The immigration issue amply demonstrates that when political pendulums swing too much to one side, they then swing back wildly and uncontrollably.

President Trump’s rhetoric and policies toward immigrants, legal and undocumented, have been harsh, and have reflected the views of his base. But all this is partly — only partly — because during the Obama years the immigration rhetoric became quite loose.

It wasn’t Obama’s fault. As deporter-in-chief, he deported record numbers of undocumented immigrants. But with eight years of a Democrat in the White House, progressives and immigrant advocates became quite emboldened and gradually distorted the immigration debate.

One thing they did successfully was blur the distinction between legal and undocumented immigrants.

How often I’ve watched some progressive or immigration advocate talking about undocumented immigrants on TV, saying things like, “American is a land of immigrants, so we should welcome all immigrants.” To which I imagined rational, native-born Americans watching at home thinking, “But we are not against legal immigrants, just uncontrolled, unauthorized immigration; don’t you get it?”

My first deportation lesson was about skin color: Voices

Why Trump may be about to decapitate North Korea: James Robbins

The other way progressives distorted the immigration debate was to confuse the issue of whether immigration is a right or a privilege.

Does the United States have a right, like any other country, to have a say in who, how many and what kind of immigrants (low-skilled, high-skilled) to allow into the country? Do non-criminal, hardworking, law-abiding people all over the world have a right to immigrate to this country?

In a rational, commonsense world, the respective answers to the above questions are obviously “yes” and “no.” But somehow, during the last eight years the debate shifted so much that the answers seemed to become “no” and “yes.”

I don’t have any animus toward undocumented immigrants, mainly the impoverished Mexicans and Central Americans who came across the border, escaping penury and violence. If I were in their shoes, I’d probably do the same.

It is hard to have the same feelings, though, toward the 40% of undocumented immigrants who came here on a plane, willfully overstayed their tourist visas, then hunkered down and waited for the next round of legalization.

And I have some animus toward our dysfunctional immigration system that punishes (by deportation) undocumented immigrants but completely lets off the hook their partners-in-law-breaking, the businesses and individuals that have used their cheap labor over the years.

Fact is, if E-verify had been strictly enforced all these years, Trump’s proposed wall would have been rendered unnecessary.

Excessive emotionalism isn’t good in any debate, much less in the immigration debate. Some emotionalism is necessary because Americans need to see that the undocumented immigrants are real people with families that stand to be disrupted by Trump’s draconian policies (which I don't support).

For more information go to http://www.khou.com