I guess the question for me is 'what is due process?' It's always intimated as meaning 'in court' with hearings, trials and such, not just an ID check, proof of citizenship, etc.
I can go along with giving an opportunity to prove your citizenship to a Border Patrol officer, but a full blown court hearing for every person who comes across illegally and not at a port of entry, not so much.
I would say at the absolutely very minimum, before deporting someone the government has to determine: 1. Is this a US Citizen. & 2. Do they have the legal right to be there.
The mechanism doesn't have to be long and drawn out. I think one of the problems in this debate is the feeling that the extreme bureaucracy we have now has to be offset with swinging the extreme opposite way of no due process.
With modern technology, I believe we can work out an expedited way to move these people through a system while allowing at the very least a minimum amount of due process protections.
Naturally, much of the reaction is to the President's statement of 'no judge no due process' especially in light of the oath of office he took to defend the Constitution. Sure, we can chalk it up to either ignorance as to what due process is or just a reactionary tweet. But we shouldn't blindly accept (or worse cheer) eliminating due process.