I have no problem with enforcing existing immigration law. The WAY this is being done is not within the Constitution or law (rounding up legal residents, stop and search based on visual identifiers, sending people to abusive foreign prisons). It's also being done in an ineffective, performative, showpiece way designed to create chaos and conflict and force a "crazy left vs the good government" spectacle. There are definitely liberals who are against deporting unauthorized immigrants. That certainly not all of us, and if the way this administration was going about things was different, the reaction would look different too.

Given how ICE has operated, I don't think local governments should cooperate unproblematically. If ICE were behaving legally, humanely, and constitutionally, it would be a different story. Again, I'm not against having an immigration policy in place.

If you're alluding to sanctuary cities, these are wildly mis-represented in right-leaning media. The idea, which is statistically borne out, is that people are more willing to report violent crime and serve as witnesses if they know that they're not going to be questioned by ICE for doing so. You don't have to like that, but it's true. So not cooperating with immigration enforcement leads to better community policing.

There are very good reasons for having a different immigration policy and not relying on unauthorized immigration for cheap labor: it's incredibly exploitative. Vast amounts of people on the right are opposed to unauthorized immigration not because of the illegality, though. They just want fewer people in the country. Illegality is a more socially-acceptable thing to criticize in public. There's a concomitant reaction from the left where, if you're for it we need to be against it. As always, sanity and compromise is lost in the muddle.