Looks like this debate over due process has been conflated by the left. Why am I not surprised. Several articles discuss the topic and how Illegals aren't necessarily entitled.
A series of legal challenges are mounting against the Trump administration’s aggressive efforts to remove noncitizens, many of which allege violations of constitutional due process protections. Attorneys for the noncitizens in these cases argue that removals have been carried out without “due process.”
But what exactly is “due process” in this context? Everyone seems to be certain that everyone is entitled to it. Everyone seems pretty certain that it’s being denied. But does everyone clamoring for it actually know what “due process” would look like?
It turns out, not much.
_________________
If people expect that folks like Kilmar Abrego Garcia, if returned to the U.S., will be entitled to a televised jury trial and a court-appointed defense team, then they will be similarly disappointed. There is no express statutory right to counsel under the AEA. There is no statutory right to a hearing under the AEA.
_________________
The government argues that the Alien Enemies Act explicitly authorizes the removal of enemy aliens without individualized hearings or procedures, especially during wartime or national security contexts.
According to the government, the Supreme Court in Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160 (1948), upheld this framework, finding that enemy aliens may be removed solely on the basis of executive determination under the AEA.
_________________
It seems that the only thing that a person removed under the AEA can challenge is his determination as an (1) Alien (2) Enemy. That’s not nothing. But it’s probably not much.
dannycevallos.substack.com
ballotpedia.org
A series of legal challenges are mounting against the Trump administration’s aggressive efforts to remove noncitizens, many of which allege violations of constitutional due process protections. Attorneys for the noncitizens in these cases argue that removals have been carried out without “due process.”
But what exactly is “due process” in this context? Everyone seems to be certain that everyone is entitled to it. Everyone seems pretty certain that it’s being denied. But does everyone clamoring for it actually know what “due process” would look like?
It turns out, not much.
_________________
If people expect that folks like Kilmar Abrego Garcia, if returned to the U.S., will be entitled to a televised jury trial and a court-appointed defense team, then they will be similarly disappointed. There is no express statutory right to counsel under the AEA. There is no statutory right to a hearing under the AEA.
_________________
The government argues that the Alien Enemies Act explicitly authorizes the removal of enemy aliens without individualized hearings or procedures, especially during wartime or national security contexts.
According to the government, the Supreme Court in Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U.S. 160 (1948), upheld this framework, finding that enemy aliens may be removed solely on the basis of executive determination under the AEA.
_________________
It seems that the only thing that a person removed under the AEA can challenge is his determination as an (1) Alien (2) Enemy. That’s not nothing. But it’s probably not much.

How much "Due Process" is Actually Due
Everyone is talking "Due Process" with these removals--but how much is actually "Due"?

Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996
Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics
Last edited: