Since the very beginning of our Nation’s founding, there has been (by design) a healthy tension between the Legislative branch, which writes laws, and the Executive Branch, which executes those laws. Laws were only de facto valid when they were both on the books and willingly enforced. As every law is a limit upon the people, this created a very high barrier to restrictions on individual rights."Every law is a limit on the people," eh? So what the anarchists really need is just to elect a President, who can refuse to enforce any of the laws?
But which "people" are we talking about here? The law in this case is a restriction on peoples who are not American citizens: it restricts them from moving to America without a permit. The restriction doesn't particularly affect the American people.
The preamble to the Constitution suggests that it is the people of the United States who ordain and establish the government, for ends of their own. They are good ends, but they are not universal ends: and the category of people who established and ordained the United States is not universal either.
Maybe Krumm is right in general: maybe it's generally a good thing if the law goes unenforced. Maybe it's fine to have a lot of laws on the books that have no force in practice.
Somehow, though, I doubt it. That sounds to me like a vision of the law as the sword of Damocles: a deadly thing hanging over my head, fit to fall at any time. But -- for now -- a little string keeps it from my skull.