We citizens are "the people of the United States."

In the U.S. Constitution. it begins by saying, "We the People of the United States,.."

That line right there sets the tone, the language as to whom and for whom the Constitution and furthermore, the Bill of Rights, etc... refers to.

They didn't use "voters" and they didn't use "citizens" because the very first sentence already established that.  We are the people of the United States.

It didn't refer to people of Mexico, it didn't refer to the people of Germany nor to just people in general.  It specified the people of the United States and no one else.

As it enumerates rights, rules, provisions further on in the Constitution and in the amendments to the Constitution, it continues using that same reference, abbreviated to "the people" as it had already been established what people it is referring to.  That's right, the people of the United States.

Is everyone in the world a person of the United States?  Noooo. They have other places in which they  were born that they are a person of.

If they were not born here, to people who were born here or to people who had been legally nationalized, then they are not a person of the united States.  Also, if they have had their citizenship revoked, they are not a person of the united States anymore.

That very first sentence established who is a citizen.  A person of the united States.  Further amendments clarified that further by saying (14th Amendment, Section 1) "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

This is called being taken "in context".To see and understand the pattern and framework of language during the course of the discussion. 

There are those who would try to argue that the Constitution holds vagueries such as "any person" and "no person" in respect to certain rights and/or privileges of the Constitution.  Which of course, is taking the terms out of context.

That argument doesn't hold up though in terms of trying to be all inclusive in respect to people who are not citizens of the United States.  This is because those generalizations are referring frequently, to that first statement of "people of the United States".

For example, in the 14th Amendment, Section 1, it says, "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."  Because of this, some people want to say that this means that non-citizens are extended this privilege.

However, in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, it states, "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President..."  If we were to construe that the same way as those who want to extend liberties to non-citizens in the previous example, then in this example, they would insinuate that "no person" would also include non-citizens as well.  Which of course would be ludicrous as it had already been established earlier in the Constitution that only a citizen could hold those positions in the first place.

It then holds up that in the Constitution and Amendments, "people" has been established as a shortened reference to "people of the United States." and a "person", would be a person "of the United States".

People who are not citizens may be extended courtesies, but they are not due rights and privileges reserved for people of the United States.