BOSTON – A federal judge has issued a landmark ruling declaring the U.S. Constitution 'woefully inadequate' in its current form to address the nuanced complexities of modern-day 'third country' deportation policies. The decision, handed down yesterday by Judge Bartholomew 'Barty' Finch of the District Court for the District of Massachusetts, stated that the Constitution's due process protections, while 'laudable in their broad strokes,' fail to specify 'acceptable transit nations or preferred intermediate holding patterns' for individuals facing removal.

'Frankly, the framers were a bit remiss,' Judge Finch wrote in his 73-page opinion. 'They meticulously detailed the quartering of troops and the right to bear arms, but offered not a single clause on the geopolitical intricacies of sending someone to, say, Tuvalu before their final destination in, hypothetically, Liechtenstein.'

Legal experts are scrambling to interpret the implications. Dr. Penelope Quibble, Professor of Post-Constitutional Interpretive Dance at the University of Southern New Hampshire (Online Campus), noted, 'This isn't just about due process; it's about the Constitution's glaring omission on the optimal number of stopovers for a non-citizen. Are two third countries acceptable? Three? Is there a frequent-flier program for asylum seekers?'

The ruling has sent shockwaves through the Department of Homeland Security's newly formed 'Strategic Repatriation Logistics Division.' 'We thought we had all our ducks in a row, or rather, all our people in a third country,' lamented Deputy Assistant Secretary for Interstitial Migratory Affairs, Chad 'The Hammer' Henderson. 'Now we have to go back to the drawing board and figure out if the Constitution wants us to buy them a direct flight, or at least a layover with decent Wi-Fi.'