Completely false. They are not affected by naturalization at all. It's absurd to claim they are dependent on naturalization because things cannot be dependent on that which has no bearing on them whatsoever.
BS. A person cannot be here unless at the discretion of the U.S. and can be deported for being here without permission. This is part of naturalization, but it's also part of defense as a border issue(which I noticed you never touched).
Immigrants can't vote in any elections unless they go through the naturalization process and become citizens. Only citizens can vote in elections. this is just as true right now as it would be if the feds had not usurped sole power over immigration. The benefits of citizenship are not affected by the rules regarding immigration. What a silly question to even ask.
And yet some states are trying to assert that they want non-citizens to vote on elections, that is a naturalization issue. The problem with saying immigration and naturalization aren't under federal purview is that there are two powers that prove otherwise.
The fourteenth amendment has absolutely nothing to do with immigration, residency, or naturalization.
The fourteenth is a naturalization amendment. It's in section one of the amendment dealing with citizenship, while it was written in regard to the end of slavery it was also written as an evergreen amendment. IOW, it gives citizenship protection duties to the federal, this includes those naturalized and those under the authority of the U.S. Even illegal immigrants(not the amendment) are due certain basic protections, like law enforcement preventing crimes against them, basics like that, and thus it puts a strain on the process of naturalization, because those here legally and in the process are accounted for, resources and assimilation is planned for, and we ease them in. People who just say "to hell with it" and overstay or disrespect our borders put additional strain on the system. That's not deniable.
Of course. Naturalization is requires that those immigrants who wish to become citizens must be documented by the feds in some way, but that, of course, has no ****ing bearing on immigrants who have no desire to become citizens. I've never said otherwise.
So we give protections and use resources on people who have no desire to become citizens? This excludes guest workers, students, and asylum seekers. Do we really want people breaking laws, crashing here, eating up resources who have no desire to join the community? And this sentiment, reality is why the naturalization process and immigration powers are necessarily linked by necessary and proper, there is a power that connects the two tests.
So the question becomes: Why does the government have sole authority over immigration and residency when immigrants who seek residence can do so without ever having the desire to become citizens?
I don't think they should have sole authority on enforcement, and certainly not residency. However this is a rare case where they actually do have a power allowing them to enforce should a state not do so, and an even rarer case where the state has no power to stop it.
There is no "desire to become a citizen" test for immigration. There is no expectation to become a citizen for immigrants (despite your previous false claim).
Yes there is, for a green card and permanent residence a person must be in the process of naturalizing. The only possibly permanent exception is asylum, every thing else is temporary by the visa system.
thus, what is the justification for usurping State authority over immigration and residency under the guise of naturalization, since immigration is obviously not dependent on naturalization?
I've explained this enough. It's simple, the U.S. is in charge of naturalization and defense, everything about immigration crosses both of those powers.
Easily, just like they did for 100 years. Allow the states to determine who they grant residency to, as per the constitution (10th amendment), and then add a federal immigration path that is the uniform path to naturalization. As in, anyone who has a desire to eventually become a naturalized citizen must follow the federal path of immigration. those who do not wish to become citizens can utilize one of the state paths to residency/immigration.
However states are not supposed to harbor criminals, illegal immigrants in this case, so how do you reconcile that.
this would mean that a place like Illinois can, if they desire, grant legal residency status to any immigrant who seeks Illinois residency, regardless of their federal status. However, if that immigrant does not have federal status, they cannot move between states and they run the risk of not being allowed to re-enter the country if they leave. They will also prevent themselves from ever becoming naturalized citizens.
And if INS catches them they are gone.
See, the federal monopoly on immigration is not justified by naturalization. That was not the reasoning that was given by the SC either, when they decided to increase federal authority in this regard. The federal power over immigration was invented when California decided to NOT allow a Chinese immigrant into the country. The SC decided that such actions ran the risk of creating an international incident, and that's why what worked for 100 years was suddenly deemed to not work anymore (via judicial activism).
It's not just naturalization, that is simply what we've forced the focum on. Defense is also a factor.
The 14th had nothing to do with it. Sorry. Disagree all you want, it won't affect reality here.
It has everything to do with it.