> 1st amendment covers "US person”

Read textually, it covers “the people...of the United States" [1][2].

The courts have interpreted this to mean people physically within the United States, with some ambiguity at the borders.

[1] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/preamble/

[2] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/

If you want to be overly semantic it only talks about freedom of assembly for the "people", which as you defined above might refer to "the people of the united states"

Also, going through social account history is not only for reasons of oppressing freedom of speech. Presumably you might want to reject visa applications from someone who threatens others with murder

> If you want to be overly semantic

That's how the law works in the US, due to the textualist nature of our jurisprudence.

No, the preamble to the constitution is not law, and it does not set boundaries for the rest of the document.

> the preamble to the constitution is not law, and it does not set boundaries for the rest of the document

Sort of [1]. (“We the people” has specific case law.)

[1] https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/pre-3/ALDE_00...

"US Person" has a very specific definition in government parlance. It includes citizens and green card holders, a few very specific exceptions like those granted permanent asylum, but NOT visa holders.

you could challenge it by saying youve touched US dollars, and therefore theres a US nexus where US law, and thus the constitution, applies