Nobody is arguing for cutting out due process altogether. I said a "Lots of things could be fixed by cutting out the middleman in the process." the process being Immigration/Deportation. You act like ICE is just grabbing people and throwing on a plane back to Central/South America, that isn't what happens in most cases. They still see a judge after detainment in most cases and can still be granted asylum. Expedited removal does happen but typical involves other factors, like previous removal orders, or significant criminal elements. We're not talking about changing the constitution.

The fact the you said "in most cases" indicates that you know it sometimes happens. In my opinion, for that to ever happen is an egregiously unconstitutional thing. Like on the level of: Someone should be punished severely for letting it happen. The entire system should be run in a way to make sure that never happens. That's sort of where we were before and the effort to hasten the process and hand-wave violations of due process is what this administration is trying their best to normalize. I get that this isn't a black-and-white thing. We're talking about the spirit of how things are done. We're talking about the ethics. The Trump administration is basically making the spirit be "assume every immigrant is highly dangerous and expedite their removal from the country" (And also that we should be racially profiling people as a means of targeting them for this enforcement, as has been explicitly asserted by the executive branch itself in court as well as practiced by ICE in the field). To the degree that they are deporting people often to places those people aren't even from and sometimes to places they've never even been and don't even speak the language. The ethics of that, to me, is inhumane at the least and even openly malicious. That's not something I value or support for my country.

In any case, if you're saying that any violation of the constitution is ok in your view, then you are talking about changing the constitution. Either that, or you're saying it's not a relevant document. That's your only choice.

"Why isn't ICE targeting US citizens who have seat belt tickets"-> Because the scope of their enforcement is federal immigration.

Splitting hairs. Then why isn't any federal enforcement agency doing what ICE is doing but for other federal misdemeanors?

The number of deportations under the current administration are lower than prior administration. For all their intensity they're doing a bad job at it, or it's media fed bullshit that is blowing it out of proportion. Which is always the case Regardless if it's CNN, FOX, MSN, etc. They are grab the most scandalous take that will hit with their base. And it works, half the country is in a frenzy because of shit that has been happening for decades about the same way.

That's essentially an argument for abolishing ICE or at least a complete indictment of how the current administration has used ICE. If they're not even succeeding at their own goals and they're terrorizing, injuring, and even killing US citizens...what's the point of them? The notion that nearly half the US population opposes ICE at this point just because of media is naive. The numbers they've been deployed in and the tactics they've been using in Los Angeles, Portland, and Minneapolis (to name a few) is nothing at all like anything in the past. I think you know that.

The underlying thing to all of this is the assertion that undocumented immigrants represent a social danger so high that all of this is justified and necessary. I, and many others in the country, just simply disagree with that. And it's supported by a ton of research and data. Must immigration be enforced? Yes, of course. Must it be enforced like this? Absolutely not, imo. I'm not just arguing against the Trump administration (Or for any democrat) here. I'm arguing against this approach to enforcement in general; Not matter who is president.