I voted for Obama twice and he certainly disappointed in several ways. But voting for the other guy would have been more disappointing.

And to be blunt, immigration court is already played loose and fast by the government. It’s a civil proceeding, so the accused is not provided a lawyer for free. They don’t always make sure they explain what’s happening to the person in a language that they understand. So the government often gets what it wants when it goes to immigration court.

The Republicans not following the law is the point.

1. The system doesn't make mistakes

2. The system represents the underlying reality

3. The system can be implemented

Let's see how that plays out here:

1. You're a US citizen. While returning from an overseas trip, a border agent thinks it's a bit weird that you have 3 laptops and flags you for extra screening. Unfortunately, the box for "extra screening" was right next to "fraudulent passport" and they checked the wrong one. You say you're a US citizen. The box says you aren't. No due process? Straight to gitmo.

2. You're in the US on a work visa sponsored by your benevolent megalithic software company. Unfortunately, they engage in some right-sizing by sizing you right out the door with zero notice. It's policy for immigration to retroactively extend your status if you find another sponsor or a different visa. But, on paper, the moment you were terminated you lost your legal status. And, just your luck, immigration agents are waiting outside as you carry your stuff to your car. No due process? Straight to gitmo.

3. You've never had a passport because you grew up in the US and have never travelled internationally. An immigration agent stops you and asks you for proof of your status. All you have is your old (pre-REAL ID) driver's license, but the agent says those are easily faked. Maybe you could go to your parents' house to look for your birth certificate, but the agent wants proof now. No due process? Straight to gitmo.

Due process doesn't mean a full trial. At its most fundamental level, it simply means having a fair process. Of course there's a whole set of case law behind determining what is fair, and a lot of that depends on the type and severity of the case.

But what happens if all that fairness and case law is ignored? Without due process (such as a hearing with a judge), how do you prove you're a citizen? Who do you even present your evidence to? How can you even gather your evidence if you're locked away in a cell?

When people argue for due process (which is a constitutional right), this is what they're arguing for. They're arguing that a single government employee should not be able to deport them without a fair process. Which is a constitutional right for all people (not just citizens), per the 14th amendment.

Detention of indefinite duration followed at some arbitrary time by removal, often to a country to which the subject has no previous connection, does not speak the language, and in which they have in some cases no access to the necessities of life (and in some cases where they are subsequently imprisoned in a prison that the operating government proudly claims “no one who goes in ever gets out” by agreement between the US government and the foreign country) is in no way less serious than imprisonment and fines (indeed, it often is literally imprisonment, and in some cases it has been a very swift death sentence.)