Sure. If someone wants to have a values system where they believe that incarcerating criminals is wrong, they're welcome to that.

NO! Again, that is exactly the wrong thing.

It is not a values system where they believe incarcerating criminals is wrong - it is a values system where they reach a different conclusion on balancing incarcerating criminals with protecting the innocent. That's entirely the point. If you don't bother to understand what their position is and why they believe that, even if you think they're wrong, you can't have a meaningful conversation. So if you reduce:

"It's better to let ten guilty men escape than one innocent man be convicted"

to only

"It's good to let ten guilty men escape"

...you will not have any constructive dialogue. Because the latter is not their position.

Because *all* illegals are on the wrong side of the law (as written today).

True. And Jean Valjean was guilty of burglary. And someone who commits minor assault is guilty of a crime. And a criminal justice system that sentenced either of them to twenty-five years of hard labor would be unjust.

No one disputes that people who are here illegally are on the wrong side of the law. They disagree with balancing the costs and consequences of deporting the people who are here unlawfully but are otherwise law-abiding with the costs and consequences of some aliens with serious criminal convictions avoiding detention.

Again, if you want to have a constructive and possibly persuasive argument, it is helpful to have an accurate understanding of what the other person actually believes and engage with those beliefs.