Reply #7: Few necessarily so.

[Igel]

It seems to work this way:

If an immigrant tears his (or her) family apart by immigrating, the US is horribly wrong because it doesn't allow the entire family to immigrate. The immigrant, in breaking up his own family, is blameless.

If an immigrant is deported by virtue of breaking the law or having an "irregular" status, the US is wrong if s/he's established any familial bonds in the US. The immigrant, in violating the law, is blameless.

In the first case, the immigrant has voluntarily chosen to break up his family--perhaps there are economics behind his decision so that he and his family would die of starvations in the desert back home. Usually not It's not a matter of life or death, it's a matter of quality of life.

In the second, the immigrant has chosen to be in the US by violating immigration law, or s/he chosen to engage in behavior that they know might well result in deportation. I'd be very cautious in having kids or getting hitched in a country I resided in illegally. I'd be starting something I might not finish. Of course, if family unity is really as important as everybody says that the deportee's family would strive to be reunited by going to join him in his original homeland. Some do. Most don't, because the desire to have a better quality of life justifies letting their family remain torn apart. In exactly the same way that in the first case a better quality of life can justify tearing a family apart.

I'm a believer in mercy "rejoicing" against judgment. I'm not a believer in mercy altering the facts and replacing critical thinking or judgment.