[cryptonector]

> Nowhere in the First Amendment, or anywhere in the Bill of Rights (or later amendments), does it state, or even imply, that the First Amendment is only applicable to US citizens and permanent residents.

The Second Amendment does ("... the right of the People ..."). And the Fourteenth Amendment specifically refers to people "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S.

The Fifth and Sixth Amendments are taken to apply to all persons in the U.S., citizens, residents, and otherwise, even though they say nothing of the sort.

If one wished to say that the 2A's mention of "the People" implies that the other amendments don't apply to foreigners, that would have perverse results such as denying all due process to foreigners. The contrary is true. Therefore the other protections do apply to foreigners except for the fact that foreigners can be expelled, and there is no protection against that (in principle not even due process protections against removal except as granted by statute).

The Constitution is not just what's written on it but what the courts have said in their interpretations. I'm quite sure that the 1A does not protect foreigners against removal for their speech is not controversial in legal circles as a statement of actual jurisprudence.

[johnfernow]

Some fair points. Courts have ruled Congress can make laws concerning foreign residents that would be unconstitutional if applied to domestic residents and citizens. They generally can't deny someone their Constitutional rights once already inside the US though. But since deportation isn't a criminal conviction (and rejection at the border especially isn't), it's conceivable that they could deny someone entry for a variety of reasons.

So perhaps not a violation of the Constitution. Though if the scientist's claims that he was denied entry because he expressed a personal opinion on the Trump administration's research policy, then it certainly violates the spirit of the First Amendment, and much of what the government claims it stands for. Is it legal? Perhaps. Will it cause long-standing damage to US soft-power and the ability of US organizations to recruit world-class scientists? Quite possibly.

[cryptonector]

> Some fair points.

Thanks.

> Though if the scientist's claims that he was denied entry because he expressed a personal opinion on the Trump administration's research policy, then it certainly violates the spirit of the First Amendment, and much of what the government claims it stands for.

That's an "if". We don't know what the CBP agent saw. But let's assume it's harmless, then I agree that it's damaging to the Administration's brand, but I also wouldn't agree (yet) that it happened because of Trump's orders.

> Is it legal? Perhaps.

Current law gives the executive branch the power to turn away foreigners for almost any reason.

> Will it cause long-standing damage to US soft-power and the ability of US organizations to recruit world-class scientists? Quite possibly.

Almost certainly, especially if neither CBP makes a more useful statement nor the WH comes out and clears things up. It's entirely possible that the WH will not take notice and that CBP doesn't want to engage the public on this.

Some years ago the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission started going into convention venues in Texas and arresting anyone they could argue was publicly intoxicated. That led to a spate of conventions boycotting the state until the TABC backed down.