vieira explained although legal standing is difficult to get around in Federal courts, the document could be produced in any criminal cases stemming from legislation passed in the Obama administration.

"Let's assume that an Obama administration passes some of these controversial pieces of legislation he has been promising to go for, like the FOCA (Freedom of Choice) Act," said Mr. Vieira. "I would assume that some of those surely will have some severe civil or criminal penalties attached to them for violation. You are now the criminal defendant under this statute, which was passed by an Obama Congress and signed by President Obama. Your defense is that is not a statute because Mr. Obama is not the president. You now have a right and I have never heard this challenged, to subpoena in a criminal case, anyone who has relevant evidence relating to your defenses. And you can subpoena them duces tecum, meaning 'you shall bring with you the documents.' "

Such a criminal defense would enable the defendant to subpoena any person to testify in court and any person to bring evidence in their possession to the court.

Further, records could be subpoenaed directly, in the case of a birth certificate. Once the record could be subpoenaed, the birth certificate could be examined by forensic experts, who would then be able to testify to the document's veracity as expert witnesses. Any movement by the judges to make a special exception to the president in a criminal case would hurt the legitimacy of that presidential administration.

"I can't believe I'm the only lawyer who would think of this," said Mr. Vieira. "I think any criminal lawyer defending against one of these politically charged statutes is going to come up with this. That means it will never go away until that document is laid down on the table and people say, 'yes, there it is.' And therefore they're caught. If people keep challenging this and the judges out of fear keep saying 'no, go to jail, go to jail, go to jail' then that's the end of the Obama administration's legitimacy. On the other hand if they open the file and it's not there, then that's really the end of the administration's legitimacy."

Several court cases in the birth certificate controversy are waiting admission to the Supreme Court.

A gathering of judges will meet on Dec. 5 to decide whether or not to hear a case from New Jersey, and a decision is still pending on a case from a lawyer in Pennsylvania. Should four of the judges vote to hear the case in the Dec. 5 meeting, then it will be scheduled for hearings. Court cases from Connecticut and New York have also applied for hearings at the U.S. Supreme Court.

John P. Connolly can be reached at jconnolly@thebulletin.us

• Link