Yes, they do. Full stop. The constitution is not ambiguous about this, at all. The Bill of Rights starts, right out of the gates with:
"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. "
Note the wording. It's not in the business of granting rights (those are natural and inalienable). It restricts Congress's ability to pass any law that infringes upon those rights.
The issue is retaliating against free speech using the visa process. A person doesn’t have a right to a visa but they have right to free speech. Using the visa process to retaliate against free speech violates a foundational principle of
our government the human right to free speech.
No, it only means that you enjoy your free speech back home. No rights are being violated or suppressed. You’ll find this to be true in every free country.
The violation of the constitution here is based on the fact that the government of the United States does not have the right to restrict free speech. The 1st Amendment very actively strips them of that power.
To play devil’s advocate, this has more to do with the concept of sovereignty. A country can choose who gets to enter its borders. We may or may not agree with the rules they impose but they can set them. The constitution only applies to people that are already on US land.
Mesa v Hernandez was not decided based on the idea that people outside the US have zero rights in US courts. It was decided based on the insane principle of qualified immunity being applied to law enforcement when they violate somebody's rights in a way that is not absolutely completely identical to some prior case where a court determined that the action violates rights.
"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. "
Note the wording. It's not in the business of granting rights (those are natural and inalienable). It restricts Congress's ability to pass any law that infringes upon those rights.