The Erosion of First Amendment Rights: Why Yaakub Vijandre’s Case Should Scare Us All

Guest blogger: Rev. Sadie Stone

Many cite our First Amendment rights as the bedrock of our country, a fundamental principle that sets us apart from other developed nations. The right to protected speech, protest, religion, petition, and the press. Yet under the Trump administration, we are witnessing a rapid erasure of those protections. The recent case of Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia graduate student arrested by ICE in March 2025 for his pro-Palestinian activism, received worldwide attention.[1] A case with far less press coverage but perhaps more troubling is that of Yaakub Vijandre, a Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals recipient (DACA) who arrived in the United States in 2001 at age 14 from the Philippines.[2]

On October 7, 2025, Yaakub Vijandre was preparing to go to work when six federal vehicles appeared outside his home. Federal agents surrounded him, one pointed a weapon at him, and they took him into custody.[3] Vijandre has lived in the United States for 24 years, building a life in Dallas, working as a mechanic and freelance videographer, and participating in community activism.[4]

The Department of Homeland Security targeted Vijandre for his social media posts, alleging he was “glorifying terrorism.” However, Vijandre’s legal team argues he broke no laws, and the social media posts were legitimate expressions of opposition to genocide, particularly in Palestine.[5] The circumstances of his detention are also concerning, since his DACA does not expire until May 2026, and until that termination, the government lacks legal authority to deport or detain him.[6]

Though the First Amendment makes no distinction between citizens and non-citizens, the Court has not treated them equally. Previously, both Justices Ginsburg and Scalia agreed that anyone present in the United States has protections under the Constitution, with Ginsburg noting that the Constitution says “person” rather than “citizen” when granting rights under the First Amendment.[7]

However, the interpretation of the First Amendment is more complicated than that view suggests. The Department of Justice argues that non-citizens who are not legally admitted to this country have no First Amendment protections.  The Supreme Court has affirmed the federal government's power to deport specific immigrants for political activities that would otherwise be protected.[8] Vijandre’s legal team, however, argues that the First Amendment protects all his political speech as a long-time US resident under DACA.[9]

The Trump administration is seeking to both restrict U.S. entry of non-citizens who oppose U.S. policies and expel those within the country who participate in political speech or activism that the administration disfavors. The Vijandre case must be understood in the context of a broader crackdown on speech critical of the U.S. policy, particularly as it relates to Israel and Palestine.

The strategic use of immigration law to suppress dissent creates a dangerous precedent that threatens free speech for everyone. When the government can deport lawful residents for their political views without criminal charges, it establishes a framework for silencing opposition that could easily expand.

Today, it's a DACA recipient arrested for social media posts. Tomorrow, it could be a green card holder at a protest. Next, it could be a naturalized citizen whose views the administration deems threatening to foreign policy. If we accept immigration status as a tool to punish speech, how long before authorities find other mechanisms to silence citizens who express unpopular views?

As constitutional law professor Michael Kagan wrote, “the First Amendment protects the rights of marginalized people to have a voice and does not allow the government to prefer some speakers over others based on their identity.”[10] When we allow the government to carve out constitutional protections based on immigration status, we undermine the principle that free speech is a universal right, not a privilege granted selectively.

The stakes of cases like Vijandre extend far beyond Vijandre himself. If the government succeeds in deporting him for their protected political speech, the government will have established a powerful tool for suppressing dissent. One that history shows will not remain confined to non-citizens.

The First Amendment protections we claim as the bedrock of our country mean nothing if authorities selectively enforce them based on immigration status, political viewpoint, or convenience. If we allow these erosions to stand, we accept a future where speaking out against government policy carries the risk of exile for some and, eventually, punishment for all who dare to dissent.

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgj5nlxz44yo

[2] https://www.ksbw.com/article/daca-recipient-yaakub-vijandre-arrest/69546385

[3] https://www.chicagotribune.com/2025/11/26/daca-recipients-arrested-deportation/

[4] https://www.kcci.com/article/daca-recipient-yaakub-vijandre-arrest/69546385

[5] https://mlfa.org/statement-by-yaakub-vijandres-legal-team-ice-detains-daca-recipient-and-pro-palestinian-photojournalist-yaakub-vijandre-for-social-media-posts-in-critical-free-speech-test-case/

[6] Id.

[7] https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/01/us/immigrants-rights-explainer/index.html

[8] https://scholars.law.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2020&context=facpub

[9] https://mlfa.org/statement-by-yaakub-vijandres-legal-team-ice-detains-daca-recipient-and-pro-palestinian-photojournalist-yaakub-vijandre-for-social-media-posts-in-critical-free-speech-test-case/

[10] https://www.freedomforum.org/non-citizens-protected-first-amendment/

 bh