[Hermann the Cherusker]

Yeah and I noticed that the word "unborn" isn't in the 14th Amendment. Nowhere to be found. While a person must be born or naturalized to be a citizen, this does not mean that to be a person one must be born. The equal protection clause says "person," not citizen and not "born person." The fact that the clause deliberately uses a different qualification from the Privileges and Immunities clause (citizen in the former, person in the latter) shows that the EP clause was designed to protect a broader population.

The constitution does not apply to unborn persons and foreigners, and both are non-citizens. Foreigners don't have constitutional rights.

The only persons subject to the jurisdiction of the US and given the protection of the constitution are citizens. Unborn children are not citizens. Period. Not even resident aliens get this protection, which is why we have the Alien and Sedition Act. It is perfectly legal to apply laws unequally between citizens and non-citizens.

You are confusing moral issues with constitutional and legal issues.

Unborn persons deserve the protection of the law morally. But constitutionally, the document is silent on that subject other than to exclude them as citizens.

[radicalamericannationalist]

"Foreigners don't have constitutional rights."

That is patently untrue. Foreigners in the United States are subjected to Constitutional protections such as due process, the First Amendment and the Fourth Amendment.

Read the 14th Amendment. The Equal Protection Clause specifically says it applies to "persons," not citizens.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"The only persons subject to the jurisdiction of the US and given the protection of the constitution are citizens."

Wrong.

You can't make a tourist a slave.