The proposal was to punish people for attending a protest they didn't like. That's why I brought up the First Amendment.
Has anyone actually shown that the people holding "Team Algae" signs vandalized anything? Because I can't find anything where anyone has actually been caught vandalizing it.
The First Amendment applies to non-citizens too. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that constitutional free speech protections generally extend to people in the US, not just citizens.
Whether someone is looking for work has nothing to do with the First Amendment.
The question is whether they committed a crime, not whether they hold a passport or out of a job.
I'm curious as to what it is that you've been reading that you think is the US Constitution if you think the First Amendment is only valid for working , non- governmemt or non-NGO (are those double negatives? This is getting confusing) employee US citizens. Because it's obviously not the one I'm familiar with.
Vandalism is not free speech, it is a wanton act of purposeful destruction of property belonging to someone else.
Where it relates to public property, it is especially egregious because it lowers the tone and atmosphere of the public space.
I believe all forms of vandalism should be treated as they do in Singapore. Lashes and lashes of lashes.
My comment wasn't about vandalism.
The proposal was to punish people for attending a protest they didn't like. That's why I brought up the First Amendment.
Has anyone actually shown that the people holding "Team Algae" signs vandalized anything? Because I can't find anything where anyone has actually been caught vandalizing it.
Fair point. However, if they should be seeking work, in work or not American then the 1st does not apply.
The First Amendment applies to non-citizens too. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that constitutional free speech protections generally extend to people in the US, not just citizens.
Whether someone is looking for work has nothing to do with the First Amendment.
The question is whether they committed a crime, not whether they hold a passport or out of a job.
I'm curious as to what it is that you've been reading that you think is the US Constitution if you think the First Amendment is only valid for working , non- governmemt or non-NGO (are those double negatives? This is getting confusing) employee US citizens. Because it's obviously not the one I'm familiar with.
You are derailing my point. If they should not be at a protest there should be consequences.