I could say that there is nothing in the Declaration of Independence, or The Bill Of Rights, that distinguishes Turkish "persons" from American "persons", so all Turks are protected by the Bill of Rights, as well, whether or not they're on US soil, by your logic. You know this is not true.
You therefore, obviously, have to read more than just the Bill of Rights to interpret correctly who is meant by "person". You're not doing that.
If you're going to liberally define "person", for the purposes of your argument with me, you're going to have to protect everyone in the world with the Bill of Rights. You can't have it both ways.
You are being too absurd for words. A state's laws do not have jurisdiction beyond its borders, as a matter of practicability. However, the Founder's justification for human rights has nothing to do with something as arbitrary as borders. It has to do, to them, with the nature of human beings themselves. The difference within and without our borders is not rights that the state grants. The difference is that within the borders of the U.S., each person's
human rights are
recognized and
protected. Man's nature is the primary, the U.S. Constitution was a creation designed in recognition of that primary.
Your arbitrariness and denial of the Constitution's basis in nature rather than in the stipulation of men denigrates this nation's founding document and the men who created it.