In the Declaration, "all men are created equal" implies that no man is born a king. In other words, it repudiates hereditary monarchies. The "liberty" it speaks of is the right of men not to live under governments of these kings, but rather to form governments of their own, as is stated in the Declaration:
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
Aliens are considered to have the rights in the Declaration. But that means that they come from another place where another "government has been instituted among them". They do not have the rights delineated in the Constitution - the Constitution is the framework of the government of the CITIZENS of the United States.
If Aliens have the same rights as citizens under the Constitution, then second amendment rights apply. In which case, the Mexican Army is completely within its "constitutional" rights to march across the border under arms and take up residence in Tucson. Plus they get to vote. You buy that?
Your interpretation of the usage of the word "persons" was argued successfully in one famous case: Plyler v. Doe. But Plyler rests on the 14th, and a comment by Justice Douglas that the founders really did mean just persons, as in anyone who happens to be in the country under whatever auspices. Justice Rehnquist disagreed with him at the time and said so. To say I disagree is to put it mildly.
The Declaration is a human rights document but the Constitution is not. The Constitution is the framework of a "government among men", i.e., Citizens, and is amendable. The Declaration is not.
"If Aliens have the same rights as citizens under the Constitution, then second amendment rights apply. In which case, the Mexican Army is completely within its "constitutional" rights to march across the border under arms and take up residence in Tucson. Plus they get to vote. You buy that?"
Your comments are appreciated but erroneous. We are talking about the Bill of Rights to the Constituion, which does not address voting rights. The right to vote is controlled by state law, subject to a few Constitutional safguards (not the Bill of Rights) and applicable federal law.
Any Mexican in this country has the same right to keep and bear arms as citizens. NO ONE has the right to use arms offensively, which is what your "Mexican army" scenario involves. When our government attacks and/or prosecutes an individual or army of individuals who attack us, it is not because they owned guns but because they attacked us, or were getting ready to.
If the Bill of Rights does not apply to non-citizens, could Congress outlaw the practice of the Islam religion or the Catholic religion or ALL religion by non-citizens? Could we say that non-citizens can be tried without a jury for a bank robbery or some other non-terrorism related crime?
Do you buy that?