Immigration Restrictions are not LAW They violate the LAW— Proof of how we’re being manipulated!

I’m Gavin Seim.  As an activist I have fought for gun rights, rancher rights, and native rights. I’ve stood up against abusive police, and for immigrants! I’ve seen a lot.

But today I’m giving you my treasure trove, years of my research. Deeper than anything they teach in law school.  Iard facts that will force you to decide whether you’re a freedom lover or a government lover.

I’ve been working to show the truth about immigration since long before Trump. As a well-known 2nd amendment activist, I was praised by patriot groups. Then as a right-to-travel activist I was loved by so-called libertarians. But when I studied the history and laws of immigration. When I challenged myself in every argument there is for this abuse and exposed the facts. When I applied that right to travel to others. All these groups turned on me!

Ousted from the club, I chased paper trails and argued with the so-called experts and patriots who made nothing but weak excuses. I dug up every argument. I went to the sources. When I reached a point that I could refute every argument with history and law. People simply started calling me an idiot, a libtard or a traitor. But I keep going.

What I found was undeniable: All the immigration restrictions and deportations are illegal and immoral.

So here is every argument you will get for this abuse of human rights. In truth, it applies in any country since these are natural rights. But I’ve got the Constitution, history, human rights and the founders’ own words. The entire point of the Constitution is to supersede any law that violates our rights and LIMIT government to ONLY what the powers are granted.  Here’s why every immigration law is illegal and spits in the face of American Values.

Today we’ll address every argument and show why every one is wrong!

---

“Follow the Law”

This is the biggest one. There’s no such thing as an illegal immigrant I say… The “educated” response I usually get is “you’re an idiot”. The thing is if you don’t follow immigration laws, you’re not an illegal. 

“It’s the law” people say, and I’m like, so was slavery. But what the current trends or even courts say is now the law really is. That’s why we have Constitutions and human rights pacts. So I started digging because I knew something was deeply wrong.

The problem is that ALL the immigration laws are blatantly illegal. This is where the conversion needs to be. No It does not matter what the Supreme Court says. They have been abusing the law since the start and proven wrong in history over and over.  Even the Supreme Court itself recognizes that the case law they create does not invalidate what the Constitution says and is not perpetual. They said slavery was legal also, and we had slave patrols not so unlike ICE today. How did that work out?

I’ve read the Constitution front to back—Article I, Section 8 doesn’t mention immigration, not a whisper. The Tenth Amendment slams the door on it because if it’s not listed, the feds don’t get power over it. Alexander Hamilton spelled it out in Federalist #78:

“Every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.”

Thomas Jefferson doubled down in 1798, torching the Alien Friends Act:

“The act of the Congress… which assumes powers over Alien-friends not delegated by the constitution, is not law, but is altogether void & of no force.”

I dug deeper into the First Congress, 1790—Mr. White said it plain:

“The power vested by the Constitution in Congress… extends to nothing more than making a uniform rule of naturalization.”

No immigration control, just citizenship rules—everything else is void. The government was never given any power over it. THAT IS THE LAW! No one is coming her illegally because the restrictions are not legal.

 

---

“But The Naturalization Act”

Then they claim, “The Naturalization Act gives government power to restrict immigration.”

That’s willful deception— It’s all about citizenship, not entry. I’ve studied it: the Naturalization Act of 1790 (First Congress, March 26, 1790) is barely three paragraphs, setting rules like two years’ residence, good character.

It says, ‘Any alien… who shall have resided within the limits… may be admitted to become a citizen”. It’s dead silent on stopping, screening, or controlling who comes in—zero authority.

What is Natriraztauion. Let’s use the de facto dictionary from early America, Websters 1828… “The act of investing an alien with the rights and privileges of a native subject or citizen.”

James Madison, Federalist #42 also covered this..,.

“The power of establishing uniform laws of naturalization… is conferred upon the federal government” 

Mr. Page, First Congress, 1790, said:

“I think we shall become inconsistent with ourselves, if, after boasting of having opened an asylum for the oppressed of all nations… we make terms of admission to the full enjoyment of that asylum so hard as now proposed.” This was also a debate about how hard it would be to become a citizen,. The idea of restricsting immgeractuion was not even debated. 

Alexander Hamilton, Federal Convention, 1787, added:

“Colonel HAMILTON was in general against embarrassing the Government with minute restrictions… The advantage of encouraging foreigners was obvious and admitted.”

It could be said of our founders that they were wealthy elitists. Look at our hypocrisy in how slaves were treated. But even the most blatant comments I could find on the idea of restricting immigrants confirms that the government has no such authority.

Mr White, 1st Congress p1152, Feb 3, 1790
“The power vested by the constitution in Congress, respecting the subject now before the house, extends to nothing more than making a uniform rule of naturalization”

Mr Burke, 1st Congress p1156 Feb 3, 1790
There is another class that I would also interdict (from becoming citizens). That is the convicts and criminals of British jails. I wish sincerely some model could be adopted to prevent the importation of such, but that perhaps it is not in our power… 

It should be noted that all these contexts are the act of naturalization only being discussed. How long to turn immigrants into citizens. Immigration control was never even considered. Claiming it’s an immigration gate is a flat-out lie, driven by ignorance or malice—founders never gave that power and of course neither did the constitution. 

 

---

“Article I, Section 8 – Gives the Power”

 

Then they try, “Article I, Section 8, Clause 18—the Necessary and Proper Clause—

People say it lets them do whatever, like restrict immigration.” That’s a stretch and a lie. The Clause says,

“The Congress shall have Power… To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” That’s it—but it’s not a blank check.

Hamilton, Federalist #33, explained:

“It may be affirmed with perfect confidence, that the constitutional operation of this power extends to the creation of al laws essential to the beneficial exercise of the powers expressly granted… but it is at the same time to be observed, that this power is not to be construed as to subvert or impair the rights of the people, or the limitations of the government.” 

He’s clear—it’s for executing listed powers, not inventing new ones like immigration control. Madison, Federalist #44, added:

“Had the Constitution been silent on this head, there can be no doubt that all the particular powers requisite as means of executing the general powers would have resulted to the government, by unavoidable implication… but the express umption of this authority is a caution to any claim of power not strictly within the terms of the grant.”

At the First Congress, 1789, they debated this—Mr. Sedgwick, September 17, 1789, said:

“The clause is intended to give Congress the means to carry into effect the powers expressly granted, not to create new powers of their own invention.”

Immigration’s not listed, so it’s off-limits—the Clause can’t twist the Constitution into something it’s not. Claiming it justifies all the crap it’s used for is ignoring the founders’ intent to limit, not expand, federal reach. It’s in itself lawlessness. 

 

---

“If You Don’t Like It, Leave”

 

Anyone who argues with reason a lot. It’s a gutless dodge — The USA is a country built on liberty, not walls. The founders didn’t just fight for freedom; they left—England, other lands—sailing here for open shores, not chains. The Declaration even calls out King George for blocking migration:

“He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States… obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither.”

They rebelled to escape that control, not build it. George Washington was appalled when the Alien and Sedition Acts tried registering immigrants—told Patrick Henry it would  “dissolve the union or produce coercion.”

The founders RAN from England and wrote a declaration and fought a revolution to have a bit of freedom. Even if it was quickly broken and abused. The fact that restricting immigrants was literally one of the reasons we revolted and none of the so-called patriots I used to stand beside while rallying thousands of people in civil disobedience can address it, shows just how weak these arguments are.

 

---

“It’s an invasion”

They scream, “We need security—immigrants are invading!”

“Invasion” is tanks, not people looking for a new life. I mean look at history for one minute—Berlin Wall, 1961, kept East Germans in, not out; Great Wall of China pinned down poor peasants for taxes and control. It works to make the ruler more rich and powerful and the poor more poor.

And Today? Narcos don’t care— These guys have tunnels and drones. They pay off border officials or use poor runners as fodder. Walls are propaganda, not protection—caging us, not them. This isea if a person does not get permission to enter the public lands of a nation, they are breaking in is crushed in any logical argument.

Jefferson lost it when they started trying to make laws about immigrants. It started in 1798 as part of the Alien and Sedition acts. The US Government tried to make a rule that immigrants had to register and some other rules. They were to go to the Magistrate AFTER they immigrated and be documented. Failure to so could result in a $2 fine. Not criminals. A $2 fine ( about $51 in 2025 money). How far we’ve fallen.

Here was Jefferson’s response to these acts… 

:Resolved that the imprisonment of a person under the protection of the laws of this commonwealth on his failure to obey the simple order of the President to depart out of the US. as is undertaken by the said act intituled ‘an Act concerning Aliens,’ is contrary to the constitution… Undertaking to authorize the President to remove a person out of the US. who is under the protection of the law, on his own suspicion, without accusation, without jury, without public trial, without confrontation of the witnesses against him, without hearing witnesses in his favor, without defence, without counsel, is contrary to these provisions also of the constitution, is therefore not law, but utterly void & of no force. – Jefferson papers, 1798, 1799

Notice then VOID and of NO FORCE part. This is a common theme. The entire idea of the Constitution was not that it gives you rights but that it was a limit for the government. They could only do what it authorized and nothing more. Anything else was illegal, no court ruling needed. It’s the only way they could convince the people of the states to agree to it. 

The Fourth Amendment backs me—no stopping or seizing without probable cause.

It does not mean you can’t watch over your border.  Screen for real threats and stop armies from invading. But you can’t use it to restrict the right to travel and due process. You cannot to grab people off the streets without a trial and send them away. Everything ICE is doing. All the deportation. The founders would have started another war over this abuse.

Security’s no excuse for tyranny. Even though ideas of preventing England’s criminals from becoming citizens were not on the table. Much less restricting them from entering. You can go read this stuff yourself during the debates on citizenship requirements.

 

---

“They Steal Our Jobs and Our Culture”

 

They whine, “Immigrants steal our jobs and our culture!” This is fear, not facts.

Let’s talk numbers—immigrant-founded businesses pumped $250 billion into the US in 2023, Census data says. History shows it: Irish, Italians flooded in during the 1800s, and we boomed—jobs weren’t stolen, they were created.

And culture? 2023 Pew Research proves immigrants enrich it—40% of U.S. Nobel laureates since 2000 are immigrants, plus music, food, art. They don’t undermine; they are the culture of out country. That was the entire idea. James Madison wrote in Federalist #42 that open migration builds a nation, not breaks it:

At the Federal Convention, August 1787, Colonel Mason said:

“I’m for opening a wide door for emigrants.”

Alexander Hamilton, 1787, added:

“The advantage of encouraging foreigners was obvious and admitted.”

Fix the economy, stop the socialism,  not the border—this excuse is panic dressed up as patriotism, ignoring how immigrants make us better, not worse.

 

---

“Immigrants are Criminals and Draining Resources”

Secusity is being used to violate every part of our liberties in recent years. Checkpoints, for-profit prisons, a propaganda machine costing billions. The government creates the problem, then offers us a solution. We only have to sacrifice freedom.

It’s all nonsense—Immigrants contribute more than they take. Look at the data—2024 Pew Research shows immigrants commit fewer crimes than natives. Taxes? Undocumented immigrants paid $96.7 billion in 2022. Nearly $9000 PER PERSON! That’s per the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy

What we do know? Immigrants work, pay in, and build, not leech and steal. The founders saw them as strength—Benjamin Franklin warned in 1787:

“If it should betray a great partiality to the rich… it will discourage the common people from removing to this country.”

The idea was never pre-selection or giving access to the rich was not the idea. The founders demanded an open border. That did not mean we had no border. The idea that one leads to the other is pure propaganda.

And let’s be real: the federal government’s not supposed to hand out aid like this —Article I, Section 8 gives no power for welfare or public assistance.

Hamilton, Federalist #33, said,‘The powers delegated… are few and defined,’ sticking to specific tasks like defense, not charity. Claiming immigrants drain resources because they lack papers is BS—rights aren’t about government stamps, they’re human. Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolutions, 1798, hit it and he wrote of his outrage of a federal register for immigration. This was not any restriction over migration. That did not come till after the civil war. He was still pissed.

“Alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the state wherein they are; that no power over them has been delegated to the US” 

This smear campaign is embarrassing and yes racist—immigrants aren’t the drain; bloated, overreaching government is. And that’s not the fault of immigrants.

 

---

“Every Country Has Immigration Laws”

Because they do it, we do it. That’s weak — First, other nations’ laws don’t bind us. Second, any law that violates human rights is always. The founders broke from Britain’s control to escape tyranny, not copy it. The Declaration calls out King George directly for blocking migration:

“He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States… obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither.” 

UN data shows 193 countries have some form of immigration restrictions—walls, visas, quotas—but it’s a modern trend.

The 1990s brought globalization fears, then post-9/11 security paranoia. The U.S. had open borders until 1875 (Page Act), then tightened with 1924 (National Origins Act)/which were unconstitutional but nothing like today’s abusive enforcement.

Propaganda has made us ignorant. If the 90’s I remember farmers celebrating immigrants without papers, and honest and hard working. Only after 911 did we watch that change with fear and propaganda meant to bolster the surrender of more liberties. Most of you remember this and how it affects every area of our lives.

Locked-down borders are trendy, not universal. Many nations, like Canada and Germany, still prioritize skilled migration, not fortresses. Lots of countries like Mexico also have immigration rules that tend to copy US policy. But there are no walls and in reality they are loosely enforced and even if you can be deported, it’s not a criminal offense. Living is never a crime. The truth is most national and State Constitutions forbid these so-called immigration laws.

Is there a New World Order agenda? Maybe—. But even mainstream reports like from the Migration Policy Institute show global border policies converging, driven by corporate interests, fear, and tech surveillance states. It echoes fascist control like that in the 1930s Europe. But these levels of control are recent inventions. It is not longstanding global law, as some would have you believe.

 

---

“Even Heaven Has Gates”

Christian friends claim, “Even heaven has gates.” That’s a stretch—Revelation 21:25 says, “Its gates will never be shut by day—and there will be no night there” but even if you take things more literally and say heaven will be limited. It’s not related. No country is heaven. Christians are commanded to love and care for others, especially the poor.

Deuteronomy 10:18-19 commands:

“He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the foreigner residing among you, giving them food and clothing. And you are to love those who are foreigners, for you yourselves were foreigners in Egypt.” (NIV)

Jesus said in Matthew 7:12:

“So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.” (NIV)

And in Matthew 22:39:

“Love your neighbor as yourself.” (NIV)

And how do Christian deportation lovers escape this one… Leviticus 19:33-34:

“When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God.” (NIV)

Using God to justify these abuses is anti-Christ without a doubt. — And I think Jesus would flip tables over that. He hates the abuse and extortion of the poor. Immigrants aren’t threats; they’re neighbors, and this nation’s built on welcoming them, not locking them out. Simple as that.

 

---

“Let Them Live With You”

I get this a lot also… It’s like the lowest common denominator of those who have done zero homework.  “If you support immigrants, let them live with you.” They say. That’s a cheap trick—it’s not about my house or yours; it’s about public rights.

I’ve studied John Locke and others. These are basic natural law principles that US law is based upon. Private property’s “taken out of nature” by labor, your home’s yours, not the open forest. Travel and immigration? That’s the public road, protected by the Fourth Amendment, not my doorstep.

You’re not required to host anyone—We’re talking about defending their right to move and work, have due process and survive, like the founders did. This is a straw man argument, and shit filled straw at best.

“It’s Our Sovereign Right to Control Borders”

Then we have those who lean on, “It’s our sovereign right—nations control borders!” They are usually quick to support violating the sovereignty of other borders and it shows their hypocrisy.

I’ve scoured the First Congress—immigration control never considered, it laughed it off in 1790 debates. Listen to Mr. White from the First Congress of 1790:

“The power vested by the constitution in Congress… extends to nothing more than making a uniform rule of naturalization.” 

Sovereignty doesn’t override the Constitution. Nor does safety, fear, Drugs, or anything else. —it’s a power grab, not national security. But more importantly, and as I talk about often in my videos. The Constitution does not grant rights. It’s a limit on government. I use it because its the highest law of most lands. All people, regardless of status, have these rights. That was never open to debate.

The law gives you no authority over the rights of others. So you can’t delegate that authority to police, ICE or anyone else. Lets return to John Locke.

“In all States and Conditions the true remedy of Force without Authority, is to oppose Force to it. The use of force without Authority, always puts him that uses it into a state of War, as the Aggressor, and renders him liable to be treated accordingly. — John Locke, Second Treatise of Goverment.”

The invasion is not from the hand of the immigrant in these times. It’s from those waging war and trying to enforce illegal laws that violate the rights of others. They are criminals. 

---

“Those Rights Are Only for Citizens”

“The right in the Constitution does not apply to illegals,” they tell me.

Even if the construction didn’t crush the very idea that there are illegals, this is plain simple ignorance. The Constitution doesn’t limit rights to citizens. The Declaration screams it: “All men are created equal.

There were no US citizens when the Constitution was written.

The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments protect “person,” not “citizen”—due process, no search without cause, fair trial, no cruel punishment. Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolutions, 1798, hit it:

These rights aren’t government gifts—they’re human, for everyone, or they’re nothing. This excuse is garbage, denying what this nation was built on.

 

---

Birthright Citizenship and the Fourteenth Amendment

 

---

I’m Not Backing Down…

I’ve crushed these excuses with years of research—Constitution, founders, hard facts, LAW.

“There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #78

All immigration restrictions and deportations are illegal— They are not only a violation of basic rights, they are directly in opposition to American values and the word of our founders. Immgration laws violate the 4th, 5th 6th, 8th 9th and 10th ammendments.

The founders would’ve revolted—Jefferson’s “void”, Hamilton’s “invalid”, the Declaration’s open-door call. I’ve got  Federalist Papers, First Congress, screaming it—No immigration power, just liberty—restrictions are illegal, full stop. This isn’t about papers or permission—it’s about the rights all men have, not gifts from government.

History won’t forgive or forget this fascist turn. Give me your best shot; I’ve got the receipts and the facts on my side. The USA is better than this. It’s ridiculous we are even having this argument. But ignorant people love repeating simple-minded arguments on repeat and that is why history repeats itself.

That’s how proganada works. 

That’s why I am not asked to speak.

Yours truly – Gavin Seim