Regarding women, I can immediately imagine a connection to a country which does not allow you to vote: bearing children, thereby ensuring an future for the country in question. That is "connection" at its most primal.
"People", "citizens", yes, there is a large difference in legal terms, and as you point out, there are limits to both. For example, you must be of a certain age to vote, or be at least 18 and not be judged to be crazy in order to lawfully possess a firearm, etc., etc. But as you stated earlier, the Constitution's language does not provide these details, and as I pointed out and you verified, refinements were made at a later time, and continue to be made. Most of the restrictions were for the states to decide, the fundamental principle of Federalism. How far we have strayed...
And to add even more shades of gray to the mix, you have instances were an 11-year-old kid uses his dad's .45 to kill a house-instruder threatening his mom, and despite his not legally have the ability to do such, is not charged with any crime. Real life demands a case-by-case study; there can be no justice when laws are absolute, a reality that the founders knew all too well.
I can immediately imagine a connection to a country which does not allow you to vote: bearing children, thereby ensuring an future for the country in question."Illegals (who cannot vote) bear children in this country. You're saying they have a connection to this country? You're saying their children ensure a future for this country?
I can equally argue that they and their children pose a threat to this country. That it is not their intent to assimilate or become citizens. To the contrary, it is their intent to take back the land negotiated in the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo.
"For example, you must be of a certain age to vote, or be at least 18 and not be judged to be crazy in order to lawfully possess a firearm, etc., etc."
Yes. Those are decisions made by each state.
"and despite his not legally have the ability to do such, is not charged with any crime."
Again, state law.
My only point was a constitutional protection extended to "the people" does not include "all persons" or even "all citizens" If the constitutional protection extended to all persons (eg., the 5th amendment) it said "person". If it extended only to citizens (eg., Article IV, Section 2) it said "citizens".