[semimojo]

Was there some specific wording which gave you that impression?

How about:

"an undesirable person could be granted citizenship in one State and then move to another State and be entitled to that State's privileges and immunities without the State's consent!

Or:

"Chief Justice Taney summarized the very object of allowing the federal government to set the rules for naturalization as follows: "Its sole object was to prevent one State from forcing upon all the others and upon the General Government, persons as citizens whom they were unwilling to admit as such.""

Maybe I misunderstand your argument but then why include these passages?

[semimojo]

I certainly did not bring up that question in the OP.

What? I thought the whole point of your post was that the feds don't have the constitutional authority to put refugees in a state that doesn't want them. That is, the state can deny them residency.

By definition, if the federal government allows them in they are legal residents of the US.

[JOHN W K]

What you quote has to do with the reason for which the federal government was granted a power over "naturalization" . I think your misunderstanding is confusing naturalization with immigration.

JWK