I think the issue is that the law was too vaguely written and not the fundamental premise of deportation. The language should be tightened and reissued.
Every person who enters any house, room, apartment, tenement, shop, warehouse, store, mill, barn, stable, outhouse or other building, tent, vessel, as defined in Section 21 of the Harbors and Navigation Code, floating home, as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 18075.55 of the Health and Safety Code, railroad car, locked or sealed cargo container, whether or not mounted on a vehicle, trailer coach, as defined in Section 635 of the Vehicle Code, any house car, as defined in Section 362 of the Vehicle Code, inhabited camper, as defined in Section 243 of the Vehicle Code, vehicle as defined by the Vehicle Code, when the doors are locked, aircraft as defined by Section 21012 of the Public Utilities Code, or mine or any underground portion thereof, with intent to commit grand or petit larceny or any felony is guilty of burglary. As used in this chapter, “inhabited” means currently being used for dwelling purposes, whether occupied or not. A house, trailer, vessel designed for habitation, or portion of a building is currently being used for dwelling purposes if, at the time of the burglary, it was not occupied solely because a natural or other disaster caused the occupants to leave the premises..
In other words, if I enter your house, with the intent of offering for purchase a time share which I should have known was fraudulent, I have committed a fraud and therefore committed a burglary, even if I leave peaceably with no purchase agreement, cash or pilfered item in hand. Unless my pen and paper are regarded as assault weapons there was no threat of violence intended or implied.
Thus, as Gorsuch stated, the connection between a burglary and a crime of violence is too vague to be enforceable.