(1) "Judge" is not necessarily identical with "due process." (2) Congress can't override constitutional protections by passing new laws. That would require a constitutional amendment.
A law cannot overturn the Constitution, you need an Amendment for that. In principle, anyway. If you have a Supreme Court that abdicates its duties then you can do whatever you want, at the cost of legitimacy.
The nuances of criminal procedure may not apply, but the fundamental constitutional rights still do, as well as human rights. Indeterminate detention violates both.
A distinction without a difference, and it's questionable whether deportation is actually the goal here. If that were the case they could put him on plane today.
I think you misspoke. “Protects” is a statement of fact which does not resemble current facts. “is supposed to protect” would be more accurate.
The as built does not currently match the plan provided by the constitution and rule of law. Please see your nearest democratic representative to address the problem.
"The majority stakes the largest detention initiative in American history on the possibility that ‘seeking admission’ is like being an ‘applicant for admission,’ in a statute that has never been applied in this way, based on little more than an apparent conviction that Congress must have wanted these noncitizens detained — some of them the spouses, mothers, fathers, and grandparents of American citizens,” she added. “Straining at a gnat, the majority swallows a camel.”
The statute is exceedingly clear. Subsection (a) first says: "An alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission."
Subsection (b)(2)(A) then says: "Subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C), in the case of an alien who is an applicant for admission, if the examining immigration officer determines that an alien seeking admission is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted, the alien shall be detained for a proceeding under section 1229a of this title."
That applies to those who step across the border as part of a border crossing or rescue. The court decision applies it to all aliens, which is the never before applied part of GP.
The whole point of subsection (a)(1) is to treat all aliens similarly to those who cross the border for purposes of the chapter. Subsection (a)(1) is titled "Aliens treated as applicants for admission."
Subsection (a)(1) then says that "[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States ... shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission."
Who is covered by the phrase "an alien present in the United States who has not been admitted?" What else could that phrase possibly be referring to?
If the Executive Branch doesn't care about the Constitution and inconvenient laws when directing the law enforcement agencies under its control, Congress doesn't hold the executive to account by either withholding funds or threatening impeachment, and the SCOTUS majority doesn't try to rein in these acts while seeming to lack the ability to enforce its own decisions, the words printed on the Constitution are just useless ink.
Elections have consequences, and we're all paying them. Some paying a lot more than others.
You can be detained and deported without first seeing a judge.