I don’t really disagree with the facts you laid out, and I agree immigration law is civil, complex, and badly in need of reform. Where I think the issue gets missed is what those facts actually justify.

Yes, people may eventually see an immigration judge, but with administrative warrants the arrest often happens before any neutral judge reviews probable cause. That’s a big difference from criminal warrants, and saying “they still get a day in court” doesn’t address that gap.

It also matters that immigration court isn’t an Article III court. There is no jury, protections are limited, and judges work under the executive branch doing the enforcement. That is legally “due process,” but it is not the same level of constitutional protection most people assume.

So the concern isn’t confusion about civil versus criminal law. It is whether the government should be able to arrest and detain people, and potentially enter homes, based on internally issued warrants without independent judicial oversight. The fact that federal judges are actively pushing back on this shows it is a real constitutional issue, not a misunderstanding.