A non-citizen has the right to practice their religion freely. They don't have the right to immigrate, but putting a religious test on immigration does bar them from free practice if they wish to immigrate. There are relevant, legal grounds to deny people that might be dangerous from immigrating. Nominal religion is not one of them because Congress explicitly and the rest of our Government implicitly is restricted from judging them on those grounds, whether they're citizens or not.
This is the kind of statement you make that drives me crazy. You just assert things you wish were true as if they were in fact true. The only thing you said that is verifiable and accurate is that there are legal grounds to deny dangerous people from immigrating.
If you want to make a counter argument make it. If you only want to point out that I'm making an argument and thus must be wrong because it's the position I'm taking, then you're pretty much just trying to handwave away the argument by assertion.
If this were a matter of settled, verifiable facts, then it wouldn't be worth discussing.
Categorical discrimination against any religion by any government agency amounts to a restriction on the free practice of that belief.
The first Amendment isn't a positive right; a direct protection or empowerment of people, it's negative right- a limit on the use of power, so it applies regardless of citizenship.
The first Amendment isn't a "positive" right, because the framers believed in natural law rights,
Did apples not fall downward before Newton invented gravity? The Amendments starts off "Congress shall make no law" that's a active limit on the power of Congress, which, by definition is a negative right. The fact taht they didn't make the explicit distinction at one point in time does not prevent us from later using categorical descriptions, especially since your argument here is that they only believed in negative rights, even though other powers and amendments debunk that notion.
Even if we take what you said for granted, it only serves to underscore my point here. Any government action taken on the basis of religion violates what's been codified as a fundamentally recognized human.natural right that the constitution has language noting that the government should not have power over. Wile it explicitly restricts congress from exercising power over religion, that implicitly suggests that the other branches also should not do so, otherwise the Congressional restriction is moot.
hence the amendments don't grant rights - as the government can't give anything to the citizens, only the other way around.
Ah, so jury trials arise naturally, and they are the default state of affairs without interference?