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.
You wrote that your "...understanding of rights is that they are inalienable - they are a part of our being, so we neither obtain nor lose them."
I say that would hold true for what are variously called Inalienable, Unalienable, Natural or Fundamental Rights (all of which are the same thing to my understanding).
But I believe that there are other classes of rights and that one such class is Civil Rights. Civil rights are dependent upon the society one lives in.
If my house burns down you may grant me the privelege of sleeping at your house. If my neighbor's house burns down you may extend the privilege to him. In neither case does the issue of Civil Rights arise as my neighbor and I have no Civil Right to sleep in your house. Due to your good graces my neighbor and I would have the privilege (power, advantage, franchise) to sleep at your house and this would be a privelege "...not generally possessed by others" unless you have a really big house and invited everybody.
Though you would not, some might even say that you have granted my neighbor and I the right to sleep in your house (subject to whatever conditions and circumstances you choose to levy.) In that same sense, for whatever reason, non-citizens in the US are granted Civil Rights in regard to trial by jury, due process and so forth.
And since we are in disagreement on the basics, I assume you will disagree with much if not all of that.