Update: October 31, 12:50 pm:

The Hill reports that at an October 30 rally in Albuquerque, New Mexico, Donald Trump made the following statement about Hillary Clinton's immigration policies:

"[Hillary Clinton] wants to let people just pour in...You could have 650 million people pour in...You triple the size of our country in one week."

He didn't say what the source of this information was. Perhaps in one of Hillary Clinton's emails which even the FBI has overlooked and which is known only to Donald Trump?

See:

http://www.thehill.com/blogs/ballot-...grants-into-us

A Happy Halloween to all Immigration Daily Readers!

My original post appears below.

The following comments have been revised as of October 31 at 6:00 am:

In the light of media speculation over an October 28 FBI letter concerning purported newly discovered emails which, according to the letter, might or might not be related to the FBI's previous investigation of alleged but unproven "national security" lapses involving Hillary Clinton, it is instructive to look at the immigration proposals of the two presidential candidates to see what effect they might have on America's national security.

What does "national security" mean? It can mean many things, but one thing is axiomatic: America's national security begins with supporting and upholding our Constitution, as was emphasized by 50 Republican former national security officials who publicly expressed doubts about Donald Trump's adherence to or belief in that document in a recent statement. See New York Times, August 8:

50 G.O.P. Officials warn Trump Would Put Nation's Security 'at Risk'


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/09/us...rump.html?_r=0

I will begin by looking at the alleged national security implications of Hillary Clinton's immigration proposals, especially her support of legalization for certain unauthorized immigrants.

Hillary Clinton's legalization proposals have come under criticism as allegedly favoring "amnesty" and "open borders", and inviting or enabling criminals, drug dealers and terrorists to come into into the United States.

Typical of this rhetoric is the inflammatory language about the alleged dangers of Hillary Clinton's immigration proposals contained in the statement of the unabashedly pro-Trump Border Patrol Union. See:

http://bpunion.org/index.php/newsroo...ation-policies

Trump himself has also accused Hillary Clinton of being a "co-founder and MVP of ISIS", and (at the October 19 presidential debate) of bringing untold numbers of Syrian refugees into the US who are "definitely ISIS-aligned".

In his August 31 Phoenix, Arizona speech on immigration, Trump was also quoted by the Los Angeles Times as saying about Clinton that:

"She doesn't know what she's doing except open borders and let everybody come in and destroy our country."

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-n...nap-story.html

Allegations such as those quoted above do not need or deserve any further comment.

Regarding the possible effect of Trump's immigration proposals on America's national security, Trump claims that by engaging in mass deportation of mainly Latino and other nonwhite immigrants on a scale previously unheard of in US history, by building a Wall with Mexico and by banning most, if not all, Muslim immigrants on the basis of either religion (his original proposal), or national origin (his more recent version), he would protect America's national security against a lot of "bad hombres".

For those who do not know Spanish, I will translate Trump's above words with the Latin term gens invisum, which Virgil uses in Book I of the Aeneid to mean a despised race or nationality.

But even assuming that banning members of an entire nationality, race or religion (as was done, for example, under the Chinese exclusion laws, and by America's refusal to accept more than a small number of Jewish immigrants who were trying to flee Hitler in the 1930's - the parallel with today's attitudes toward Syrian refugees which I have discussed in previous comments), might keep out some bad people, it is also important to consider the national security issues raised by adopting immigration policies that would tend to undermine the values, or even in some cases, the specific provisions, of the US Constitution mentioned above.

These are discussed in depth in a July 13 statement by ACLU Executive Director Anthony D Romero as reported in the Washington Post, see:

ACLU Director: We will defend the constitution against a President Trump

See also the companion ACLU report:

THE TRUMP MEMOS

https://action.aclu.org/sites/defaul...trumpmemos.pdf

Director Romero's statement about the potential danger that Trump's immigration-related proposals could pose to the Constitution, which is the undisputed foundation of America's national security, begins as follows:

"Donald Trump's proposed policies, if caried out, would trigger a constitutional crisis. By our reckoning, a Trump administration would violate the First, Fourth, Fifth and Eighth amendments if it tried to implement his most controversial plans."

Romero then turns specifically to immigration:

"On immigration policy, there is simply no way a Trump administration could deport more than 11 million within two years of taking office. To achieve such a feat, Trump's deportation machine would have to arrest 15,000 people a day on immigration charges, seven days a week, 365 days a year."

Romero then discusses the effect of such actions on constitutional rights:

"The only way to accomplish this would be to shred the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. To carry out such an order, immigration agents would have to engage in suspicionless interrogations and arrests, unjustified traffic stops, warrentless searches of workplaces and homes, and door-to-door raids in immigrant neighborhoods. There can be little doubt that agents would relay on racial profiling and target people of Latino and Hispanic descent disproportionately, violating their right to equal protection of the law regardless of their race or national origin."

He continues:

"After rounding up undocumented immigrants...that would inevitably include U.S. citizens by mistake - the Trump administration would run face-first into the due process protections afforded every person inside the United States under the Fifth Amendment. It is inconceivable that 11 million undocumented immigrants could go before a judge in any reasonable amount of time...

And if Trump keeps them locked up, as he has proposed, he'll deprive these people of their liberty - possibly for years, without due process of law. The Southwest border under Trump's proposals would become a police state."

At this point, with all due respect to Mr. Romero and the ACLU, I would offer one point of disagreement with his last quoted sentence. There are unauthorized immigrants who have settled in every part of the United States.

It is not only the Southwest border area that would become a police state in a Trump administration.

(I am sorry - I am unable to find a working link for the above Washington Post story - please look it up on Google.)

To be continued in Part 2 of this series.
_________________________________
Roger Algase is a New York immigration lawyer and a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School. For more than 35 years, he has been helping mainly skilled and professional immigrants obtain work permits and green cards, based solely on their qualifications and without regard to their ethnic background or religious affiliation, in accordance with the race-neutral immigration system which America has had in place for the past half century, since 1965, and which may now be in danger as well.

Roger believes that any attack on the constitutional rights of immigrants puts the freedom and national security of all Americans, including protection against authoritarian governmental power, at risk.

His email address is algaselex@gmail.com