There may very well be specific immigration laws that are not enforceable. But the federal government has chosen to ignore them (and many others that ARE enforceable) rather than reform or rescind those that cannot be enforced.
First, enforce existing laws. That is not a sound bite or a knee jerk - it is a necessary step to identify the specific problems that make specific laws unenforceable. After that, you can assess the problems and determine if they can be resolved through different enforcement techniques, through modification of the law, or whether the law itself is so flawed it has to be rescinded.
Ignoring existing law only promotes breaking the laws. When politicians start talking about overhauling the immigration system, they are not looking to weed out any specific issues, but are rather looking to layer on a new coating of paint over the ignored, rusted surface of this nation’s putative requirements for entry and residency.
We need to ask them about that. I do not think in every case it means unconditional amnesty, but I could see conditional amnesty as part of a comprehensive overhaul. Much as I would like to live in a black and white world where every principle could be applied to full effect and without compromise, I am old enough to know that is an unrealistic expectation, and that the law of unintended consequences is without partiality.