That is all well and good but how does that account for "No person" in the 5th?

And as far as Mathews v Diaz that is little more than a rehashing of cases from Arizona and Pennsylvania in which the court said that the states do have the right to give preferential treatment to their own citizens when it comes to using state funds or resources.

Can you show anything that says non citizens can be compelled to testify against themselves? Or that their homes or vehicles can be legally searched without their consent or a warrant? Or that we can inflict cruel or unusual punishments on them?