So does that mean it's up to the individual states to determine who gets admitted? If so that seems to run contrary contrary to the arguments made in the original post that no state should be able to admit a foreigner that the other states may find objectionable.
It seems to me that Article IV Section 2 is unworkable unless the feds control immigration.
There is nothing in the OP suggesting what you state above. Was there some specific wording which gave you that impression?
JWK
Regarding unconstitutional regulation of immigration by the feds, note the following example. Activist justices wrongly decided the late 19th century immigration case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark in Mr. Arks favor, imo, the Courts decision based on a twisted interpretation of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment (14A).
Thanks to Attorney Mark Levin I have included excerpts from the congressional record about 14A at the bottom of this post. The excerpts concern federal lawmakers who proposed 14A to the states. The lawmakers clarified that a person is born in the USA to parents who are not USA citizens is likewise not a USA citizen.
"So does that mean it's up to the individual states to determine who gets admitted?"
By being admitted, do you mean do the individual states get to decide their own rules for which legal immigrants, as defined by a given state, get to become citizens of the USA, and as citizens entitled to all personal protections provided by the Constitution? The decision to make rules for citizenship is actually uniquely up to the feds as evidenced by the ”uniform Rule of Naturalization” Clause (1.8.4).
Regarding Section 2 of Article IV, consider this example about state privileges and immunities. Many young adults have probably celebrated reaching the legal drinking age of neighboring state having a lower legal drinking age by going to that state to purchase and drink an alcoholic beverage since they still have to wait until they are legal drinking age in their own state to do so.
Again, I have not yet run across siginficant examples of Founding States intentions for Section 2 of Article IV. So please keep your eyes open for such examples.
Below are excerpts from the post-Civil War congressional record which are related to the ”anchor baby” controversy. And regardless what Bill OReilly wants everybody to believe about anchor babies, the federal lawmakers who proposed 14A to the states had clarified that 14A does not automatically make a person born in the states a citizen of the USA.
"The first amendment is to section one, declaring that ”all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.” I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been so fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens [emphases added], who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.” - Senator Jacob Howard, Congressional Globe, 1774 - 1875 Congressional Globe, Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session.
And to clear up any confusion about ”foreigners” and ”aliens” in the excerpt above being used to describe the family members of ambassadors or foreign ministers, the excerpt below is another official perspective on what 14As jurisdiction clause means.
"Of course my opinion is not any better than that of any other member of the Senate; but it is very clear to me that there is nothing whatever in the suggestions of the Senator from Wisconsin. The provision is, that ” all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” That means ”subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” Now, does the Senator from Wisconsin pretend to say that the Navajo Indians are subject to the Complete jurisdiction of the United States? What do we mean by ”subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means. [emphases added] Can you sue a Navajo Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make . . .” - Senator Lyman Trumbull, Congressional Globe, 1774 - 1875 Congressional Globe, Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session. (See middle of first column.)