Of course it does not say that. Otoh, it does preclude prohibitions against the free exercise of religion.
Many Americans believe that foreign nationals are denied constitutional rights, but that's generally not the case. Specifically, the due process clause contained in both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantees rights to "all persons."
While some distinctions between foreign nationals and citizens are normatively justified and consistent with constitutional and international law, most are not. The significance of the citizen/noncitizen distinction is more often presumed than carefully examined. Upon examination, there is far less to the distinction than commonly thought. In particular, foreign nationals are generally entitled to the equal protection of the laws, to political freedoms of speech and association, and to due process requirements of fair procedure where their lives, liberty, or property are at stake. — "
Are Foreign Nationals Entitled to the Same Constitutional Rights As Citizens?,"
Thomas Jefferson Law Review, vol. 25, March 2010, 367-388
There's precedent in Boumediene
v. Bush (2008), a case dealing with detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. All nine justices agreed that constitutional protections do not apply only to Americans. The Bush administration didn't even advance that argument.
Frumpy's proposal to ban Muslims from entering the US is entirely consistent with the current wave of right-wing, anti-immigrant hysteria, and with a more generalized desire to use Big Gubmint to suppress individual freedoms under the heavy weight of authoritarian restrictions, but it's clearly unconstitutional. It also violates a number of US treaty obligations related to human rights. But that's OK with The Clown from Fifth Avenue. He wants us to drop out of the Geneva Convention and go back to torturing prisoners. I suppose he thinks he can negotiate a better deal.
