All of the references I can find indicate that "establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization" grants the federal (as opposed to state) government hte righ to establish all laws and rules of naturilization or immigration. As you yourself have pointed out, the Constitution wasn't created nor does it exist in a vaccuum. What powers have the courts consistently granted to the federal government in this regard? The answer: All powers for immigration and naturalization, as these were seen as the customary powers of a national government. As with the Second Amendment, the Constitution isn't granting rights, it is illuminating rights that pre-existed its creation.

If you want to give The Government the right to control immigration, then you need to pass an amendment that enables that rather than twist the meaning of Naturalization to include immigration.

OK, then, if you want to give the government power to pay for people's retirement plans and offer them health insurance, pass an amendment. That's what I've said all along, and you are now agreeing with me that that the government's powers are supposed to be both enumerated and limited. That we disagree on this issue is becuase I can show, historically, that the U.S. government has had authority over immigration and naturalization since its inception, but it had no authority to grant retirements or health care to the indigent until 70 years ago.

In any case, it is not myself that is attaching meaning to the words of the Constitution. Those meanings are the ones that have served the nation throughout its history and they were "added" if indeed any were added, years before I was born.

What you are effectively saying is tha tthe Immigration and Naturalization Acts past in 1952 and 1965 are unconstitutinal. The courts have had only a limited run at this issue, but have not found those laws to be unconstitutional. In 1953, SCOTUS ruoled that "The Bill of Rights ia futile authoirty for the alien seeking admission for the first time to these shores. But once an alien lawfulyy enters and resides in this country he become invested with the rights guarnateed by the Constitution to all people within our borders." This at least indicates that there are lawful and unlawful means of entry, and was upheld in 1990 in US v. Verdugo-Urquidez. Are both these rulings "activist" in nature -- if so, was every court constituted since 1950 activist on this subjectSo, at least according to SCOTUS there are lawful and unlawful means of entering the country, and the laws in question must be those that are already on the books, and they are Constitutional according to the court system. You may disagree with their constitutionality, but if so, you'll either have to find a court that will rule saying you are right, or pass an amendment making past court rulings wrong.

As for the Second Amendment, personally, I don't have a problem with the neighbor having nukes, and I've already shown that weapon heavier than individual weapons can still be owned in this country by private citizens, admittedly with tight controls (they are not, however, banned). We don't disagree -- SCOTUS, however, may disagree because despite what was written about "bearable arms" in the majority decision in Heller, that decision also left the establishment of limits on what types of arms may be controlled as a matter of unsettled law.