Profile photo of Mal RoarkeMal RoarkeDecember 13, 2015 , 8:22 pmReply0 commented on:

Regarding your (Jonathan Gillispie’s)  article:

“PS You actually can constitutionally bar immigration from particular countries so Donald Trump isn’t so wrong on that note.”

For historical accuracy, I point out that the USA Constitution does NOT AUTHORIZE immigration control or border control. Until the early 1900s, the borders were WIDE OPEN! Closing the borders is a recent, UNCONSTITUTIONAL act by YOUR government. I have also gathered and written quite a bit on that subject.

“Immigration control is UN-Constitutional!” (And so is Drug control!) REALLY! Its TRUE! The US Constitution does NOT AUTHORIZE immigration control!

P.S., that goes for EXIT control & DRUG control also!!

“An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” – U.S. Supreme Court, Norton v. Shelby County, 118 US 425 (1886)

Not until 1891 did federal law provide for the inspection of immigrants arriving at land border ports. Under the 1891 law, the Federal Government assumed the task of inspecting, admitting, rejecting, and processing all immigrants seeking admission to the United States.

Enforcing immigration law was a new, self-authorized, UNconstitutional Federal function, and the 1890s witnessed the Immigration Service’s first attempts to implement national immigration policy

Excerpt from

Sent from my 4G LTE Device

The fact that your (Jonathan Gillispie’s) text is all run together shows that you cannot or will not think in structures. English language writing provides paragraphs to allow grouping of similar thoughts and subjects. It is pathetic that the READER has to do the editing in order to ATTEMPT to make any sense of your reply:

Yes we did have open borders back in the late 19th and early 20th century. But it was without a welfare state or military industrial complex which go hand in hand.

The proper action for a person who loves liberty is to ABOLISH GOVERNMENT WELFARE AND ABOLISH GOVERNMENT WARS rather than to EXTEND government power into unconstitutional immigration control which also impedes the freedom to travel of citizens as well as foreigners.

And where in the constitution does it prohibit explicit or implied border controls?

If you had bothered (or even cared) to expand your knowledge and had read the material at the link [ ] I provided, you would have seen the answer to this question:

“But NOWHERE does the Constitution mention immigration or immigrants and NOWHERE does it authorize the control of immigration or immigrants. Need I remind the reader that if a U.S. government function is not specifically authorized in the Constitution, then it is prohibited by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.”

After WWI, there were many communists from Russia who immigrated to the US under orders from the COMINTERN to spread communism. So we closed up the borders so Marxist ideologue couldn’t spread. Plus so also the immigrant population would properly assimilate into the dominant culture. During and after WWII, German immigration was greatly restricted and the screening process scrutinized so Nazis couldn’t get in. It matters what kind of culture the immigrants are coming from.

Were YOU working for the government during WWI and WWII? How do YOU know that those were the reasons. And WHO CARES ANYWAY? The entire immigration thing is UN-constitutional and therefore ILLEGAL!

“An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” – U.S. Supreme Court, Norton v. Shelby County, 118 US 425 (1886)

Prior to the 1960s, the vast majority immigrants were coming from Europe which at the time was a pro-freedom and laissez faire culture.

This is absurd on its face. People came from war torn Europe as refugees! WWII ripped Europe apart from 1938 thru 1945!

However with the 1965 Immigration Act that was sponsored by the late Ted Kennedy, the immigration patterns radically changed. It pretty much closed off western immigration and opened the floodgates to the third world such as Mexico and Central America. Not many of these immigrants were exposed to laissez faire pro-freedom culture and so tended to be leftist and socialist leaning in politics and tended to be on welfare.

AGAIN!! The proper action for a person who loves liberty is to ABOLISH GOVERNMENT WELFARE rather than to EXTEND government power into unconstitutional immigration control.

So they voted for and supported the party that’ll grant that and more so (hint hint; that party starts with a D).

I thought ballots were secret. How do YOU know how these people voted–or even IF they voted?

I do completely agree on the issue of drug prohibition and favor eliminating the Drug War, repealing federal drug laws and letting states take their own approach to the matter.

Well, make up your mind. Do you “completely agree on the issue of drug prohibition” or not?

However open borders and free immigration are an entirely different issue and letting that happen with a welfare state is disaster (ask Sweden

If the welfare state is the disaster that you claim, ABOLISH GOVERNMENT WELFARE! As for Sweden, ALL cultures have criminals. Sweden’s gun control laws make it easy for criminals (domestic or imported) to rape UNARMED women! ABOLISH GOVERNMENT GUN CONTROLS!

Freedom is not just something that can be conjured up overnight,
And you will NOT advance freedom by advocating the extension of government into more areas instead of reducing and abolishing government powers.

it took the West 2,500 years of countless blood and treasure to develop a culture of freedom, limited government, separation of church and state, property rights, rule law and laissez faire markets. To undo all that, it can take as little as 50 years to accomplish. Over 2 millennia versus 5 decades. It’s very much like a house of cards. Takes time to build it up and perfect it, but very short time to bring it crashing down.

WHAT IS IT that you do not understand? If you EXTEND government powers into UN-constitutional areas such as immigration control, the government gets BIGGER. When government gets BIGGER, the culture of freedom, limited government, separation of church and state, property rights, rule law and laissez faire markets ALL GET SMALLER!


The ends do NOT justify the means! Using bad means is ALWAYS wrong, no matter how “good” your intentions are. The moral costs of initiated force far outweigh any claimed benefit.

Immigration control leads to LESS liberty and MORE government control. It is an absurd “tactic” for anyone who’s alleged goal is liberty.

If WELFARE is a problem,ABOLISH GOVERNMENT WELFARErather than expand government into immigration control!

If DRUGS are a problem, ABOLISH THE GOVERNMENT drug war rather than expand government into immigration control!

If refugees from war zones are a problem, ABOLISH GOVERNMENTbombings and funding of terrorists rather than expand government into immigration control!

If RAPE is a problem, ABOLISH GOVERNMENT GUN CONTROLSrather than expand government into immigration control!

EXPANDING government powers and programs does NOT REDUCE government. (Well, duh!) But it DOES reduce individual liberty.

There are ALWAYS non-violent alternatives to every program that The State undertakes. Whatever “results” are desired, using government to achieve them is not justified.

Sent from my 4G LTE Device

On 12/14/2015 7:53 PM, I respond to another alleged “liberty” lover, Ellsworth Spooner.


Profile picture of ellsworth spooner

ellsworth spooner commented on the post,Lew Rockwell’s Problem with Freedom, on the site Liberating Thoughts1 week, 5 days ago

In reply to: View

Mal wrote (several times):
“Good ideas do NOT require force.
Closed borders require ARMED force–24 hours/day, 7 days/week.
Lew Rockwell has abandoned the Non-Aggression PRINCIPLE. (NAP)”I’m not so sure this is accurate, nor valid NAP logic. If good ideas do not require force is an absolute, then the good idea of private property cannot require force.

You have grossly misunderstood–or are deliberately engaging in sophistry. SELF DEFENSE is a RESPONSE to initiation of force. NAP does not prohibit self defense.

If this is true then private property cannot be defended by force on a 24/7 basis. If private property cannot be defended by force as stated by the Libertarian Law of Mal, then any aggressor can seize any piece of private property the aggressor wishes, and the entire concept of private property become an absurdity.

Pure sophistry!

While we all disapprove of the Nation State paradigm, we nonetheless live in it.. we are immersed in it, and the State lays claim to all property within its sphere of control. The borders of the State, (in the Statists mind) are akin to the borders of your private property; so the armed guards that are on duty 24/7 are no different than YOU, providing for protection from unwanted incursion onto YOUR private property.

More sophistry. You have conflated private property with other property that government claims to own, including The Commons.

There is no aggression here as the commentor would create the impression in your mind. The border guard does not go into the other nation State’s land looking for people to shoot. This is an absurdity.

The absurdity here is using tax money extorted from ME to build border fences and to occupy the border with ARMED forces–24 hours/day, 7 days/week thereby restricting freedom of travel, allegedly to protect MY property when I have issued an invitation to all peoples of the world to come to my property and offer me their products and/or services in trade. Some protection racket that is!

I join the author of the main article here in appreciation of open debate, but I will NOT stop my my Mises daily email articles.. I will not throw a hissy fit and join a bandwagon because some flawed thinking about others supposed flawed thinking, becomes the very seed of intolerance that the article points a finger at in others.

Yes, lets burn Lew Rockwell at the stake for heresy. Cult much? Seriously…


It takes patience to UNpack the alleged liberty protection racket. And IF it is considered heretical and “intolerable” to UNpack the so called intellectual under pinnings of those who Accuse Others of being blind followers of “heresy” and “stake burning”, then so be it! Some “cult” that is!

“Seriously”, if you fear yourself and others will “join the author of the main article here in appreciation of open debate” by THROWING “Mises” out with LewRockwell as your barometer of tolerance in place of intellectual honesty then that would be a “hissy fit”! Some “bandwagon” that is!

The actual “bandwagon” you are on that makes a mockery of Mises work by one of his prized students, be DAMNED!

Indeed, it’s NOT JUST mainstream media that provides information within a very narrow FRAMEWORK that serves to MANUFACTURE CONSENT for government policies AND STIFLE meaningful debate on LIFE and Death issues.

These are my journeys in providing insight and freeing analysis for myself and commentary from outside the STANDARD FRAMEWORK, challenging mainstream narratives, exposing government and media propaganda, and broadening the scope of the discussion.

I would say it is not only the US unique form of fascism and self talk that clearly snookers the respectable folks…See America’s Unique Fascism by Anthony Gregory

2011 Anthony Gregory. “The dirty little secret is that there has been a bipartisan project of corporatism, the economic underpinning of fascism, for almost a century.” Five years …

There is ONLY ONE ENTITY, its AGENT PROVOCATEURS, Social Justice Warriors, AND those that fall for the assumed philosophical truisms that can pit the poor against the rich, the young against the old, the white against the black, women against men and women, Mises against LewRockwell, this country against another and THRIVE thru Divide and Conquer and Domination apparatus and thinking, language…TIME and AGAIN.