Historically visas could and were denied for completely arbitrary reasons.
The right to free speech. Even in its restrictive First Amendment form.
Once they're in the country, sure.
----
Not that I think it's been demonstrated that this policy will improve US security or etc. Wonder if the APA applies here.
some people only consider their in-groups as worthy of having rights.
others consider all human beings as worthy of having rights.
you see that schism in play everyday almost everywhere. i fear it is not a resolvable tension (without some kind of mass severe brainwashing). it is a core beliefs kind of thing.
The assumption of discrimination is therefore baked in to every national project -- there are people who wish to participate in the nation but are barred from doing so. It's uncomfortable for many people to consider this, because it runs counter to the idea that their nations are welcoming places, but it's important to remember this discrimination occurs (even if you think it's a good idea.)
But the First Amendment does apply to the many US citizens and permanent residents who are being indirectly surveilled, profiled, and chilled in their speech as a result of the extra scrutiny of the foreign visa applicants with whom they interact and connect on social media.
Textually, it does. (The President acts without force of law when he restricts “freedom of expression.”)
Intent-wise, for those seeking entry to America, it does—our republic was formed, in part, to restrict the executive from excluding religious minorities he doesn’t liked
Legally, however, you are right.
You can point out that the constitution is for Americans only etc. etc.
The thing is, that the right to free speech, as defended by court cases and by precedence, is about the market place of ideas being functional, and allowing society to figure out what it considers “true”.
This is the spirit of the clause, and the purpose behind the freedoms Americans enjoy and used to uphold.
The reading that it applies “only to American citizens, and visitors on US soil”, is an after the fact reinterpretation to win arguments online.
Free speech in America has always been about the government not being able to decide what can and can’t be said, especially when it comes down to deciding which nations can and can’t be spoken about.
Your argument, can only be built on the ruins of the American free speech experiment. Because it accepts the death of the spirit of the idea, the a marketplace of ideas as a way to address the unknowns of reality, with a centralized, and enforced way of safe topics.
For what its worth, you only reach this level of banana republic, after your information and idea markets are compromised or overwhelmed.
I’m simply pointing out that your argument on procedural merits, takes the spirit of the law to the back of the shed, and shoots it.