The Constitution uses the following in regard to protest in the first amendment

   Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It uses this same "right of the people" in the second amendment

    ... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

In both cases, the right is restricted to "the people." Note in the first amendment, only the final bit about protests is restricted to "the people" the rest is generally protected whether it is "the people" or not.

Note in Heller and elsewhere it was determined "the people" are those who belong to the political class (which is a bit vague, refer to next sentence, but not same as voting class). Generally this is not those on non-immigrant visas or illegal aliens (though circuits are split on this). If you don't have the right to bear arms, clearly you are not "the people" since people by definition have the right to bear arms, which means you wouldn't have the right of "the people" to protest either, no? So it appears since they are not people, they don't have the right to assemble in protest, though they may have other first amendment rights since it's protest specifically that was narrowed to "the people" rather than many of the other parts of the first amendment which are worded without that narrowing.

For instance, speech without assembly isn't narrowed to just "the people." Perhaps this was done intentionally since allowing non-people to stage protests was seen as less desirable than merely allowing them to otherwise speak freely.

Note: Personally I do think non-immigrants are people, but trying to apply the same "people" two different ways with the exact same wording makes no sense. If they can't bear arms they necessarily are not "the people" and thus are not afforded the right to "assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

▲ rootusrootus 24 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

> the people

You could make this argument, but the Supreme Court does not seem to agree, they have consistently said that "the people" is basically everyone here. Even those unlawfully here.

That said, the second amendment does have some interpretation that allows for restrictions on temporary visa holders like the student that is the topic of this discussion. But it also has rulings that support it applying to illegal immigrants.

	▲	mothballed a few seconds ago \| parent [-]
		> they have consistently said that "the people" is basically everyone here. This is absolutely false. DC v Heller cites that "the people" refers to members of the "political community."[] Not "basically everyone here." The interpretation of that has been split in the circuits. One court in Illinois found it might include illegal immigrants or non-immigrants. This is anomalous. `What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. As we said in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990):`

▲ Peritract 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

If you have to work your way round to "they are not people" for the law to be consistent, consider that it might be a bad law.

▲

traderj0e 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's not that they aren't people, they aren't the people that the Constitution refers to. There are many rights that visitors don't have.

▲

Peritract an hour ago | parent [-]

That is one possible (specious and self-serving) interpretation of a document that pre-dates the concepts and laws it's being used to prop up.

How many of the Pilgrims had a valid modern visa?

▲

traderj0e an hour ago | parent [-]

USA was founded well after the Pilgrims. I don't think anyone in 1776, or even in the Pilgrim days, was thinking a foreigner should have the right to vote for instance.

▲

kelnos an hour ago | parent | next [-]

After the Revolutionary War, most US citizens couldn't vote. I don't think we should be using that time period for comparison.

▲

Peritract an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Who else didn't they think should have the right to vote in 1776, and was that the right call in your opinion?

As I said above, a law you have to tie yourself in knots to justify might be a bad law.

▲

traderj0e an hour ago | parent [-]

What are you saying, the US Constitution is bogus because people were racist in 1776? It's undergone amendments and clarifications by the Judicial branch. It's been consistently obvious that foreigners don't have the same rights as citizens here, and tourism or immigration law wouldn't really work otherwise.

▲

Peritract an hour ago | parent [-]

You didn't answer my question, but here's what I'm saying:

> If you have to work your way round to "they are not people" for the law to be consistent, consider that it might be a bad law.

I disagree that the law (which has been changed, amended and clarified) has been 'consistently obvious', and I still maintain that the conclusion of 'immigrants aren't people' invalidates the law.

	▲	traderj0e 22 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		The courts didn't come to the conclusion that immigrants aren't people. Probably the opposite in fact.

▲

2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]