The November elections offer an opportunity to reconsider how governments should treat people who have lived for decades in communities where their legal right to remain is challenged.

Hundreds of thousands have built their lives in these communities. They work, pay taxes, own homes, establish businesses and raise families. They have become part of the social and economic fabric of the places they call home.

Many were born there. Their parents and grandparents established roots decades ago. They attend local schools, speak the language and know no other home. Why should children bear the consequences of decisions made before they were born?

Critics argue that their presence violates the law and that granting legal recognition would reward unlawful behavior. But laws can change, and governments must weigh legal obligations against the human consequences of uprooting established communities.

Mass removal would separate families from their homes, destroy businesses and empty neighborhoods. Decades of peaceful residence create human interests that cannot simply be dismissed.

These are familiar arguments in the American debate over immigration enforcement and the treatment of undocumented immigrants.

Those same humanitarian considerations arise in another debate involving more than half a million Jews living in Judea and Samaria.

Those advocating changes to ICE’s enforcement policies emphasize family unity and the human costs of removal. Those principles can also inform discussions about Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria.