This type of comment is what is increasing division and extremism in the US.
The people defined immigration laws through democracy. Following democracy means following the immigration laws that were defined through democracy, not following what you'd like the law to be.
The opposition of "Rule of Law" is "Rule of Men". If we don't follow the immigration laws defined democratically, it means, by definition, that we would be following some other rules defined arbitrarily by rulers outside of the democratic process. That is very dangerous, because following the democratically defined laws is the Schelling point that typically maintains cohesion of a polity. What incentives do your political opponents have for maintaining cohesion if you simply defect on your theoretical obligations to follow the law that was voted on? Can you really say that doing that would not create more and more division?
The gall to bemoan the "rule of men" when we've got masked paramilitary gangs ransacking apartment buildings in the middle of the night.
The problem isn't that immigration law is being enforced. The problem is the manner in which it is being enforced. Someone breaking the law is not a justification for whatever you want to be done to them. Someone breaking the law is not an excuse to violate other people's constitutional/natural rights by association. And the law not being enforced for a long time is not an excuse to eliminate what little accountability there was for people tasked with enforcing the laws. I hope some day you will realize these things.
You do realize crossing the border illegally is a misdemeanor right? Do you see how masked agents violently taking people without due process does not align with the severity of the offense?
The people defined immigration laws through democracy. Following democracy means following the immigration laws that were defined through democracy, not following what you'd like the law to be.
The opposition of "Rule of Law" is "Rule of Men". If we don't follow the immigration laws defined democratically, it means, by definition, that we would be following some other rules defined arbitrarily by rulers outside of the democratic process. That is very dangerous, because following the democratically defined laws is the Schelling point that typically maintains cohesion of a polity. What incentives do your political opponents have for maintaining cohesion if you simply defect on your theoretical obligations to follow the law that was voted on? Can you really say that doing that would not create more and more division?