Is it impossible to acknowledge that sometimes, people will have conflicts, but that one has the right to decide how they'll be resolved, and the other doesn't?
No. This only applies when it is an legal outcome which has a legal means to achieve, but which large numbers are going with the illegal means. And it isn't about a moral high ground, because morals are tricky business and can differ extremely based on what moral system you choose to use. Instead, it is pointing out that the official system is broken (at least in regards to the issue) when so many decide to work around it.
I think the truth of the matter isn't one of the system being broken, but of a harder to publicly state mention that the official system is keeping out the people that are not wanted. But it means dropping the 'everyone can get in legally' shield.
Also, people moving to seek a better life for themselves and their children is pretty core to the existence of the US, so I would posit that it's a moral thing to do if people aren't breaking any other laws. By making legal immigration easier, you keep people on the side of the law and less tempted to break other laws, since, hey, in for a penny, in for a pound.
Ah, but see, no one cares what I think when designing systems. I'm just another programmer, you know?
The systems I get to design are things like: my career, my marriage, how I raise my kids.
And the sensible adaptations of my systems to unbounded immigration are: improve my lot, possibly at the expense of society's (making a bigger pie doesn't make sense if that simply attracts more pie eaters), prize relative status over absolute wealth (for the same reason), carry a gun, decrease my investment in society and retain options for moving abroad (same reason), and work hard to afford expensive real estate near "good schools" to send my children to elite colleges---elite you understand, not good enough, because with enough people, good enough, isn't.
And this is all antisocial behavior, and I don't really like it, and perhaps I will find a way to refrain from most of it and die in my bed in Oakland after ten years of philanthropy, surrounded by not only my multilingual grandchildren who, by dint of the virtues of hard work, collaboration, and generosity that I've taught, have managed to find their places in society, but also the neighborhood youths that I've mentored, Gran Torino style. That is the outcome I would be urged to pursue, and the one I personally find most fulfilling.
But: perhaps my neighbor Steve the auto mechanic is not so insufferably capable as I am, and feels betrayed by his country. What Steve feels is his due is loyalty, which means: discrimination. If loyalty to a company means that you stay there when you perhaps get a better offer from another, loyalty to a citizenry means that you favor its interests over some other body of people. And I do not get the sense that proponents of mass immigration favor the interests of the citizenry over migrants. I am happily ensconced at my well-paying tech job, so I will be OK---but what about Steve? What does he tell his kids when a Mexican (by pure chance---it could have been white, but this time, it wasn't) kid bullies them at school? Does he feel a moral obligation to consider the other child's interests? Is he likely to have a calm chat with the other child's parents?
What I am saying is: "You need to design your systems to deal with it" is equivalent to saying, "Fuck you," and while the moral and civilized response to "Fuck you" is "Have a nice day, sir," there are many who will not be able to afford that answer. Instead, they'll say "Fuck you." And (without the insulting meaning I ascribed to it earlier) you need to design your systems to deal with that.
Some people are poor. They'll risk everything to come to the US or other wealthy countries. That's the economic reality.
You have several options:
* Become like North Korea. Walls, "papers, please", etc...
* Ignore it and pretend like you can keep them out or that there's a viable "legal path". This is kind of what we're doing now.
* Make it easier for them to come legally so that you can keep track of who is here, kick out the people who actually misbehave, and otherwise run a lawful and orderly country.
This has some parallels with the "war on drugs".
"Dropit, you're ignoring reality, people will come whatever official attempts are made/there is not the political will to do what it would take to maintain an actually strong border."
Yes, I know. And the incentives of that reality, for the elite, are to become rootless and disinterested (or worse: exploitative), while the proles just become resentful. I don't get the sense that anyone is making that connection.