I didn't need to. Plenty of people here made the arguments.
(I may have at some point. I'm not a Democrat. But I don't generally feel the need to speak up when what I'm going to say matches what everyone is already saying.)
You seem to misunderstand what an independent judiciary means. It doesn't mean that the judges aren't people. It means that they can follow what they believe the law to be without regard for what their decisions will mean at election time or to powerful politicians in the other branches of government.
[Actually, it is you that misunderstands what an independent judiciary means. It does mean that judges should be free from undue influence by the other branches of .gov, but your idea that judges are free to follow what they believe the law to be couldn't be more wrong. Judges ideally interpret disputes within the framework of constraints in the Constitution and congressionally written law, then additionally by existing legal precedent. They should not make decisions based on their own feelings but upon the body of law existing on the books.]
There's no such thing as a person who hasn't been influenced. If there were, we wouldn't need panels of judges.
That perfection is impossible doesn't mean that everything is a complete waste.
It's not a matter of what we want the law to be. It's a matter of what the law is, and the law allows amnesty.
Have you considered why there are so many refugees from Honduras? It's because the U.S. (during the Obama administration, with significant leadership of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton) functionally backed a military overthrow of the elected government.
These people are fleeing an awful situation that our government helped to create. And they are doing it in a way that is within current U.S. law.
tl;dr Independent =/= mean they can do whatever they wish