I say "some" because I agree with Senator Delph on immigration a lot more than he probably realizes. I think we do need immigration laws enforced. I do think we have a right to know who is in the country. I do think we need to stop handing out benefits to illegal immigrants.
The disconnect is an unwillingness for those on Delph's side, the anti-side, to accept that part of the reason we have a problem with illegal immigration is that the immigration process is horribly broken. The anti-folks refuse to argue for any reform of the system whatsoever, only saying that the current laws need to be enforced. As a lawyer whose law firm has done immigration work, I know the system is needlessly complex, expensive and there is a backlog of applications years long. People get frustrated with the very expensive, drawn out process involved in becoming a U.S. Citizen, and the arbitrary decisions they often have to deal with during the process. People give up trying to come into the country the right way , the legal way, and end up doing it the wrong way, by coming to this country illegally.
What we ought to do is to fix the immigration process AND aggressively enforce the law. But for many on the anti-side, talk of any immigration reform is blasphemy, maybe even "amnesty," if it involves anything more than enforcing the existing broken law.
Although people on the anti-side claim they are just against ILLEGAL immigration, I think a sizable percent, if not a majority, simply do not like immigration at all, legal or illegal. That's why they don't want a change in the current broken immigration system. I disagree with that position. I think immigration is extremely beneficial to this country and I, like Senator Delph, want those immigrants to be here legally. But that involves fixing the current immigration system.
This is an issue that screams out for a reasonable compromise.