You might be on to something there

I’d be shocked if they even bothered to hire any this time around lol

Huh. TIL.

I guess this is exactly what the judicial branch was created for. We’ve got an undefined area of legality, somebody’s got to sort it out, and until they do we just can’t say for sure one way or the other

Has he ever given any indication that he knows what the CHIPS Act is? Because I’m 99% sure he’s confusing it with CHIP Children’s Health Insurance Program which iirc is part of social security and we know he’s aiming to get rid of that.

IMO you’re overthinking it.

The Constitution applies to all people within jurisdiction of the United States. Immigration or citizenship status isn’t a factor; he absolutely has a first amendment right to say what he said.

The question you’re struggling with is regarding people who aren’t already within the jurisdiction, or are applying for citizenship.

All of that said, if ICE already deported him then that complicates things. Normally somebody who’s been deported will be denied reentry for that reason alone; there’s a waiting period (5 years iirc) if they’re ever going to be allowed back in at all. But you’re correct that they could also deny him reentry for his political views. It’s likely that, if he’s already out of the country, legally removed or not, a judge will have to order him to be allowed reentry despite both of this things.

Not enough

Approving the post and then locking it before anyone could comment would be a hilarious and fitting way to answer the question!