Question for pro-Trump textualist originalists

[Person Man]

 If one state wants to give a legal status short of citizenship to immigrants, would other states have to respect it?

How would that even work? Would we have border check points on every state border? This is where things become even trickier.

I understand that one thing doesn't mean another thing but you can't just say that the law was only used in light of a particular situation and can't be interpreted differently in another situation, especially if that situation no longer exists and therefore renders such law meaningless.

[Person Man]

If one state wants to give a legal status short of citizenship to immigrants, would other states have to respect it?

How would that even work? Would we have border check points on every state border? This is where things become even trickier.

I understand that one thing doesn't mean another thing but you can't just say that the law was only used in light of a particular situation and can't be interpreted differently in another situation, especially if that situation no longer exists and therefore renders such law meaningless.

Those are logistical questions that have nothing to do with my post. I'm not asking for solutions or weakness in Jefferson's immigration argument. I'm simply asking if and where the Constitution gives the authority to the federal government to regulate immigration. I don't believe it does, but I'm open to being convinced.

Also, it's not really something that can be "interpreted differently", because there's nothing to interpret. It's not in there. That's like suggesting that the clause about aliens from Mars can be interpreted in different ways. Show me where that clause is, then we'll talk about interpretation.

You don't think being able to federally enforce immigration is not an implicit power just because the only related explicit power is that Congress can make laws regarding naturalization?

[Person Man]

Article I Section 8 Clause 4 gives Congress the sole power to set uniform rules of Naturalization.

For those uncomfortable with the idea that power over Immigration is not a Necessary and Proper consequence of regulating Naturalization, Article I Section 9 Clause 1 clearly implies that since 1808, Congress has the sole power to regulate Immigration, since it bars Congress from doing that for twenty years. There's no reason to limit a power Congress does not otherwise possess, be it by the Naturalization Clause, the Foreign Commerce Clause, or some other clause of Article I Section 8.

Isn't that more of a slavery clause? Wouldn't just be simple to say that Congress has the power to write the laws of naturalization and all other laws that are necessary and proper to that end?