> I personally believe laws should always be enforced and followed.

Laws are written by imperfect humans. Bad laws exist.

> believe deportation is morally wrong in certain cases, that is, the law can be selectively broken.

Except that that author didn't say that at all. They said "deport only the lawbreakers", while expressing dismay at a blogpost which (apparently*) said "deport everyone".

> I personally believe laws should always be enforced and followed.

Quote from TFA: "Any kind of mass deportation plan would have to change [the law], which would be legally tricky to say the least. However, enforcing the existing laws requires no legal action, and could start tomorrow if the relevant executive wanted it to."

*Other comments have argued that the post didn't actually say that.

Do you believe that even morally wrong laws should be enforced and followed? A lot of the segregation and jim crow laws were pretty odious. Women weren't allowed to have bank accounts and credit cards in multiple countries (even the US until 1974). Women were not allowed to legally vote (one Swiss canton kept this until 1990!).

Do you believe that these laws should be enforced and followed despite most people believing that they are morally wrong?

> That eliminates margin for corruption and lenience.

Lenience and mercy are critical components of a system of a just criminal justice system. We have judges issue sentences in large part because we want a human being with good judgement to decide how serious the punishment for an offence should be based on the circumstances.

A person who shoots their partner who has been abusing them for years should probably receive a different punishment than a person who pulls out a gun in traffic and shoots someone for cutting them off. Mercy or "lenience" are not inherently flaws in the justice system, though of course there's always "too much of a good thing."

Something I was told when started building in fintech was that the laws are in such a way that its impossible to be 100% compliant in every interpretation.

The law is huge, complex and can often have conflicting aspects.

This is assumed by some to be "by design". When the law is such that everyone is breaking it, then the power shifts to whoever can bring people in "front of the law".

So, in every case with strong beliefs such as yours, IMMV and it's easy to voice an opinion when you feel "not in target".

I think some of the trouble here is that the application of the law cannot be guaranteed to be free of discrimination or bias, regardless of the letter of the law itself?

> I personally believe laws should always be enforced and followed.

I read an article some years back that really changed my mind about this. It made the point that society evolves through the imperfect enforcement of laws (those some kinds of imperfection, like selective enforcement, are distinctly harmful). That is empirically true, but for some reason I hadn't realized it until the article pointed it out to me.

I don't believe that deportation is inherently morally wrong, but there are certainly ways to deport people that are less moral than others.

I think DHH's comments are pretty mild given the subject. However, I think it is how he frames his comments that cause offensive - lumping a (potentially) problematic (arguably) ethnic group of people in with animal control...