I agree with you, but I do think legality has an affect on how innocent the event is, and how we should choose to react to it. In my mind, there's a huge difference between advocating for increased law enforcement and advocating for increased violence of an illegal sort.

Why do you think legality has any moral weight at all?

I know, but neither is anyone (bar a couple posts) going out of their way to support the students' right to expression of their opinion.

I'm not obliged to support their right to expression. In fact, as they are essentially my enemy, I'm obliged to oppose them and their propaganda efforts at every turn. It is only the government that must protect their freedom of expression.

I see a lot of misplaced outrage in this post, and in the media attention being given these students. If you are against deportation, go be outraged at that, organize protests and events to raise awareness. I find it downright silly to be outraged at these students and to frame their event in terms of "violence" and "aggressor" when they're simply describing something legal and common.

If the policy they promote is outrageous, I will be outraged at them. They aren't absolved of responsibility for the things they say simply because they have a legal right to say them. I'm not "framing their event in terms of 'violence' and 'aggressor'," that's objectively what it is.

As for the University's official reaction to their protest, it's really irrelevant. Ultimately the event was only canceled out of fear of physical confrontation with counterprotestors, which I'm totally fine with.

does this equation work any better? innocence(advocating deportation) ≈ innocence(advocating lynching)

Yeah, that's definitely better. I'd also add

innocence(advocating deportation) ≈ innocence(advocating lynching) ≈ innocence(advocating rape)