[t974958fgghg]

I don't think it's as clear as you think it is. Consider that nearly every law and government policy is enforced by means of violence. Therefore, most political advocacy is in fact advocacy for violence. People who are "questioning immigration" are usually calling for state violence against migrants. How else are they going to reduce immigration? When the government bans inciting violence, it's not all violence, just the violence that's against the interest of the state in enforcing its monopoly on violence. It doesn't make any difference for the people who are being incited against whether it's a government or some other violent group that ultimately acts on the speech.

Another thing to note is that laws against inciting violence ban advocacy for defensive violence against the state's offensive violence. It's legal to advocate for all people of a particular demographic to be executed by the state, but it's illegal to advocate for those people shooting the cops who come to arrest them.

[ctoth]

> People who are "questioning immigration" are usually calling for state violence against migrants. How else are they going to reduce immigration?

I believe the popular phrase was something about building a wall, which while it might be xenophobic doesn't seem necessarily violent?

[t974958fgghg]

I think the wall is just a political symbol. Everybody understands that a wall alone won't reduce immigration as people can easily go over, under and around a wall. At most, a wall might slow down or redirect migrants, making the violent enforcement more effective.