[deogeo]

> There's a powerful, xenophobic political movement that has made him president, and there's a mainstream political party that wins more elections than it loses, that panders to that constituency.

So very powerful, winning so many elections, yet they barely made a dent in even just legal immigration - it is still above 1 million per year, and the white population went from 85% in 1960, to 63% in 2010 [1] - a period during which the party that panders to xenophobia won more than half the elections, as you say.

Meanwhile the non-xenophobic China has 1 million immigrants total, and is 91% Han-Chinese [2] - homogeneity and demographic isolation beyond anything depicted in works criticizing fascism like Man in the High Castle.

That the country taking in the most immigrants, and so rapidly changing its demographics, gets labeled as the racist xenophobic one, while the closed ethno-state gets no criticism of its immigration policy, is a sick joke.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_State...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_China

[vkou]

> That the country taking in the most immigrants, and so rapidly changing its demographics, gets labeled as the racist xenophobic one,

If you read the entirety of my post, you may notice that I did not label the United States as a xenophobic country.

I labeled a particular, but currently politically powerful subset of the population as a xenophobic one. If you doubt that it exists, you can find a good representation of it at your nearest MAGA rally.

If you have any immigrant friends, I recommend bringing them with you... And ask them what they think of what they'll see. They may find their eyes more persuasive than your assurances that everything is fine.

[deogeo]

I'm not saying everything is fine. I am saying that xenophobia hasn't had any political power in the US for the last half century - both legal and illegal immigration numbers can attest to that.

There may be a lot of xenophobic rhetoric, but actions speak louder than words, and what precious little action there was (bans for Muslim countries that account for a negligible number of immigrants, and detention of children at the border) was both very ineffective and very politically damaging - the exact opposite of what one would do if one wanted to limit immigration.

[vkou]

You're missing reductions in visa quotas, detention and strong-armed voluntary deportation of asylum seekers, increased raids and deportation of illegal aliens, significant slow-down in legal immigration processing, an vast increase in demand for supporting evidence in immigration petitions, threats against DACA immigrants, threats of Mexico border closures.

All that was accomplished in the three years that this rhetoric has gone mainstream - and not at 'great expense of public opinion'. I don't think a single American has had their mind changed on this subject, since the last election.

What do you expect 2020 will bring, in the event of another Trump victory?

There's a very clear message to immigrants, here. A lot of people think they are the cause of the country's ills, that they want them gone, and they have just gotten started on this project.

[deogeo]

All these things I am missing, yet they haven't put a dent into any immigration numbers I was able to find [1]. In fact, "The number of people who became U.S. citizens reached a five-year high in fiscal 2018" [2]. As for the increased deportations: "In 2017, the Trump administration deported 295,000 immigrants, the lowest total since 2006." [3]

So to answer your question, in the event of another Trump victory, I expect immigration to the US to continue at near-record rates, while they continue to be called xenophobic.

[1] https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/yearbook/2017/tab...

[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/number-of-people-...

[3] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/17/key-finding...