Constitution
§6.1 — The Two-Stage Immigration System
Read the operative provision in the annotated Constitution.
Open provision →Yara Osman held federal legal residency. She had lived and worked in Talvenne for six years. Gate 1 had been cleared by Talvenne's sponsorship bureau. Gate 2 had been cleared by federal certification. The Civic Consul had ministerially issued her credentials. She was a legal resident of the Republic, not of Talvenne — her credentials were federal and valid in every State.
Then Talvenne's new legislature passed the Residency Integrity Act. It purported to revoke State sponsorship for all residents whose original sponsorship applications had been processed under the prior administration's criteria. The Act listed 340 names. Yara Osman was one of them.
§6.1 — Federal Credentials Are Federal
Residency credentials, once issued, are federal. A State's role ends at Gate 1.
Gate 1 is the State's constitutional moment. A State sponsors or it doesn't. Once Gate 2 is cleared and federal legal residency vests, the State's Gate 1 decision has done its constitutional work. There is no mechanism by which a State may retroactively revoke a federal credential by withdrawing the State sponsorship that preceded it.
The Talvenne Act was constitutionally void on its face. Federal credentials are valid throughout the Republic — no State may create a secondary residency tier, condition an existing credential on continued State approval, or remove a person from the Republic. Only the federal government holds removal authority, and only for violations of laws the Legislature has defined.
§6.2 — The §1.6 Challenge
Even a valid future State sponsorship denial can be challenged on discrimination grounds.
The Residency Integrity Act was invalid as applied to existing credential holders. But the constitutional question about Talvenne's future Gate 1 conduct was separate. A review of the 340 names revealed a pattern: they were overwhelmingly from three countries of origin. The State's stated criteria — "prior administration's vetting standards" — was not a §1.6 criterion. But the effect was.
Affected residents filed a §6.2 challenge. The Act could not touch their existing credentials. But the challenge went to whether Talvenne could apply the same underlying criteria to future Gate 1 decisions. §6.2 is clear: State sponsorship denials may be challenged for discrimination contrary to §1.6, and the court determines the remedy. This express route does not extinguish Article I remedies for other concrete legal injuries or make policy disagreement by itself a judicial claim.
The SC found the pattern sufficient to require Talvenne to reconsider its vetting criteria. The 340 existing credentials remained valid. Talvenne's Gate 1 discretion remained intact — bounded.
The federal-State immigration architecture produces exactly this result: a State holds genuine discretion at Gate 1, and that discretion ends when it produces discriminatory outcomes. The credentials of those who cleared both gates are not contingent on a State's continued approval. Federal means federal.