Again you're casting this in hard ideological terms. I'm not a hard ideologue. It's possible for someone to disagree with you without "clinging to right-wing xenophobia", and, also again, stringent migration restrictions are not only normal but universal.
"Bringing in immigrants has only ever done good things" is an inherently subjective statement, so pretending like we can just open a history textbook and have the virtue of unlimited immigration smack us in the face is easy to dismiss without further argument. Even if someone does subjectively agree with this conclusion (and the topic is far too wide for such a broad generalization to hold), they'd point out that the stringent immigration restrictions that have always existed have played a large role in that success.
It's disappointing that rather than discussing the issue, you've chosen to apply a derisive and incorrect label, which you feel enables you to dismiss the argument without analyzing or discussing it. We're never going to get anywhere if, after two polite statements from someone, you're ready to label them with [what you feel] is a mean label and state that their opinion is invalid in light of the label you've just assigned. This is, simply and frankly, an extremely immature level of discourse, and sadly, many of us lack the moral backbone to stand up to it and we just comply with whoever is bullying the hardest/loudest. Many of our contemporary problems have this lack of moral backbone at their root.
Personally, I have great respect for Islam and Muslims in general. I think they're a net force for good, especially in modern secular nations that seriously need more influence from religious people. Though I haven't had the opportunity to travel abroad extensively, I'd like to some day, and I've seriously considered relocating outside of the United States to countries with very different cultural perspectives, including Muslim nations. My grandparents are immigrants who arrived at Ellis Island in the aftermath of World War 2, and they speak non-English at home, which I don't find at all upsetting or threatening.
By any objective measure, I'm not a "xenophobe" ("a person unduly fearful of what is foreign and especially of people of foreign origin"), but because you don't like my conclusion that some restrictions on refugee immigration from terror-prone regions are reasonable, you've chosen to label, shame, and ignore instead of politely agreeing to disagree.
Such dismissive ignorance and self-righteousness is exactly why the blue-collar hoi polloi are rejecting this tyranny of the rising nerd bourgeoisie.
Do you offer a room to every homeless guy you've ever met? I'm sure you could fit a lot of them in sleeping bags in your living room if you were so inclined. Why don't you do that? Hasn't history proven that people are good, and that "relieving human suffering" is good, and that it comes at "no real cost to yourself"?
Perhaps we just disagree about the costs and risks involved in accepting refugees from nations with substantial terrorist activity. That's fine, and it doesn't warrant petty labeling from either side. That's just called a "disagreement" and they happen all the time. Maybe we can work on learning how to disagree better?
There is nothing wrong with considering either the safety of American nationals or the cultural compatibility and willingness/likelihood of assimilation of foreign nationals into the American mainstream before we admit them to our country. Every country has a responsibility to make these determinations when accepting new migrants, which is why every country has nation-of-origin-based visa rules and other universal immigration controls. In fact, the rules for the US are much less stringent than those of many of our first-world peers.
The fact is that your shame-based suicide cult is simply not sticking. Please come out of the bubble. Is Trump's win not enough to wake you from the echo chamber?