Can a US state ban a single person from entering a country?

Like how any country can expell a foreigner for a crime or not allow convicts into the country. Like say, can Alabamba put restrictions on who can enter the state, regardless whether the person is an American, ie a Californian with a police record?
Has it ever happen, a state banning a single American from entering?

Yes, Alabama can do anything it damn well pleases, with come exceptions, c.f. War of Northern Aggression.

Americans have a federal constitutional right to travel. States may not restrict Americans from entering the state, but one’s home state may prevent one from leaving (for example through probation and parole restrictions).

Immigration is the purview of the federal government and states may not set immigration policies.

I think this is the earliest affirmation of the Constitutional right to travel, but I’m sure one of our legal types will correct me if I’m wrong.

CRANDALL v. STATE OF NEVADA, 73 U.S. 35 (1867)

Even if there were a proscription against an individual entering a state, there’s no mechanism to enforce it. Aside from some southwestern states with fruit/vegetable checkpoints (to prevent bringing in agriculturally damaging pests), the states have open borders. Anyone can drive (or bicycle, or walk) to nearly anywhere.

What about police officers that escort you to the city/county limits and tell you not to come back, “or else”.

You may well be arrested, or at least harassed, if they see you in their jurisdiction. They’re still not going to be watching the entire state/county line to prevent your re-entry.

Presumably that was in lieu of arresting you for something. If you come back, they arrest you for whatever it was you did (such as loitering with intent).

An early controversy over the power of a state to exclude persons from its boundaries occurred during debate over the admission of Missouri in 1820. Missouri sought admission with a clause in its Constitution that “free Negroes and mulattoes shall not be admitted into (the) State”.

During the debates over this clause, all sides agreed that the “priveleges and immunities” clause of the federal Constitution forbade such restrictions on citizens. Sad to say, the point of debate was whether even free African Americans were citizens. The admission of Missouri never resolved the issue, and other states enacted similar laws. They weren’t usually enforced, however; free African Americans were more at risk from kidnapping by slave catchers than arrest by their home states.

Since the Civil War, the issue is settled. We have the litigation cited by Otto, the citizenship issue has been resolved, and the Fourteenth Amendment includes an even stronger privileges and immunities clause. In addition, a proscription of a single individual, as envisioned by the OP, would violate the Equal Protection clause.

In the state of Georgia, a criminal can be banished from the “jurisdiction” for the duration of probation. The “jurisdiction” was originally intended to be just the local city/county, but has been liberally applied lately by the city of Atlanta to mean all of Georgia except one remote county: Echols (out of 159 counties). The criminals don’t go there of course and are effectively banished from the state. (Which is actually against the state constitution.)

Don’t you just love it when a legal system breaks down?

Very interesting. Cite?