I don't disagree with the principle - the issue is that you have misidentified the rule breakers in an Orwellian inversion of truth.
The government has broken the rules - by permitting illegal aliens entry and sanctuary. Due process means due process - due process for an illegal alien is summary removal. If they resist via violence, due process is violence in kind up to and including lethal force. Same goes for citizens breaking the law by violently impeding law enforcement. The government has also broken the rules by failing to enforce the law against employers who aid and abet these illegal aliens - due process for them is immediate asset seizure and imprisonment.
You’re redefining “due process” into “whatever punishment I think is deserved.”
Due process is not “summary removal” + “lethal force if they resist.” Due process means neutral review, evidence, and limits on government power. Lethal force is governed by strict necessity/imminent threat standards, not “they resisted.”
Also, “the government broke the rules by letting people in” doesn’t justify agents breaking rules during enforcement. Two wrongs don’t cancel. The whole point of due process is that the government must follow procedure even when it’s enforcing the law.
And “immediate asset seizure and imprisonment” for employers isn’t due process either - you still need charges, proof, and court. Otherwise it’s punishment first, trial later.
If your point is “enforce immigration law and go after employers,” fine. But none of that requires skipping hearings, dodging independent review, or treating “resistance” as a blank check for violence.