Wouldn't such a scheme violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the US Constitution? See e.g., Crandall v. Nevada, where the Supreme Court explicitly held that an egress tax was unconstitutional.
> In the exercise of its taxing power, a state may not discriminate substantially between residents and nonresidents. In Ward v. Maryland the Court set aside a state law that imposed specific taxes upon nonresidents for the privilege of selling within the state goods that were produced in other states. Also found to be incompatible with the comity clause was a Tennessee license tax, the amount of which was dependent upon whether the person taxed had his chief office within or without the state. In Travis v. Yale & Towne Mfg. Co., the Court, although sustaining the right of a state to tax income accruing within its borders to nonresidents, held the particular tax void because it denied to nonresidents exemptions which were allowed to residents. The "terms 'resident' and 'citizen' are not synonymous," wrote Justice Pitney, "... but a general taxing scheme ... if it discriminates against all non-residents, has the necessary effect of including in the discrimination those who are citizens of other States ...." Where there were no discriminations between citizens and noncitizens, a state statute taxing the business of hiring persons within the state for labor outside the state was sustained.
[0]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-4/sec...
e.g. if you go don't go through immigration, you can physically live there, but you'll have to pay 105% of your income in tax
Otherwise, it sounds like a distinction without a difference. How do you imagine a "going through immigration" process that doesn't effectively produce "resident"/"non-resident" status?
Prop 13: Mission accomplished.