You posit a false dichotomy here. The law isn't just about what is prohibited, but also about what the consequences are, and how it is enforced. One doesn't need to believe that e.g. stealing should be legal to oppose on moral grounds a law that says thieves get the death penalty.
Let me ask you directly: do you believe that people who smuggled away slaves into freedom, back when US had legalized slavery on large parts of its territory, were in the wrong and didn't "help move society in a more productive direction"?
Im not sure how to continue the conversation in a productive manner if you are withholding key information about your stance.
You refuse to answer my questions, but I will answer yours. Of course not, I don't think smuggling slaves was wrong.
I still hold that refusal to respect the law is incredibly divisive and leads to social conflict and destruction. In the case of the US, it led to the most deadly and destructive war in American history.
When you give up on settling issues with the law, you move to settling them with brute force. I dont think this is a positive direction.
I will ask one last time: Do you think restriction of immigration is a case of nonsensical or outright evil law? Do you think law abiding deportation of illegal immigrants is morally justified in concept?
Let me ask you directly: do you believe that people who smuggled away slaves into freedom, back when US had legalized slavery on large parts of its territory, were in the wrong and didn't "help move society in a more productive direction"?