If President Donald Trump wants to curtail migration into the U.S. from some of the world's most dangerous hotspots of jihadism, he has options that would effectively navigate an end-run around the courts.

Trump hinted in his news conference Friday that the nation should expect something quickly, possibly a whole new executive order that would bypass the legal challenges.

"We will keep our country safe. That's what I'm here for… I will give it the best security, so it will happen very rapidly," Trump said Friday.

His top policy aide, Stephen Miller, said essentially the same thing in appearing on all the major Sunday morning news shows.

TRENDING: Black leaders: BLM about overthrow of U.S., not race

Miller said “all options” remain on the table,” including a Supreme Court appeal.

"As you know, we have multiple options, and we are considering all of them," Miller said on ABC's "This Week."

What do YOU think? Are you confident Trump will stop refugees from flooding in? Sound off in the WND Poll!

One of the options is to simply lower the ceiling on refugee resettlement for fiscal 2017, which began four months ago on Oct. 1.

Trump has already partially exercised this option in his first executive order when he lowered the annual ceiling from 110,000 refugees set by Obama to 50,000. Interestingly, this was the one part of his executive order that was not struck down by the lawsuits filed in Washington state and Minnesota.

There have already been 34,225 refugees enter the U.S. in fiscal 2017, meaning about 16,000 more are allowed to enter between now and Oct. 1. The vast majority of them, 77 percent, are coming from four of the seven countries listed in Trump's executive order – Syria, Somalia, Iraq and Sudan.

By cutting the ceiling to 35,000, Trump would effectively end refugee resettlement for the rest of the fiscal year extending over the next seven and a half months. That would allow his administration to decide on a better vetting system and determine how high to set the ceiling for fiscal 2018.

Relying on emotion rather than facts, the media have joined the protest to bewail the plight of Syrian "refugees" and imply those who support Trump are “bigots” and “Islamophobes." Some sane counterpoint is in order and you will find it in the new investigative book "Stealth Invasion" by Leo Hohmann

Initially, Trump's refugee pause was for four months and indefinitely for Syria. By lowering the ceiling, he could fire back with a tougher policy that is actually more difficult to challenge in the courts.

By shutting down refugee resettlement for the remainder of the current fiscal year, Trump would also end migration from another dangerous outpost of Islamic terror that is not on his seven-nation list – Afghanistan.

According to refugee and legal experts, Trump would not even need to issue an executive order to do this.

The Refugee Act of 1980 gives the president the sole authority to set the ceiling on annual refugee numbers. All he is required to do is send a letter to Congress notifying them of the change.

"Basically you let Congress know along with a couple of agencies of the federal government," said Jordan Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice.

"I think this is what the White House is considering, this and other options," Sekulow told WND. "Start with something new, multiple cases, and get a fresh start. You have your attorney general in place now, your secretary of state, and you see some of the legal openings they are trying to seize upon at the Ninth Circuit, so if you can accomplish the same goal through multiple executive orders or other measures, why not?"

Refugee resettlement expert James Simpson also cited this option as virtually fool-proof in a column for the Daily Caller. He writes:

"President Trump does not need an executive order for this. He can simply send a letter to Congress, informing it of his intentions. Refugee caps for FY 2017 would be reduced to zero."

Sekulow says the Ninth Circuit's three-judge panel, considered the most liberal in the U.S., was quiet on the refugee portion of Trump's executive order. And for good reason.

"They would have at least mentioned it if they thought that was an issue," he said. "There's a long history of pausing refugee resettlement for various reasons."

National security is the strongest reason. Even President Obama paused resettlements from Iraq after two Iraqi men had slipped into the refugee ranks and were resettled in Bowling Green, Kentucky, only to find out later they were bomb-makers who'd killed Americans in Iraq and were sending weapons and money back to al-Qaida in Iraq.

Ann Corcoran, at Refugee Resettlement Watch, said shutting down refugee resettlement would virtually eliminate the influx from four dangerous countries.

"It would significantly stop the Syrians, Somalis, Sudanese and Iraqis," she said.

Very few people from these four countries typically get to the United States on visa programs such as student visas and work visas.

"I don't know how many get here on the diversity visa lottery but I think the refugees represent the most significant portion of people from those countries getting in," Corcoran said.

The diversity visa lottery program allows in about 50,000 foreign nationals per year into the U.S. on green cards from countries that do not have a history of sending many immigrants to the United States.

Sen. Tom Cotton in his new immigration bill has put forth a plan that would cut in half the overall number of green cards issued per year while doing away with the diversity visa lottery.

Meatpackers losing cheap labor

Bloomberg News Friday published an article explaining that one industry in particular, which it called "Big Meat," is going to be affected by the draw down on the refugee limit that Trump is contemplating.

The meatpacking industry has been increasingly feeding off of refugee labor, a trend that started under the presidency of Bill Clinton, said Corcoran, who went on a nationwide fact-finding tour of meatpacking towns last summer.

"Clinton made Bosnian Muslim refugees available to his friends in the meatpacking industry,"she said.

In 2006 President George W. Bush raided meatpacking plants in several states and arrested more than 1,300 illegal-alien workers, Bloomberg reports. The industry responded by doubling down on its pursuance of refugee labor, replacing Mexicans and Central Americans with refugees from Somalia and Myanmar. They would work just as cheaply as the Mexicans but with the added benefit that they were living in the U.S. at the invitation of the federal government -- all perfectly legal.

Over the next decade Big Meat became addicted to refugee labor.

Bloomberg visited the Cargill plant in Fort Collins, Colorado, and observed:

"Many of the workers at a Cargill Meat Solutions plant that’s the town’s largest employer emigrated from Somalia and Myanmar and had been waiting months, if not years, for relatives to join them. Now they’re afraid that reunion might never happen. As a result, the plant in Fort Morgan and other meatpacking plants in the U.S. that have dozens of openings may have to scramble to find a new labor pool."

"Maybe if they didn't have this refugee labor they would have to raise the wage and hire Americans," Corcoran told WND. "But there would never have been an article like this in Bloomberg if Trump were not president. You'd never see an author for Bloomberg, a leading disseminator of business news, admitting this program benefits 'Big Meat.'"

More lawsuits waiting

There are 13 judicial circuits in the U.S. and 11 of them now have active lawsuits against Trump's temporary travel ban. So if they fail in the Washington state suit they're ready to forge ahead in another jurisdiction.

"I think Trump's people need to really get clever and stick it to the other side," Corcoran said. "Go back and rescind and re-craft this thing."

"But I am contending he could stop the program now at 35,000 and he's perfectly in his right to do that," she continued. "On this extreme vetting I would make sure there were enormous hurdles to jump through from those dangerous countries. You wouldn’t have to say you ban everyone but make it difficult to prove various complex hurdles that it would effectively accomplish the same thing through regulations. I hope he gets on to this idea instead of trying to ram executive orders through the courts when the Supreme Court is stacked now in a way he cannot win.

"I'm not sure I'd want to see that right now. At best that is a 4-4 scenario right now."

Relying on emotion rather than facts, the media have joined the protest to bewail the plight of Syrian "refugees" and imply those who support Trump are “bigots” and “Islamophobes." Some sane counterpoint is in order and you will find it in the new investigative book "Stealth Invasion" by Leo Hohmann