"Speech rules as to deportation, on the other hand, are unclear. Lower courts are divided on the question, while the leading cases on the subject are from the Red Scare."

It refers to multiple cases, not just the one you cherry picked. And it says the courts are divided, which implies that some judges did not agree with your narrative. Now I don't know it's about amendments or laws or some footnote or whatever you call it in legalese. The bottom line is (and that's what would matter to a foreigner), this doesn't sound like foreigners have the same level of free speech protections as citizens do at the border or within the country, and implies that they can be punished in one way or another for what they say. It won't matter to people who get deported or rejected entry whether they were rejected based on nth amendment or mth law, so your point is entirely irrelevant.

Now you can argue that this is probably the case in other nations, and it could well be. But I don't see other people here trying to portray it's all roses in their country.

Again, this isn't about whether some amendment or footnote extends to non-citizens, or some particular case. Those are just details, which won't matter if there's even just one piece of law or regulation (such as this new social media details requirement) that discriminates foreigners. So try to remember what this whole topic is about, and look at the bigger picture, from the perspective of a foreigner.

Edit You apparently prefer to double down on details which don't matter (for people who'll be negatively affected by such regulations), which is fine, but I don't really care enough to write another reply. Maybe if you travel abroad someday in the future, you can try asking how people who got their US visa application denied because of their social media postings "enjoyed" their rights.

Also, you're claiming in your reply that the Wikipedia page is wrong and implying the reference therein is unreliable, maybe you can fix it if you're sure there was no case in the history which makes it unclear, and cite a better reference?

And I don't understand the point you're trying to make: even the dissent acknowledged that Mandel had no first amendment protections while outside the country - this has nothing to do with citizenship.

Literally nobody - not the majority nor either dissent, said anything whatsoever about citizenship being an issue here.

If a non-citizen were not subject to the enumerated standard test here (ie, if they were a permanent resident), they'd be in the exact same boat as a citizen.

This entire line of jurisprudence has absolutely nothing to do with the question of whether the Bill of Rights extends to non-citizens (and to be absolutely clear: it does.).

> "Speech rules as to deportation, on the other hand, are unclear. Lower courts are divided on the question, while the leading cases on the subject are from the Red Scare."

So let me get this straight - WikiPedia cites Eugene Volokh discussing a matter on which there has been no case or controversy and no court has rendered an opinion, and this is your basis to say that the unambiguous tradition, predating the founding, of rights being enjoyed by non-citizens within the United States is "unclear"? Please tell me that you can see how ridiculous this sounds.