By Jonathon Moseley

Here are concrete steps President Donald Trump and Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen must order immediately to protect the United States from invasion by mobs of foreigners. Others I greatly admire have offered superficial suggestions that are vague. The following "Action Items" need to be put on The Resolute Desk in the Oval Office by Kellyanne Conway or others for immediate signature.

This is a rerun of Europe. As early as 2014 and 2015, the world witnessed floods of immigrants rolling into Europe through its "soft underbelly" on the Mediterranean Sea. The Daily Mail reported how ISIS announced these plans in advance in February 2015: "ISIS has threatened to flood Europe with half a million migrants from Libya in a 'psychological' attack against the West, it was claimed today."

But would-be invaders watched this, too. They saw dramatically that when large numbers of people rush a nation's borders all at once, it becomes almost impossible to stop them from entering. "Hey, let's do that!" is an idea that is now out there. It will be repeated.

When the small "dry run" caravan in April was approaching our Southern border, I warned on WMAL radio that the lawyers were going to be the problem. I am a lawyer, as well as the former Executive Director of American Border Control. President Trump could line up the entire U.S. military at our border along with all 50 states' National Guard and build a wall. But as soon as these well-coached foreigners shout "Asylum!" the troops have to step aside and let them in.

TRENDING: Devastating video shows Biden calling soldiers 'stupid bastards'

If there is any possibility they might legally qualify, then we have to give them a hearing under Congress' foolish laws passed to favor foreigners at our own nation's expense. The hearings are backlogged for years. So they have to be let in, but will never show up for their hearing.

First, the Department of Homeland Security must issue official, binding interpretation that illegal aliens approaching the U.S. border in the wilderness – not at an official border crossing – cannot be eligible for asylum. Because a person crossing in the wilderness frontier is trying to avoid being caught, this is incompatible with a sincere request for asylum.

A new DHS regulation must establish an irrebuttable presumption that if a person is seeking to enter the United States by evading the border patrol ("entering without inspection") they cannot qualify for asylum. Their intent is to slip through without disclosing their presence. They are not here to request asylum, because – had they not been caught – they would have disappeared into U.S. society without talking to any official about asylum.

DHS must launch "rule making" to promulgate regulations for implementation of 8 U.S. Code § 1158 which governs requests for asylum by foreigners. The interpretation of a statute by the agency charged with the law's implementation is given great weight and deference by courts, although if a policy is changed, the Trump Administration lawyers need to do a much better job of explaining the reasons for changing direction under the Chevron precedent.

Again, this cannot be a question to be decided in a hearing. If it is, then the law mandates "catch and release" and millions of invaders will never show up for their hearing. This must be a rule of law that troops at the border can use to immediately send invaders back where they came from – without a hearing.

It is an actual crime today to enter other than at an official border crossing, even though globalists will try to tell you it is not. But it must also be the legal basis for immediately dumping trespassers back on the other side of the border.

Second, it is already the law under 8 U.S. Code § 1158(a)(2)(A) that if a foreigner can reach a safe country after leaving their own country where they have a credible fear of persecution, then they cannot qualify for asylum in the United States unless the government determines it to be in the interests of the U.S.A. to grant them asylum.

However, this requirement is obviously being flagrantly ignored. DHS needs to promulgate regulations to actually implement this rule as an irrebuttable presumption that a person who travels through safe countries with which they share greater common interests such as language and culture – they can never qualify for asylum in the United States.

Third, DHS must clarify by regulation that fear of ordinary crime – no different from those who live in parts of Chicago or Los Angeles – cannot qualify for asylum. Asylum means that the government is persecuting groups by race, ethnicity, religion or as political opponents of the government. A desire to steal a job from a U.S. citizen does not qualify as asylum.

Fourth, as Daniel Horowitz points out, President Trump has the power under the now-famous Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act whenever he finds that "the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States," to "suspend" all forms of immigration "for such period as he shall deem necessary."

Similarly, "INA 215(a)(1) grants the president an almost equal level of authority to subject entry of all aliens entering or departing to 'such reasonable rules, regulations, and orders, and subject to such limitations and exceptions as the President may prescribe.'"

DHS promulgating new regulations can take one to two years at least. President Trump can immediately order a complete shutdown of all asylum requests across the board, or more appropriately all asylum requests that are not presented at an official border crossing.

To put this in clear terms, the president of the United States can categorically stamp all asylum requests "DENIED!" in advance, unless the request is submitted either to an embassy or consulate in another country or at an official border crossing.

This is supported by the Supreme Court's 1950 decision in United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537 (1950): "The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty. The right to do so stems not alone from legislative power but is inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation. United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U. S. 304; Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U. S. 698, 713."

Furthermore, Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution requires that "[t]he United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."

Fifth, Trump's campaign released a plan for making Mexico pay for a border wall – and then seems to have immediately forgotten about it. Banking laws – pre-existing the 9/11 terrorist attacks but expanded after 9/11 – require all financial institutions to "know your customer" to fight money-laundering, terrorist financing, drug trafficking or other criminal activity. I helped write a computerized tutorial for our family business teaching jewelers and pawn shops to comply with these rules.

If the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FINCEN) actually started to enforce these rules against companies like Western Union and MoneyGram (but even more against lesser-known, looser alternatives), anyone sending money to foreign countries would be required to verify their identity. This must include verifying their citizenship or lawful residency status.

But everyone knows that FINCEN isn't serious. Their transitional "grace period" to give time for implementation never really ended. If FINCEN started some high-profile enforcement actions, suddenly the financial world would scramble to comply. Illegal aliens could no longer send money home as the fruits of breaking U.S. law. Much of the incentive for the invasion would be turned off.

Sixth, Trump should probably officially determine and warn Mexico that the U.S. military will cross over the wilderness frontier on the Mexican side of the border to round up invaders before they touch U.S. soil. This is warranted because those people are in danger in the wilderness. Telling them to just go back is impractical in that terrain. Mexico should be warned that if the U.S. military has to round them up on Mexican soil and transport them to the nearest Mexican authorities, we will reserve that right, including for their own safety.

Jon Moseley graduated from George Mason University School of Law (now called Antonin Scalia Law School) and earned a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration from the University of Florida. He taught business to former Communists in Latvia after the fall of the Soviet Union in the private seminar firm International Trendsetters.