Tell me if I'm wrong but I think you're saying the states have the exclusive power to regulate immigration.
Would you then agree that CA could allow anyone to immigrate, making them citizens of CA, who would then fall under the protections of Article IV Section 2?
I would like to think that a state would not kick a resident out of a state without a reason, but I do not see anything from stopping a state from doings so.
Well, Article IV implies it and SCOTUS explicitly stated in Corfield v. Coryell that the right of a citizen of one state to reside in another state is indeed guaranteed by Article IV Section 2.
This is enough proof, for me anyway, that people born in the USA to non-citizen parents are not automatically citizens of the USA under the 14th Amendment, regardless if the parents are residents under a states immigration laws.
It's true that Indians were not subject to US jurisdiction, but not because they weren't citizens. It was because the federal government's relationship with them was governed by treaties in which the government relinquished most jurisdiction. It's exactly analogous to the way we treat foreign diplomats and their offspring, which is also governed by treaty.
Non-diplomatic immigrants here, legal or illegal, are fully subject to our jurisdiction.
Who cares what I say about this issue? Again, constitutional experts Thomas Jefferson and James Madison had clearly indicated that the states uniquely have the 10th Amendment-protected power to regulate immigration.
"Would you then agree that CA could allow anyone to immigrate, making them citizens of CA, who would then fall under the protections of Article IV Section 2?"
Your argument is basically the reason why the Founding States made the ”uniform Rule of Naturalization” Clause (1.8.4). If I understand correctly, before the Constitution was ratified, the individual colonies could make immigrants in their colonies citizens of the colony which also entitled them to the privileges of the Confederation.
But since it was known that it was easier to become a citizen in some colonies than it was in others, some immigrants used the ”easy” colonies as a back door to become a citizen of that colony and therefore enjoy the protections of the Confederation.
But the colonies with higher citizenship standards objected to this and when the Constitution was drafted the states agreed to include the ”uniform Rule of Naturalization” Clause to insure higher citizenship standards.
Regarding California non-citizen residents, there is nothing to stop California, except angry California taxpayers, from using its 10th Amendment-protected power to spoil immigrants with California state welfare all it wants to imo. But since Article IV, Section 2 of the federal Constitution applies only to citizens of the USA, not to non-citizens, the Cornfield v. Coryell case likewise addressing the rights of out-of-state USA citizens in New Jersey, other states are still free to apply their 10th Amendment-based immigration laws to non-USA citizen residents of California.