When Free Speech Ain’t Free: The Hard Lesson for Non-Citizens in America

When Free Speech Ain’t Free: The Hard Lesson for Non-Citizens in America
© Ogbonna Paul Hagins for Philly Word Magazine and Freedmen’s Journal 2.0

America claims to be a land of free speech. It’s the first right in the First Amendment, shouted from every courtroom, schoolbook, and protest sign. But that freedom comes with a limit—especially for those who are not true citizens of the soil. And in today’s climate, that limit is being tested and enforced more than ever.

Let’s get something straight. The 14th Amendment, which so many lean on to claim citizenship and equal protection, was never intended for everyone born on U.S. soil. According to the Congressional records of the 39th Congress, that amendment was crafted specifically for the emancipated and their progeny—American Freedmen.

It was about repairing the damage of slavery, not giving blanket birthright citizenship to the children of immigrants, tourists, or foreign nationals. That misapplication has led to deep confusion about who truly holds constitutional protection—and who is simply here by extended privilege.

Non-citizens—whether they hold a green card, student visa, work permit, or temporary protected status—are here at the will of the government.

They don’t possess the same constitutional cover as those whose families fought, died, and built this nation from its foundation. Even their children, unless descended from the emancipated, are not citizens of the soil in the truest, constitutional sense. They might be recognized on paper, but the spirit and intent of the law say otherwise.

And that difference matters—especially when it comes to speech.

If you’re here as a guest and you decide to openly attack, mock, or challenge the nation that allowed you entry, don’t be surprised when the government responds. While courts have ruled that non-citizens have some free speech protections, that right is not absolute.

Strict scrutiny is the standard used when national security, foreign policy, or public safety is in play. If your words are seen as hostile to U.S. interests or connected to unrest, even if legal on the surface, the government has the authority to revoke your stay and remove you—without a jury trial.

We’re seeing this play out right now.

Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian-born student with a green card, was arrested at Columbia University on March 8, 2025. His only “crime” was organizing pro-Palestinian protests and criticizing U.S. foreign policy. But in the current political climate, that was enough.

Homeland Security claimed his activities posed a threat to campus security and possibly national interest.

His status gave them the legal opening to detain and begin removal proceedings. Because he wasn’t a true citizen of the soil, there was no constitutional wall strong enough to stop it.

Rumeysa Ozturk, a Turkish national and doctoral candidate at Tufts University, learned the same lesson. She wrote an op-ed defending Palestinian resistance and questioning American policy. Within days, her visa was revoked. ICE picked her up in Massachusetts and cited “national interest” concerns. Her legal team shouted “academic freedom,” but immigration law doesn’t require a free speech debate—it requires compliance.

But the conversation can’t stop with foreign nationals. It has to go deeper.

Even the children of immigrants—those who were born here or naturalized—are not citizens of the soil under the original intent of the 14th Amendment. The framers of that law were clear: it was designed to secure the citizenship and civil rights of formerly enslaved people and their descendants, not to grant full constitutional power to newcomers and their children.

That distinction is critical, especially when we talk about who has standing in this country to critique, organize, or challenge its foundations.

A naturalized citizen takes an oath. But a citizen of the soil, an American Freedman, is bound by blood, sacrifice, and legacy. There’s no substitute for that.

Children of immigrants may legally participate in society, but they don’t possess the constitutional origin or inheritance of those who were born out of America’s greatest national crisis and constitutional transformation—emancipation.

This is not about discrimination. It’s about distinction. And that distinction matters when it comes to how the law is applied. In the realm of immigration, speech, national security, and loyalty, the government has made it clear: those who are not foundational to the country’s birth and rebirth are conditionally included, not constitutionally secured.

This is not new. It’s just being enforced more visibly. And with current tensions—over Gaza, Ukraine, borders, and the role of foreign influence in American society—non-citizens who speak against this country are being reminded that they are here under conditions, not under the original constitutional protection reserved for American Freedmen.

That’s not up for debate or reinterpretation—the framers of the 14th Amendment made their intent clear. We don’t get to rewrite their purpose. We honor it by applying it exactly as it was written—for the people it was written for.

Follow