Does the Left think Muslims have a Constitutional right....

[ChrisL]

"it is not surprising that many members of the general public presume that noncitizens do not deserve the same rights as citizens."

http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=facpub

ChrisL thinks that most people on this thread are referring to ILLEGAL aliens.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

bripat9643 is as clueless as saintmichaeldefendthem

resident aliens | non resident aliens | foreign nationals | citizens

Explain the significance of each.

go look them up

It doesn't matter. When your article refers to foreign nationals as "deportable," we know they mean resident aliens.

\
non citizens are subject to deportation. where did Dante even say they weren't?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

"it is not surprising that many members of the general public presume that noncitizens do not deserve the same rights as citizens."

http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=facpub

ChrisL thinks that most people on this thread are referring to ILLEGAL aliens.

and some think non-citizens have no rights under the US Constitution

 

[ChrisL]

"it is not surprising that many members of the general public presume that noncitizens do not deserve the same rights as citizens."

http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=facpub

ChrisL thinks that most people on this thread are referring to ILLEGAL aliens.

and some think non-citizens have no rights under the US Constitution

There is a difference between a non-citizen and an illegal alien. A non-citizen does not mean illegal. ChrisL must ask Dante, who is blurring the lines here?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

1) Does the Left think Muslims have a Constitutional right.... to immigrate to this country?

2) I'm just wondering since the idea of mirandizing enemy combatants on the battle field was the brain child of the idiot Left. They clearly think the whole world is a beneficiary of the American Constitution.

http://www.barenakedislam.com/2014/02/01/first-norway-now-denmark-wants-to-stop-muslim-immigration/

Senior Dansk Folkeparti party leaders say, “No More Muslims!” There are enough Muslims in Denmark and border controls should be established to stop more from entering the country.

... missing video ---

3) So what if I were to suggest that the United States stop all immigration from Islamic nations and all immigration from Muslims.

4) Would that be....racist? Would I be violating their "civil rights"? Isn't the point of immigration policy for any nation to select only those immigrants that are believed to be a net benefit to the country?

5) We can choose our immigration policy based on anything we like, even religion and national origin. And many nations are now seeing the wisdom of discussion the sequestering of any more Muslims in their country. We should too.

1) said before: Nope. Dumb friggin question

2) Idiot left? Again, what a dumb arse. quote: "U.S. commanders told FOX News soldiers are not reading Miranda rights to detainees" -- the cases where high-level prisoners have been mirandized was to "preserve the quality of evidence" --- SO this occasional mirandizing was happening DURING the Bush Administration…And that fact is being reported by FOX, The Weekly Standard and lol, Newt Gingrich. Soldier Police


3) (a rhetorical question) I'd say go ahead.

4) Yes. No. Yes, but we also open the doors to refugees and others

5) "sequestering? wtf are you talking about? do you know what the words you use actually mean, and how to use them correctly?

peep

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

"it is not surprising that many members of the general public presume that noncitizens do not deserve the same rights as citizens."

http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=facpub

ChrisL thinks that most people on this thread are referring to ILLEGAL aliens.

and some think non-citizens have no rights under the US Constitution

There is a difference between a non-citizen and an illegal alien. A non-citizen does not mean illegal. ChrisL must ask Dante, who is blurring the lines here?

illegal aliens are non-citizens and as such have some constitutional protections.

It's all about jurisdiction. It's all about a legal argument, not some bozo's mis-interpretation of the US Constitution or the Court's history

 

[bripat9643]

"it is not surprising that many members of the general public presume that noncitizens do not deserve the same rights as citizens."

http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=facpub

We've already dispensed with this non sequitur.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

"it is not surprising that many members of the general public presume that noncitizens do not deserve the same rights as citizens."

http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=facpub

We've already dispensed with this non sequitur.

that was originally posted in reply to silly-saint-michele's post about the 1st amendment

 

[ChrisL]

"it is not surprising that many members of the general public presume that noncitizens do not deserve the same rights as citizens."

http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=facpub

ChrisL thinks that most people on this thread are referring to ILLEGAL aliens.

and some think non-citizens have no rights under the US Constitution

There is a difference between a non-citizen and an illegal alien. A non-citizen does not mean illegal. ChrisL must ask Dante, who is blurring the lines here?

illegal aliens are non-citizens and as such have some constitutional protections.

It's all about jurisdiction. It's all about a legal argument, not some bozo's mis-interpretation of the US Constitution or the Court's history

Sure they have SOME protections, but they are certainly not entitled to anything. They can be deported right out of the country if they have entered illegally.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

the Supreme Court has squarely stated that neither
the First Amendment nor the Fifth Amendment "acknowledges
any distinction between citizens and resident aliens."​

http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=facpub


saintmichaeldefendthem

saintmichaeldefendthem: "What in the 1st Amendment confers rights to foreign nationals?"

peep

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

"it is not surprising that many members of the general public presume that noncitizens do not deserve the same rights as citizens."

http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=facpub

ChrisL thinks that most people on this thread are referring to ILLEGAL aliens.

and some think non-citizens have no rights under the US Constitution

There is a difference between a non-citizen and an illegal alien. A non-citizen does not mean illegal. ChrisL must ask Dante, who is blurring the lines here?

illegal aliens are non-citizens and as such have some constitutional protections.

It's all about jurisdiction. It's all about a legal argument, not some bozo's mis-interpretation of the US Constitution or the Court's history

Sure they have SOME protections, but they are certainly not entitled to anything. They can be deported right out of the country if they have entered illegally.

all non citizens can be deported (open to deportation proceedings) . no one denies this.

key phrase: due process

and by anything, you mean everything or anything they desire

 

[ChrisL]

ChrisL thinks that most people on this thread are referring to ILLEGAL aliens.

and some think non-citizens have no rights under the US Constitution

There is a difference between a non-citizen and an illegal alien. A non-citizen does not mean illegal. ChrisL must ask Dante, who is blurring the lines here?

illegal aliens are non-citizens and as such have some constitutional protections.

It's all about jurisdiction. It's all about a legal argument, not some bozo's mis-interpretation of the US Constitution or the Court's history

Sure they have SOME protections, but they are certainly not entitled to anything. They can be deported right out of the country if they have entered illegally.

all non citizens can be deported (open to deportation proceedings) . no one denies this.

key phrase: due process

and by anything, you mean everything or anything they desire

NO, I mean a lot of different things, and to reiterate the topic of this thread, they have no "right" to live here. Their applications for citizenship have to be approved and they have to pass some tests as well, as it should be. And illegals COULD be deported without due process. They don't have any rights afforded to them under our constitution because our constitution is geared towards CITIZENS.

Background

The Supreme Court has said that, where expulsion proceedings are concerned, due process for aliens in the United States is whatever Congress chooses it to be — subject to certain constraints imposed by the Constitution, and as ultimately interpreted by the courts themselves, that is.5

Over time, by means of law, regulation, and binding precedent decisions, a kind of hierarchy of due process rights has evolved for aliens who are placed into removal proceedings:

• Aliens who have entered and remain in the United States illegally are, understandably, accorded the least amount of due process.
• Nonimmigrant aliens, who may have originally entered legally, but later overstayed or otherwise violated the conditions of their admission, have somewhat more due process.
• Lawful resident aliens who are alleged to have committed some act rendering them removable (by commission of a crime, for example) are entitled to the most due process under the law based on their status and “equities” in the United States. The term “equities” usually refers to close family members, especially U.S.-born children, but also refers to ties to the community, stable employment, and length of residence in the United States for purposes of seeking a cancellation of removal.

However, this hierarchy is not hard and fast, and a major factor that enters into how, and what kind of, removal proceedings are commenced revolves around the legal charges filed against the alien: Certain removal charges carry with them the requirement, or at least the opportunity on the part of the government, to initiate certain kinds of proceedings that take place outside the parameters of the immigration court. What is more, it is at the discretion of the government to decide whether to lodge formal charges against an alien, to decide what charges to lodge, and such decisions are inevitably influenced by cost and economy. For example, the government may choose to permit a criminal alien to request “voluntary departure” in lieu of holding him in detention for an extended period of time while a removal hearing is conducted by an immigration judge.

Deportation Basics Center for Immigration Studies

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

and some think non-citizens have no rights under the US Constitution

There is a difference between a non-citizen and an illegal alien. A non-citizen does not mean illegal. ChrisL must ask Dante, who is blurring the lines here?

illegal aliens are non-citizens and as such have some constitutional protections.

It's all about jurisdiction. It's all about a legal argument, not some bozo's mis-interpretation of the US Constitution or the Court's history

Sure they have SOME protections, but they are certainly not entitled to anything. They can be deported right out of the country if they have entered illegally.

all non citizens can be deported (open to deportation proceedings) . no one denies this.

key phrase: due process

and by anything, you mean everything or anything they desire

NO, I mean a lot of different things, and to reiterate the topic of this thread, they have no "right" to live here

no. the topic of this thread is comprised of a few strawman arguments. The left saying Muslims have a Constitutional right to immigrate here, should we ban Muslims, and enemy combatants getting mirandized on the battlefield because of leftists.

No one says Muslims have a Constitutional right to immigrate. (btw, I don't even think we ever had a law than banned a religion)

Enemy combatants were not being mirandized on the battlefield. When high value targets were captured, some were mirandized as a safety mechanism because of how our laws and the Constitution grant due process and certain rights to people under US jurisdiction.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

and some think non-citizens have no rights under the US Constitution

There is a difference between a non-citizen and an illegal alien. A non-citizen does not mean illegal. ChrisL must ask Dante, who is blurring the lines here?

illegal aliens are non-citizens and as such have some constitutional protections.

It's all about jurisdiction. It's all about a legal argument, not some bozo's mis-interpretation of the US Constitution or the Court's history

Sure they have SOME protections, but they are certainly not entitled to anything. They can be deported right out of the country if they have entered illegally.

all non citizens can be deported (open to deportation proceedings) . no one denies this.

key phrase: due process

and by anything, you mean everything or anything they desire

NO, I mean a lot of different things, and to reiterate the topic of this thread, they have no "right" to live here. Their applications for citizenship have to be approved and they have to pass some tests as well, as it should be. And illegals COULD be deported without due process. They don't have any rights afforded to them under our constitution because our constitution is geared towards CITIZENS.

Background

The Supreme Court has said that, where expulsion proceedings are concerned, due process for aliens in the United States is whatever Congress chooses it to be — subject to certain constraints imposed by the Constitution, and as ultimately interpreted by the courts themselves, that is.5

Over time, by means of law, regulation, and binding precedent decisions, a kind of hierarchy of due process rights has evolved for aliens who are placed into removal proceedings:

• Aliens who have entered and remain in the United States illegally are, understandably, accorded the least amount of due process.
• Nonimmigrant aliens, who may have originally entered legally, but later overstayed or otherwise violated the conditions of their admission, have somewhat more due process.
• Lawful resident aliens who are alleged to have committed some act rendering them removable (by commission of a crime, for example) are entitled to the most due process under the law based on their status and “equities” in the United States. The term “equities” usually refers to close family members, especially U.S.-born children, but also refers to ties to the community, stable employment, and length of residence in the United States for purposes of seeking a cancellation of removal.

However, this hierarchy is not hard and fast, and a major factor that enters into how, and what kind of, removal proceedings are commenced revolves around the legal charges filed against the alien: Certain removal charges carry with them the requirement, or at least the opportunity on the part of the government, to initiate certain kinds of proceedings that take place outside the parameters of the immigration court. What is more, it is at the discretion of the government to decide whether to lodge formal charges against an alien, to decide what charges to lodge, and such decisions are inevitably influenced by cost and economy. For example, the government may choose to permit a criminal alien to request “voluntary departure” in lieu of holding him in detention for an extended period of time while a removal hearing is conducted by an immigration judge.

Deportation Basics Center for Immigration Studies

Illegals under certain circumstances CAN be deported without due process? where does your quote say this?

 

[bripat9643]

There is a difference between a non-citizen and an illegal alien. A non-citizen does not mean illegal. ChrisL must ask Dante, who is blurring the lines here?

illegal aliens are non-citizens and as such have some constitutional protections.

It's all about jurisdiction. It's all about a legal argument, not some bozo's mis-interpretation of the US Constitution or the Court's history

Sure they have SOME protections, but they are certainly not entitled to anything. They can be deported right out of the country if they have entered illegally.

all non citizens can be deported (open to deportation proceedings) . no one denies this.

key phrase: due process

and by anything, you mean everything or anything they desire

NO, I mean a lot of different things, and to reiterate the topic of this thread, they have no "right" to live here

no. the topic of this thread is comprised of a few strawman arguments. The left saying Muslims have a Constitutional right to immigrate here, should we ban Muslims, and enemy combatants getting mirandized on the battlefield because of leftists.

No one says Muslims have a Constitutional right to immigrate. (btw, I don't even think we ever had a law than banned a religion)

Yes, actually, some of your fellow turds say exactly that.

Enemy combatants were not being mirandized on the battlefield. When high value targets were captured, some were mirandized as a safety mechanism because of how our laws and the Constitution grant due process and certain rights to people under US jurisdiction.

How is mirandizing them a "safety precaution?" Against what? It appears you just admitted they were mirandized on the battlefield

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

illegal aliens are non-citizens and as such have some constitutional protections.

It's all about jurisdiction. It's all about a legal argument, not some bozo's mis-interpretation of the US Constitution or the Court's history

Sure they have SOME protections, but they are certainly not entitled to anything. They can be deported right out of the country if they have entered illegally.

all non citizens can be deported (open to deportation proceedings) . no one denies this.

key phrase: due process

and by anything, you mean everything or anything they desire

NO, I mean a lot of different things, and to reiterate the topic of this thread, they have no "right" to live here

no. the topic of this thread is comprised of a few strawman arguments. The left saying Muslims have a Constitutional right to immigrate here, should we ban Muslims, and enemy combatants getting mirandized on the battlefield because of leftists.

No one says Muslims have a Constitutional right to immigrate. (btw, I don't even think we ever had a law than banned a religion)

Yes, actually, some of your fellow turds say exactly that.

Enemy combatants were not being mirandized on the battlefield. When high value targets were captured, some were mirandized as a safety mechanism because of how our laws and the Constitution grant due process and certain rights to people under US jurisdiction.

How is mirandizing them a "safety precaution?" Against what? It appears you just admitted they were mirandized on the battlefield

fellows? Dante has no fellows and anonymous rantings on an anonymous message board cannot be laid at the feet of 'the left' whatever that means in your warped mind. LOSER

the battlefield? :cuckoos:

Under the Bush administration (not some imaginary left) and later under the Obama admin:

Sean Hannity advanced Liz Cheney's baseless suggestion that U.S. military personnel are administering Miranda warnings to detainees. In fact, the FBI -- not military personnel -- reportedly have been Mirandizing detainees in specific instances.

------------------------------------------------

By Caitlin Taylor

Jun 11, 2009 9:51am
The Obama administration announced this week that some detainees captured and held abroad have been read Miranda rights to preserve evidence for a potential prosecution.

Administration officials say the Bush administration did this as well in some instances relating to certain criminal cases.

Obama Administration Says Some Detainees Overseas Are Being Mirandized 8212 and Bush Did It Too - ABC News

Hannity advances Cheney s dubious suggestion that troops are immediately Mirandizing detainees Research Media Matters for America

poor bripat-rata-tat-dic can't win for trying​

 

[ChrisL]

There is a difference between a non-citizen and an illegal alien. A non-citizen does not mean illegal. ChrisL must ask Dante, who is blurring the lines here?

illegal aliens are non-citizens and as such have some constitutional protections.

It's all about jurisdiction. It's all about a legal argument, not some bozo's mis-interpretation of the US Constitution or the Court's history

Sure they have SOME protections, but they are certainly not entitled to anything. They can be deported right out of the country if they have entered illegally.

all non citizens can be deported (open to deportation proceedings) . no one denies this.

key phrase: due process

and by anything, you mean everything or anything they desire

NO, I mean a lot of different things, and to reiterate the topic of this thread, they have no "right" to live here. Their applications for citizenship have to be approved and they have to pass some tests as well, as it should be. And illegals COULD be deported without due process. They don't have any rights afforded to them under our constitution because our constitution is geared towards CITIZENS.

Background

The Supreme Court has said that, where expulsion proceedings are concerned, due process for aliens in the United States is whatever Congress chooses it to be — subject to certain constraints imposed by the Constitution, and as ultimately interpreted by the courts themselves, that is.5

Over time, by means of law, regulation, and binding precedent decisions, a kind of hierarchy of due process rights has evolved for aliens who are placed into removal proceedings:

• Aliens who have entered and remain in the United States illegally are, understandably, accorded the least amount of due process.
• Nonimmigrant aliens, who may have originally entered legally, but later overstayed or otherwise violated the conditions of their admission, have somewhat more due process.
• Lawful resident aliens who are alleged to have committed some act rendering them removable (by commission of a crime, for example) are entitled to the most due process under the law based on their status and “equities” in the United States. The term “equities” usually refers to close family members, especially U.S.-born children, but also refers to ties to the community, stable employment, and length of residence in the United States for purposes of seeking a cancellation of removal.

However, this hierarchy is not hard and fast, and a major factor that enters into how, and what kind of, removal proceedings are commenced revolves around the legal charges filed against the alien: Certain removal charges carry with them the requirement, or at least the opportunity on the part of the government, to initiate certain kinds of proceedings that take place outside the parameters of the immigration court. What is more, it is at the discretion of the government to decide whether to lodge formal charges against an alien, to decide what charges to lodge, and such decisions are inevitably influenced by cost and economy. For example, the government may choose to permit a criminal alien to request “voluntary departure” in lieu of holding him in detention for an extended period of time while a removal hearing is conducted by an immigration judge.

Deportation Basics Center for Immigration Studies

Illegals under certain circumstances CAN be deported without due process? where does your quote say this?

Due process is whatever Congress decides it should be.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

illegal aliens are non-citizens and as such have some constitutional protections.

It's all about jurisdiction. It's all about a legal argument, not some bozo's mis-interpretation of the US Constitution or the Court's history

Sure they have SOME protections, but they are certainly not entitled to anything. They can be deported right out of the country if they have entered illegally.

all non citizens can be deported (open to deportation proceedings) . no one denies this.

key phrase: due process

and by anything, you mean everything or anything they desire

NO, I mean a lot of different things, and to reiterate the topic of this thread, they have no "right" to live here. Their applications for citizenship have to be approved and they have to pass some tests as well, as it should be. And illegals COULD be deported without due process. They don't have any rights afforded to them under our constitution because our constitution is geared towards CITIZENS.

Background

The Supreme Court has said that, where expulsion proceedings are concerned, due process for aliens in the United States is whatever Congress chooses it to be — subject to certain constraints imposed by the Constitution, and as ultimately interpreted by the courts themselves, that is.5

Over time, by means of law, regulation, and binding precedent decisions, a kind of hierarchy of due process rights has evolved for aliens who are placed into removal proceedings:

• Aliens who have entered and remain in the United States illegally are, understandably, accorded the least amount of due process.
• Nonimmigrant aliens, who may have originally entered legally, but later overstayed or otherwise violated the conditions of their admission, have somewhat more due process.
• Lawful resident aliens who are alleged to have committed some act rendering them removable (by commission of a crime, for example) are entitled to the most due process under the law based on their status and “equities” in the United States. The term “equities” usually refers to close family members, especially U.S.-born children, but also refers to ties to the community, stable employment, and length of residence in the United States for purposes of seeking a cancellation of removal.

However, this hierarchy is not hard and fast, and a major factor that enters into how, and what kind of, removal proceedings are commenced revolves around the legal charges filed against the alien: Certain removal charges carry with them the requirement, or at least the opportunity on the part of the government, to initiate certain kinds of proceedings that take place outside the parameters of the immigration court. What is more, it is at the discretion of the government to decide whether to lodge formal charges against an alien, to decide what charges to lodge, and such decisions are inevitably influenced by cost and economy. For example, the government may choose to permit a criminal alien to request “voluntary departure” in lieu of holding him in detention for an extended period of time while a removal hearing is conducted by an immigration judge.

Deportation Basics Center for Immigration Studies

Illegals under certain circumstances CAN be deported without due process? where does your quote say this?

Due process is whatever Congress decides it should be.

Congress cannot trash the Constitution. Due Process the Court rules. The Court protects us from the mob

 

[ChrisL]

Sure they have SOME protections, but they are certainly not entitled to anything. They can be deported right out of the country if they have entered illegally.

all non citizens can be deported (open to deportation proceedings) . no one denies this.

key phrase: due process

and by anything, you mean everything or anything they desire

NO, I mean a lot of different things, and to reiterate the topic of this thread, they have no "right" to live here. Their applications for citizenship have to be approved and they have to pass some tests as well, as it should be. And illegals COULD be deported without due process. They don't have any rights afforded to them under our constitution because our constitution is geared towards CITIZENS.

Background

The Supreme Court has said that, where expulsion proceedings are concerned, due process for aliens in the United States is whatever Congress chooses it to be — subject to certain constraints imposed by the Constitution, and as ultimately interpreted by the courts themselves, that is.5

Over time, by means of law, regulation, and binding precedent decisions, a kind of hierarchy of due process rights has evolved for aliens who are placed into removal proceedings:

• Aliens who have entered and remain in the United States illegally are, understandably, accorded the least amount of due process.
• Nonimmigrant aliens, who may have originally entered legally, but later overstayed or otherwise violated the conditions of their admission, have somewhat more due process.
• Lawful resident aliens who are alleged to have committed some act rendering them removable (by commission of a crime, for example) are entitled to the most due process under the law based on their status and “equities” in the United States. The term “equities” usually refers to close family members, especially U.S.-born children, but also refers to ties to the community, stable employment, and length of residence in the United States for purposes of seeking a cancellation of removal.

However, this hierarchy is not hard and fast, and a major factor that enters into how, and what kind of, removal proceedings are commenced revolves around the legal charges filed against the alien: Certain removal charges carry with them the requirement, or at least the opportunity on the part of the government, to initiate certain kinds of proceedings that take place outside the parameters of the immigration court. What is more, it is at the discretion of the government to decide whether to lodge formal charges against an alien, to decide what charges to lodge, and such decisions are inevitably influenced by cost and economy. For example, the government may choose to permit a criminal alien to request “voluntary departure” in lieu of holding him in detention for an extended period of time while a removal hearing is conducted by an immigration judge.

Deportation Basics Center for Immigration Studies

Illegals under certain circumstances CAN be deported without due process? where does your quote say this?

Due process is whatever Congress decides it should be.

Congress cannot trash the Constitution. Due Process the Court rules. The Court protects us from the mob

With certain constraints . . .

The Supreme Court has said that, where expulsion proceedings are concerned, due process for aliens in the United States is whatever Congress chooses it to be — subject to certain constraints imposed by the Constitution, and as ultimately interpreted by the courts themselves, that is

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Sure they have SOME protections, but they are certainly not entitled to anything. They can be deported right out of the country if they have entered illegally.

all non citizens can be deported (open to deportation proceedings) . no one denies this.

key phrase: due process

and by anything, you mean everything or anything they desire

NO, I mean a lot of different things, and to reiterate the topic of this thread, they have no "right" to live here. Their applications for citizenship have to be approved and they have to pass some tests as well, as it should be. And illegals COULD be deported without due process. They don't have any rights afforded to them under our constitution because our constitution is geared towards CITIZENS.

Background

The Supreme Court has said that, where expulsion proceedings are concerned, due process for aliens in the United States is whatever Congress chooses it to be — subject to certain constraints imposed by the Constitution, and as ultimately interpreted by the courts themselves, that is.5

Over time, by means of law, regulation, and binding precedent decisions, a kind of hierarchy of due process rights has evolved for aliens who are placed into removal proceedings:

• Aliens who have entered and remain in the United States illegally are, understandably, accorded the least amount of due process.
• Nonimmigrant aliens, who may have originally entered legally, but later overstayed or otherwise violated the conditions of their admission, have somewhat more due process.
• Lawful resident aliens who are alleged to have committed some act rendering them removable (by commission of a crime, for example) are entitled to the most due process under the law based on their status and “equities” in the United States. The term “equities” usually refers to close family members, especially U.S.-born children, but also refers to ties to the community, stable employment, and length of residence in the United States for purposes of seeking a cancellation of removal.

However, this hierarchy is not hard and fast, and a major factor that enters into how, and what kind of, removal proceedings are commenced revolves around the legal charges filed against the alien: Certain removal charges carry with them the requirement, or at least the opportunity on the part of the government, to initiate certain kinds of proceedings that take place outside the parameters of the immigration court. What is more, it is at the discretion of the government to decide whether to lodge formal charges against an alien, to decide what charges to lodge, and such decisions are inevitably influenced by cost and economy. For example, the government may choose to permit a criminal alien to request “voluntary departure” in lieu of holding him in detention for an extended period of time while a removal hearing is conducted by an immigration judge.

Deportation Basics Center for Immigration Studies

Illegals under certain circumstances CAN be deported without due process? where does your quote say this?

Due process is whatever Congress decides it should be.

Congress cannot trash the Constitution. Due Process the Court rules. The Court protects us from the mob

Not lately it doesn't.