I would recommend that you verify your claim with a very simple google search: first amendment for non-citizens. This cursory search will tell you that:

> Yes, the First Amendment applies to non-citizens within the United States, protecting their freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, and the right to petition the government. This protection extends to all individuals within the country, regardless of their citizenship status.

Your own government is trying hard to sideline your own constitution.

Surveillance of non-citizens on US soil implies surveillance of citizens.

> If a non-US citizen disrupted your commute or college class for a position you found reprehensible, it's likely you might feel the same.

First: Just to be completely clear, there is a leaked memo from the US state department yesterday on this particular student I am referring to and there was no evidence the US State Department could find of anti-semitism or law breaking, but they are pushing to deport her anyhow because of she peacefully expressed views that disagreed with US foreign policy:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/04/13/...

> US citizens enjoy rights non-US citizens do not, the same way membership conveys benefits

Second: Trump has spoken about wanting to denaturalize and then deport US citizens abroad. Citizenship is clearly not a barrier to this administration: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/trum...

So just we’re clear, there are countries where U.S. citizens have no rights or very limited.

So you’re perfectly fine with these countries, for example, executing US citizens without due process if they visit those countries right, because the standard you apparently want to hold the government to is basically the bare minimum rights an individual has vis a vis that government.

Also, you overestimate the rights US citizens have as well. Under Obama, for example, the government targeted a U.S. citizen for assassination. After Trump 1 the SC essentially said everything the President does is legal.

There is absolutely no reason that the President couldn’t completely target a U.S. citizen for assassination for no reason other than they didn’t like the color of their hair, and by your standard you’re absolutely fine with that.

For now

A) The historical position of the US is that human rights (freedom of belief and speech among them) are inalienable. It plays out different for non-citizens but up until the current administration, largely the same constitutional and due protections have been judged to apply.

B) We're talking about the government proactively monitoring communications for thought crimes. That doesn't actually protect or help anyone.

C)The "reprehensible" positions here are things like "genocide is bad" or "Trump is a fascist." I don't know about you, but I don't believe such thoughts should be illegal.