According to the 14th amendment, rights are not reserved for naturally borne or naturalized citizens, as you state. The 14th amendment clearly states what a citizen is, and limits the power of states to "abridge the privileges" of citizens...
Perhaps one could interpret the language here to mean a fetus is not a citizen, since it is not yet "born". If this is the case, then perhaps it is not too far a leap to assume anyone not a citizen, has no guaranteed rights under the COTUS. This is, however, not a clear and defining logical extension of the intent of the 14th amendment. If one reads the preamble of he bill of rights, copied here...
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
, one can see the bill of rights were as much about preventing the abuse of power by a state (government), rather than enumerating the rights of an individual. I'm sure the framers of our government could not see this debate coming...
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.
Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.
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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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.