[dragonwriter]

> And as far as I can tell, that 'grey area' of how the 14th amendment is read

You seem to be radically misreading a condition on conditions at birth that applies to birthright citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment as a modifier on conditions at the time of government action against them that applies to the due process clause of the same amendment, but also, the 14th Amendment has no bearing on whether people have due process rights against the federal government, in the first place, as the due process clause of the 14th applies to the states.

Due process against the federal government is provided by the 5th Amendment, so even if the misreading of the 14th was right and applicable to due process rights, it would limit only the due process applicable to certain people for actions by state governments.

> Lets also not forget how much legal precedent Guantanamo provides when dealing with non-citizen (or even US Citizen!) "terrorists".

Well, yeah, but most of that legal precedent was negative for unchecked executive power (and even restrictive of legislative abuses), see Rasul v. Bush, Hamdan v. Rumsefeld, and Boumediene v. Bush, most notably.

[generalizations]

The question is whether an illegal immigrant has access to due process. The 14th has been thrown around in that context since it seems to make references to both due process and the people it is available to.

The question is not what due process entails. The question is who gets access to it. Pretty sure you missed my point fairly thoroughly.

[dragonwriter]

> The 14th has been thrown around in that context since it seems to make references to both due process and the people it is available to.

It makes references to who birthright citizenship applies to (the part that your "jurisdiction" bit comes from): "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."

It separately details due process rights against the states, and who they are applicable to, which is all persons: "...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

Due process against the federal government comes from the 5th Amendment, which was around long before the 14th, but also applies to all persons. "No person [...] shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."

> The question is not what due process entails. The question is who gets access to it.

The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with that, when the party acting is the federal government. (OTOH, where it does apply, it says exactly the same thing as the provision that does apply to the federal government, that due process applies to every person.)

> Pretty sure you missed my point fairly thoroughly.

I'm pretty sure that you are the one missing the point -- both mine and the Constitution's.

[generalizations]

> and who they are applicable to, which is all persons

Well that’s one of the things being argued, unfortunately. Things can look obvious until you read closer.