The executive's ability to be flexible with the law is supposed to be used expeditiously when it's urgent. For example, it would be appropriate to suspend ICE operations temporarily during a national emergency. The executive isn't supposed to just unilaterally decide that some law is "too mean" and then stop enforcing that law indefinitely. It's shocking that people so hostile to the executive body seem to wish for the executive body to gain implicit legislative power!
>It's shocking that people so hostile to the executive body seem to wish for the executive body to gain implicit legislative power!
The executive body already has implicit legislative power. There are 2 arguments. How they use that power, and whether they should have it in the first place.
You can have both of those arguments simultaneously.
GP said that the executive does exercise such discretion all the time, which is true. Talking about how it should use that discretion judiciously (not expeditiously BTW) is a non sequitur.
That shocking thing is part of justice system in USA, explicitely. (In contrast, in Germany cops+prosecutors are indeed legaly obligated to prosecure all crimes they know of, but in USA they don't. )
"We won't prosecute this or that crime" is even sometimes announced.
It makes sense to complain, criticise or defend those decisions.