Ken is not bobbing and weaving here. Several people have said that the outcry is because Trump is actually enforcing the laws, and he's pointing out that Obama was enforcing them more than any other president to date.
There are several reasons for the outcry:
1. Obama enforced the laws behind the scenes. There was little coverage, few statements from him or his staff, and very little media coverage. Surely this was by design as to not cause reactions like we are seeing now(and I don't doubt that the media collaborated to some degree with him, whether it was coincidental is something that could surely be debated for decades).
2. A lot of people are worried about what Trump *might* do. He talks tough about deportations, walls, and keeping people out. People are worried that the sentiment has gained momentum, and there does seem to be a division among Latinos in particular on the subject. Trump got a much larger Latino vote than expected, partly because many underestimated their sentiments on illegal immigrants. So far, Trump really hasn't done anything all that different than Obama. In fact, he is keeping the "Dreamer Act".
3. The media is fueling a lot of the outcry. Aside from the SJW's that feel a "need" to be protesting "something", between mainstream outlets and social media, there have been matchsticks thrown all over piles of dry leaves. If you cannot see that, you're not looking. Just look at the story of the woman recently deported and "having to leave her family behind". This happens all of the time, and Obama surely had a load of cases like this under his reign, but media didn't run with any stories like that(at least not to this degree, or not for these reasons).
I agree with each point, but I think you give a pass to the media for making little noise about the deporter in chief. A lot of people were not happy with his record deportations, but we heard little of it, by design as you say, but not coincidence at all. I get how it works, and why the MM turned an eye for Obama, and why they will not for Trump.
We're screwed because the sides are drawn simply and the complicated middle is ignored because it's very difficult. "build a wall, throw, em all out" or " no wall, let everyone in". Neither is workable or in our best interests. But it seems we're going one way or the other, because no one can find a reasonable middle, due to the minefield that is real and artificially created by the 2017 media.
The obvious base line IMO, is do we have a sovereign border, and are there requirements for enjoying the rights and benefits of being a legal resident. Standards of what it means to be a citizen have to be established or the rest is muddy.
We've spent the last decade blurring that line with drivers licenses, in state tuition, etc..
I don't agree with, and I don't see it happening, deportation of under the radar illegals. Our economy couldn't survive it, and with Mexico's relief valve shut, in a few years that state descends into chaos that makes it look nice today.
Illegal residents that place themselves on the radar through crime are fair game. 70 in a 55 maybe not, but DWI, or assault, theft, and the zillions of other infractions that vary in degree means a really difficult task in assessment. No way in hell are we up to it. Look at our leaders...The pols and media are "wall good" or "wall bad" level of deliberation, but I think the vast middle wants a sovereign nation that doesn't need a giant physical wall to supplant laws already on record.
Something about a giant border wall doesn't seem right to me, even though I understand the reasoning and that there's been a truncated physical wall for a long time. America shouldn't need a wall like a prison.