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.
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.
That's the First Amendment issue I'm talking about.
Who decides which protests people "should not" attend?
If the protest is lawful, what crime are they being punished for?
If they are supposed to be in work, being paid or seeking work. That’s the crime.