Maybe Progress(B) is a lovely thing for you. The rest of us, however, don't like it very much, and didn't vote for it.
Hold on, let me check something...
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
I rather think we do have that right. Human rights for minorities are indeed a thing, but they aren't a thing that gives you (or anyone else) a fully general right to rule over the majority, nor a fully general right to treat the government as illegitimate when it uses its constitutionally enumerated powers to go against your ideas.
So let me clarify your position a bit: you do support immigration law enforcement, correct?
Also where did you get the idea that the majority of people in the US gets to decide the policy?
Yes, of course. If enforcing the law as written involves doing Bad Things, the law should be changed, but if we aren't democratically deciding to change it, then it's on us what it involves.
Mind, there's been plenty of support for the DREAM Act for quite a while now, so...
>Also where did you get the idea that the majority of people in the US gets to decide the policy?
The basic ethical grounds for representative democracy, without which the US government has no legitimacy, no matter how many pieces of paper anyone waves around.
Yes, it very much is.
>US was set up as a constitutional republic specifically to limit the simple majority mob rule.
The US was set up to preserve the power of the rural landowner class. It wasn't intended to be a representative democracy initially, and has only moved imperfectly towards representative democracy over time, with great struggle.
Rule by a minority elite claiming the mantle of national authenticity as its exclusive possession is, ethically speaking, far less legitimate than that of plain, old-fashioned majorities.