I don't think so, but I might have missed something.
Of course if a right is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others, then the right to trial by jury and the right to due process are not really rights at all. They are obligations to the accused and to society.
And a lot depends on what is meant by privilege. I've seen privilege defined as a right conferred by law. I've also seen it defined as a right, advantage, exemption, power, immunity or franchise held by a person, not generally possessed by others.
I'll have to think more about this.
And I don't scorn delving into symantecs. The use of words is important in trying to convey meaning. When someone has said to me "That's just semantics," I have been know to say something like "Can I call you dipstick? After all, it's just semantics" :)
What I meant was, since, as you point out, "... non-citizens do not participate in joint ownership of government..." then are not the guarantees of a trial by jury, due process, and equal recognizition under the law, privileges rather than rights? When I referred to the extension of the author's reasoning, I had this passage in mind: "You do not have the right to another person’s property... If you wish to gain some benefit from the time of another person’s life, you must gain it through the voluntary cooperation of that individual—not through coercion." The foreigners do not have a right to the use of our court houses and legal system. Rather, it is a privilege that we bestow upon them for our mutual benefit - the benefits of both self-interest and Adam's Smith's concept of "fellow feeling". What foreigners would vacation in or do business in America, without the legal protections mentioned? What American citizen would have any pride in his country if he did not bestow basic guarantees of fair treatment to visitors? Certainly not a majority of either.
The privilege versus right issue begs the question - what is the difference between a privilege and a right?
You wrote: "And a lot depends on what is meant by privilege. I've seen privilege defined as a right conferred by law. I've also seen it defined as a right, advantage, exemption, power, immunity or franchise held by a person, not generally possessed by others."
My understanding of a privilege is that it is a power obtained, beyond one's rights. That could include something "conferred by law" (though not a right) or an "advantage, exemption, power, immunity or franchise held by a person". I am not aware of any reason for the clause: "...not generally possessed by others." If your house burns down and I allow you to sleep at my house, I believe that is a privilege (though not a grand one). If the fire spreads to your neighbor's home and he loses his house, and I allow him to also sleep at my house, then that would be the same privilege, even though it is held by more than one person.
The reason that I do not believe privilege includes a right conferred by law is that my understanding of rights is that they are inalienable - they are a part of our being, so we neither obtain nor lose them. It is also due to this that I do not believe that privilege is not "defined as a right conferred by law" or "...defined as a right... held by a person, not generally possessed by others." If a right is inalienable, then it cannot be "conferred by law" and if a privilege is a power beyond our rights, then it cannot be defined as a type of right.