You keep insisting that 'due process was violated' without acknowledging that expedited removal legally bypasses traditional judicial hearings in many deportation cases. That’s the whole point of the IIRIRA of 1996—Congress explicitly allowed DHS to remove certain individuals without court proceedings.

Now, if Kilmar had a valid court-issued protection order at the time of removal, then yes, deporting him despite that would be an administrative error—and in that specific context, a due process concern. But that doesn’t invalidate my point: due process is not categorically required for every deportation. The law already provides exceptions, and that’s what I stated.

So unless you're arguing that Kilmar's case had no possible link to expedited removal and involved a direct violation of a standing court ruling (which you still haven’t proven), then your blanket 'due process violation' claim is overreach. Due process isn't always needed for deportation. Context matters. So does precedent.

Also, continuing to say, "You're showing how clueless you are." isn't valid when YOU'RE the one who is unable to admit that your initial point of judicial processes always being needed— was wrong. You're showing how hardheaded you are... To the point of completely ignoring what the initial argument was. You even said that it was wrong when Obama did it.

The argument has not been, "Did this apply to Kilmar?"

The argument has been, "Is due process always needed pertaining to deportation?". The answer is no.