The simple problem here is that Democrats want to preserve the status quo on immigration. Cyclical amnesty and the key to that is never actually getting the enforcement or blocking it until a new illegal population is built up so you can cry foul and claim you cannot enforce until the system is "reformed" and those here now are legalized. Rinse, Wash, Repeat!
Never before was their such a divide on the immigration issue with Hillary going so far as to pledge to end all deportations (effectively declaring open borders) while Trump ran on a wall. If the Democrats want to hang their heads on the policy of open borders and refuse to compromise at all on enforcement, then they better hope they can pull off a sunbelt strategy, because there is no way they will regain the rust belt with that approach.
Even Obama paid lip service to the standard lie of "enforcement" in comprehensive reform, deported millions of illegals and called for a crack down on employers who hire illegals.
This.
There is something fundamentally wrong with any politician agreeing to undermine the rule of law by deliberately not enforcing a law. It undermines the rule of law, and when this becomes the practice in multiple areas, folks become OK with it. When folks become OK with it, we become like nations that lack the Rule of Law as a bedrock, and we lose what makes us a Good and Special nation.
I would like to see the "Dreamers" have their situations resolved to where they can stay here, provided that they are not lawbreakers and that they are truly here through no fault of their own. I'm not unalterably opposed to some form of amnesty for folks who have been here. But I also don't want these things to be the incentive for others to crash the border and live here illegally, waiting for circumstances to change and a new wave of amnesties to be granted. I don't believe we need more immigration, and we should only allow that immigration that benefits America. As other nations operate on this principle, I have difficulty seeing what is wrong with it.
