[flagged]
Wrong. The Constitution is very clear on which rights are limitations on the government no matter which people it is dealing with and which are particular to citizens, and there are very few of the latter. Exactly one, in fact: the right to vote, though its mentioned several times in terms of which things are prohibited as excuses for denying it.
2. They apply to everyone subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
Otherwise it would be real easy to just say "you're not a citizen, you have no rights". Don't be so sure you're safe.
A First Amendment case involving an Australian immigrant.
Key holding: Non-citizens inside the U.S. have First Amendment rights.
Quote:
“Freedom of speech and of the press is accorded aliens residing in this country.”
Unless this quote is directly from the constitution, it's totally worthless to support your argument.
1st Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Read that carefully and note that the word "citizen" is nowhere to be found.
Next, some may argue that "the people" inherently represents only citizens. Jurisprudence has generally accepted that phrase to mean everyone, including illegal immigrants, but it depends on the surrounding context[1]. The idea that the Bill of Rights applies only to citizens, though, doesn't match any court interpretation of which I'm aware.
Again if you disagree, you'd better be prepared to produce birth certificates of all your ancestors to prove you're a "natural born citizen" born of citizens. That's where this leads.