Do the words "illegal", "undocumented" or "immigrant" appear in there?

No. They also don't appear in the Sixth Amendment, either. That doesn't create an ambiguity over whether (say) the Sixth Amendment applies to people who are "illegal," "undocumented" or "immigrant" - whether they're entitled to a trial by jury before being convicted of a crime and imprisoned. They are. The absence of limiting words doesn't create an ambiguity. It means there is none.

The question is, has anything changed since the last time the Supremes looked at this.

That's not the question. I think you misunderstand the point.

SCOTUS doesn't solely look at whether a question has a lot of consequences or impacts. It looks at whether there's a legal dispute that needs resolving. If all the lower courts are interpreting the law correctly (ie. the way a majority of the SCOTUS believes it should be interpreted), there's no need to intervene. It doesn't matter how consequential the subject matter is - if the lower courts are getting it right, the SCOTUS won't waste their time, because there's nothing that needs fixing.

If the lower courts and the SCOTUS are all on the same page, then there's no ambiguity that needs to be addressed. Everyone's getting it right. So no need for cert.

Cert will only be granted if there's a majority on the Court that thinks the Ninth or First got their decision wrong. They won't grant cert. just to affirm.