We have leaned in recent months that the proposed solution to the flood of refugees seeking adjudication of their asylum claims will not be to increase the number of tribunals, but to prepare to house for years on miitary bases the resulting multitudes frozen "in transit" (usage taken advisedly)

Hard upon adoption of that policy, the visible tide feeding this population is routinely forced by similar (and explicitly intentional) under resourced processing personnel at "ports of entry" to congregate on the Mexican side of thee border for indeterminate (and increasingly interminable) periods of time.

Add the militarization of the border now trumpeted. (See what I did there?)

Into this vile repudiation of the obligations imposed by International Law governing asylum, add the retroactive (because, why not?) pronouncement that those American children of undocumented immigrants who used to furnish the heartbreaking subtext of their parents deportation are really not American at all.

If those military jurisdictional tent cities concentration camps are located at (or even, (deity of choice) forbid, just over the Mexican border, with how much efficacy can we be certain that judicial injunctions such as those which (only temporarily, as it has happened) discommoded the Muslim Entry Ban can be relied upon to enforce the mandate of the 14th Amendment.

Current Habeas Corpus jurisdiction was only extended to Guantanamo's extraterritorial  locus after several years of  intense litigation, and an important distinction of that victory is that criminal as opposed to immigration law was at issue.

And, of course, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld was decided by a court including Scalia and Kennedy, not  Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

This is already ugly--it can get a  lot uglier.