I read the exchange between Daniel Goldman and D. Andre. The Constitution gives Congress the powers to control naturalization. In the immigration policy, which we have since the Immigration Act of 1924, rearranged in 1965, it is assumed that whoever is given the right to immigrate, stays here for good, ergo, naturalizes. Hence, regulating putting foreigners on the path to naturalization can be argued as Constitutional.
Before 1924, or practically before beginning of the WWI in 1914, foreigners had been coming mostly seeking opportunities. Some with a strong determination to settle for good, others just to make some money and go back home. According to the Dillingham report from 1911, about one third of those who arrived were returning home, and among those arriving, 12% had been in the United states before. Only those who prospered here stayed for good, and eventually naturalized.
Hence, the real question is if our immigration law as we have now is constitutional. In particular, our current immigration law limits freedom of Americans in hiring foreigners. Hence, the bone of contention is not in immigration per se but in restrictions for foreigners to come and work here legally. Is it constitutional? The legality of this approach can be claimed by referring to the Supreme court decision in the Slaughter-House Cases from 1873, in general limiting freedom of enterprise in the name of a higher, but arbitrarily interpreted, social good. But, it is a long stretch.
Similarly, questionable is a common good from a fewer foreigners allowed to come and work among us. The spirit of the Declaration of Independence and of the Constitution is that the government should not decide arbitrarily what is the common good of the nation and should have no powers to impose its will on free citizens. What is good for the nation should come as an outcome of not restricted free activities of its citizens, with an understanding that the only restriction of the freedom should be justified by protecting equal freedom of other citizens. Prohibition is an example when this approach was not respected. The question is if by hiring foreigners a given American deprives other Americans their freedom to pursue happiness.
If we agree that Americans should have no restriction of hiring foreigners, then we can abandon our current immigration law almost entirely. Those foreigners who stayed here legally as gust workers for a certain period, five years for example, and meet some criteria, as no criminal record and ability to support themselves, should automatically qualify for a green card, opening the venue for naturalization five years later.
I write extensively on this subject. The last two articles on Medium are:
My website dedicated to this issue is here: https://www.freedomofmigration.com/.