No, neither TdA or any other illegally-present person, nor anyone who has violated the terms of their lawful entry into the United States is entitled to due process beyond clear establishment of those facts.

Oh, I know, you say the Fifth Amendment (and 14th) say otherwise.

You're wrong and I don't give a flying **** what any judge (or anyone else) says to the contrary; this is basic logic and jurisprudence which all judges know or their only rightful seat is found in an asylum.  If you don't then you're either ignorant or deluded.  Since ignorance can be cured with knowledge I'll lay some basic facts on you.

This is an immutable fact: You never gain title or a right of possession, whether the thing is tangible or not, to something you never lawfully had, no matter how long you have it or how you launder it.

To have a right to possess something you must come to have it through lawful means.

Let's say you buy a car from someone -- or even from a dealer.  The individual who sold it to you, or who sold it to a dealership, stole it.  You purchase it, you give said person money, you register and insure the car and then drive it for some period of time.  The theft is not in the computer at the time so the transaction appears to be all good.

You don't actually own the car no matter how much time passes nor does anyone who subsequently buys it from you and neither you or any subsequent buyer have any due process right to possess it for even one second, nor will you continue to possess it for any amount of time if and when the theft is discovered.  The vehicle will be immediately seized by the authorities and returned to its rightful owner as soon as it can be established that it in fact was stolen.

You have no due process right to that property beyond the establishment of the fact that it was stolen originally despite the 5th Amendment's allegedly iron-clad protection on due process of law because you could only have any claims over same subject to due process if you had a lawful right to the thing in the first place.  Not only that but its your problem to recover the funds you paid for said stolen property -- and if the person you gave them to doesn't have the money tough ****; that still does not give you a right to continue to possess the vehicle.

If you illegally enter the United States you have no due process rights at all once it is discovered and established you unlawfully entered the country and it makes no difference how long you've been in the country or what you did after your illegal entry.  The fact that you entered the nation unlawfully is an absolute and final END to any right of inquiry you might have.

Neither the 5th or 14th Amendment confers anything beyond that because you never had a right to liberty in the United States since you were never lawfully present here.

I don't give a wet **** what some judge says whether its a district court judge OR A SURPREME COURT JUSTICE.

In short that which you never had in the first place you cannot litigate because you never lawfully possessed it and thus have no standing to litigate that issue -- just like you cannot claim a right to Musk's billions "just because equity this or that"; you have never had a lawful right to a single dollar of his funds.

If you think this is a "fringe" or "lunatic" position are you really going to argue that if 100,000 Chinese and Mexicans storm the border with rifles you can't dispatch them immediately with your rifle without arresting them and giving them due process of law first?  THAT IS IN FACT YOUR POSITION IF YOU ARGUE AN ILLEGAL ALIEN HAS "DUE PROCESS" RIGHTS AND CANNOT BE SUMMARILY REMOVED.

You're not that crazy, are you?  If you are then **** you and may both you and your entire family be on the business end of any such lethal assault as you are clearly willing to sacrifice Americans for your own twisted political purpose by deliberately and maliciously twisting what is actually in the Constitution into the protection of a murderous mob which, in some instances (but not all) might be called an actual ARMY.

There is a name for levying war against your nation and its citizens, which I NEVER use lightly but in fact is in place here: TREASON.

Yes, I'm willing to go war over this because if you in any way permit or sanction such acts said war has been declared upon me and you are either directly responsible or a direct enabler of those who did so.  Once that occurs, and you had damn well better think about it long and hard before doing it, there are no more polite society rules and laws involved nor can you appeal to them.  Then it is simply either "**** you" or maybe it will be "**** me" as by your actions you have decided we are now playing the game of Scoreboards and after the first score all the rest are free so think very carefully and fully before you invoke that.  There is no "I'm sorry" -- or taking it back -- once that line is crossed.

I have no desire to go there -- but I'll quote Thomas Paine on this and stand by his wise words:

“If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace; and this single reflection, well applied, is sufficient to awaken every man to duty.”

If you think this is some sort of US-centric thing whatsoever go ahead and cross into Canada under false pretense -- for example, tell them you're a tourist and having made that false representation actually shoot a wedding as a professional photographer.  An ordinary consensual business transaction with no violence for anyone, right?  Doesn't matter; when caught, and there's good odds you will be, you will get no due process of any sort, you will be summarily ejected from the country and barred from re-entry, possibly permanently.  There are plenty of Americans who have tried to play fast and loose with what we considered a civilized nation (Canada) in this sort of fashion and have discovered this the hard way themselves.

Roberts as the Chief Justice of the USSC has an obligation to actually honor both basic principles of logic and what the Constitution says.  Yes, the Constitution, as amended by the 5th, 6th, 14th and other Amendments does guarantee that "no person" may be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law nor deprived of equal protection under the law.  That is true.

But you cannot be deprived of what you never lawfully possessed in the first place; you never acquire rightful possession or title to a stolen or unlawfully-acquired thing irrespective of the amount of time that has passed.

Since you never had a right to liberty in the United States if you enter the nation illegally you are not entitled to anything other than immediate forcible removal as your entry was criminal in the first instance and, if you had previously been deported it is a felony.  Now if we're going to prosecute and imprison you here in the US for that criminal act then yes, you're entitled to due process before we throw you in prison because now we're retaining you here in the US against your will and thus Constitutional protections apply but in the alternative we can simply eject you from the United States on a summary basis as you have no right to be here and thus no liberty interest in taking so much as one step on our soil that you can be deprived of.

PERIOD.

I'm done with sophistic bull**** and the government, including judges and their overseers up to the USSC can either start enforcing the Constitution within its limits which means no illegally-present person has a right to prevent their own summary removal from the US, irrespective of the passage of time or any other consideration, as they never possessed a liberty interest in the United States in the first place, or I'm perfectly fine with any individual here in the United States deeming that every single judicial body member cannot have a criminal offense committed against them as they have self-declared themselves and their families to be outside the boundaries of law in all respects -- up to and including the Constitution.