A common talking point by supporters of illegal immigration and comprehensive immigration reform is that our immigration system separates families (such as by a member of the family being deported).

That talking point is deceptive and promotes bad policy in different ways:

1. Almost all illegal aliens are here voluntarily. They made the decision to cross a border illegally or to overstay their visa. They made the conscious decision to break our immigration laws, and possibly being deported is one consequence of that. In the case of parents, they made the conscious decision to put their children at risk. Their situation can be cured by simply returning to their home country [1]. There are other bad decisions that parents can make that result in them being separated from their children, and there's no immediately cure for those decisions. Almost everyone realizes that changing our laws to mitigate non-immigration instances of family separation would be a very bad idea. While some cases are emotional - something used to full effect by mass immigration advocates - there is a fairly simple cure for family separation. Blaming our laws for conscious, bad decisions made by parents is deceptive.

2. The only way to completely stop family separation would be to declare open borders, something that the vast majority of Americans would not want. What those who advocate against family separation want is a de facto rule - only slightly less extreme than full open borders - declaring that anyone who comes here illegally with children or who has children here while illegal aliens should be able to stay. There might be a few extreme cases where mass immigration advocates would support family separation, but in almost all cases they oppose it across the board. Thus, they do want that de facto rule even if they'd deny it if challenged. What percent of Americans would want such a de facto rule?

3. Another way this talking point is deceptive is that comprehensive immigration reform is touted as having stronger immigration enforcement as a selling point. That stronger enforcement will lead to more families being separated. Those who advocate against family separation and who support comprehensive immigration reform are being deceptive: the policies they want will lead to more family separations, but then they'll fight against those separations after reform is enacted. They, of course, won't admit that but the chance of, say, National Council of La Raza doing a 180 and supporting the family separations caused by immigration reform is nil.

4. Since we're always going to have immigration enforcement, anyone who encourages or enables current or future parents to come here illegally is encouraging or enabling bad parenting. Instead of telling people to stay in their home countries, they send the message that people should make the bad decision to bring their kids here illegally.

[1] If a family can't afford to return home, one possibility is a tightly-controlled repatriation program, perhaps even including a financial grant. If a family fears deportation from returning home, then there are other programs in the U.S. and other countries that can take care of those cases. If returning home would be bad for the family's finances, then the solution to that is to reform and build up their home countries. Those who enable people to come here illegally are making situations in foreign countries worse: they're making reform in those countries less likely and helping corrupt foreign leaders. Those foreign leaders don't mind trading those who'd press for reform for remittances.