I think we are talking about different things.

Not entirely. What I was attempting to do was lay the logical groundwork for an argument that not only is the law not currently enforced dispassionately, but it was not meant to be and, further, shouldn't be. Do you really believe those who drafted immigration law, in particular, did not intend for their legislation to be interpreted by those charged with enforcing it?

The law is reason free from passion.

As someone who has actually worked in the legal field on both criminal and civil procedures (not as an attorney, but as a clerk), I can guarantee you this is not true. Emotion is exactly why juries exist and why judges provide sentencing. The law is more than just a decision tree to be navigated without consideration of the justness of the potential outcome. It is meant to be interpreted, and that interpretation is an essential part of American jurisprudence.

Discussions of whether certain laws should exist or be modified can obviously be approached with some emotion.

I'm glad we can agree on this.