US Constitution Section 10 paragraph 3:
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
“... unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”
Both conditions apply here.
----
“... unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”
That's a good point. The primary part of the clause, IMO-
or engage in War, unless actually invaded,
was to prevent States from fighting with each other.
§ 1398. The other prohibitions in the clause respect the power of making war, which is appropriately confided to the national government. The setting on foot of an army, or navy, by a state in times of peace, might be a cause of jealousy between neighbouring states, and provoke the hostilities of foreign bordering nations. In other cases, as the protection of the whole Union is confided to the national arm, and the national power, it is not fit, that any state should possess military means to overawe the Union, or to endanger the general safety. Still, a state may be so situated, that it may become indispensable to possess military forces, to resist an expected invasion, or insurrection. The danger may be too imminent for delay; and under such circumstances, a state will have a right to raise troops for its own safety, even without the consent of congress.
Joseph Story , Commentaries on the Constitution
Of course, it didn't mean they don't have the Right to defend themselves, either.
-----
From my understanding, the Founders wrote the Constitution for the States to have a unified mechanism with which to deal with other Nations and to maintain a reasonable peace with each other. They never intended for the federal government to have direct control over immigrants, only for the general government to make a rule for the States to follow.
I'd also like to point out they are NOT 'immigrants' as far as the Constitution is concerned until they actually start the process of immigration.
They are now, and have always been, denizens , and it's up to the States to deal with them.
From the first legal treatise written after Ratification:
The common law has affixed such distinct and appropriate ideas to the terms denization, and naturalization, that they can not be confounded together, or mistaken for each other in any legal transaction whatever. They are so absolutely distinct in their natures, that in England the rights they convey, can not both be given by the same power; the king can make denizens, by his grant, or letters patent, but nothing but an act of parliament can make a naturalized subject. This was the legal state of this subject in Virginia, when the federal constitution was adopted; it declares that congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization; throughout the United States; but it also further declares, that the powers not delegated by the constitution to the U. States, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states, respectively or to the people. The power of naturalization, and not that of denization, being delegated to congress, and the power of denization not being prohibited to the states by the constitution, that power ought not to be considered as given to congress, but, on the contrary, as being reserved to the states.
St. George Tucker
And that's the lie that's killing us.
-----
Again, my apologies for initially missing your post.