@maxdancona,
The critique of 'zero-tolerance' is obfuscating the fact that a tolerance policy is a repressive policy tactic that allows the government to enforce or not enforce laws at will, which makes power very arbitrary and unpredictable. Uniform enforcement of laws may result in some ugly results, like the situation with family separations, but that is what motivates legislators to create responsible laws and policies instead of making laws harsh and then showing mercy through tolerance policies that ultimately allow them to ramp up the harshness with zero-tolerance against those they deem deserving of it.
In effect, this is what the previous administration was doing, i.e. only enforcing the law for the people they deemed fit to expel. Probably the people deported were systematically picked up by gangs and tortured/killed. Probably the people reported and deported were targeted for some reason and filtered through the system as such.
Otherwise, crime bosses can use the tolerance policy for families to recruit young parents to do dirty 'migrant' work, such as trafficking drugs, prostitution, etc. They just tell these women to bring their kids with them and the worst that will happen to them is that they'll get caught and released. Impunity gives a green light to crime bosses for recruitment.
It would be great if they would just allow people to migrate freely based on personal interests, but the reality of this world is that people are desperate for money and they can make easy money by selling drugs and sex and performing other undesirable labor under the threat of deportation if they fail to submit.
Until the rights of migrants are fully protected to the point where they can't be exploited, border tolerance only makes it easier to exploit them. The nations of the world could all unite and provide migrant rights for everyone in every country, but national citizens the world over would protest this, so really we're stuck with deportations and border control despite the inhumanity of it.
