> You suggest not enforcing federal laws

I explicitly did not suggest that:

> There were, and are, many other options available to the government that would not have lead to this escalation & violence.

> which is what enforcing immigration law would require

Citation needed.

You're the one making claims that the only possible response to this problem was to send armed military personnel to a US city to arrest some people hanging outside a Home Depot or whatever. Please back up your assertion with evidence.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that enforcing immigration law entails apprehending and deporting illegal aliens. The troops weren't deployed until after the rioting started.

> I'm saying that enforcing immigration law entails apprehending and deporting illegal aliens.

Okay, fine. You still haven't provide any evidence to back this up.

8 USC § 1227 covers deportation: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:8%20section:1...

And 1226 covers apprehension and detention: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?hl=false&edition=prelim&...

Obama deported people at a higher rate than even Trump is now, and no riots happened. Can you articulate what the difference is between how Obama and Trump operated, and use that to explain why Obama didn't trigger riots while Trump did?

That's not obvious, you'll have to prove that statement.

In your own words:

> Obama deported people at a higher rate than even Trump is now, and no riots happened.

It isn’t a spontaneous riot; it’s a coordinated attempt to ‘resist’ the administration, with elected Democrats and blue-aligned media constantly fanning the flames. We saw the same playbook five years ago.