Tying this back to OP's comment, it's hard to see these policy changes as any sort of legitimate protectionism and it's just as hard to divorce them from the justifications given by people who start with "I'm not anti-immigrant".
If legal immigration was at 40% of its current level and I wanted legal immigration to double from there, would that still be anti-immigrant?
Or does having any limit whatsoever mean that you're opposed to a thing?
I don't know how else to read that.
I enjoy salt/spices; there’s still an optimal amount of spices to add to a dish and wanting to hit that optimal mix doesn’t make me anti-spice.
We've chosen to stop after having two children. Doesn't make me anti-child or anti-family.
We've chosen to have only one pet dog at a time. Doesn't make me anti-dog.
1) Someone can be against illegal immigration and for legal immigration.
2) That same person's idea about who should immigrate to the country may exclude most or all of the people who are currently immigrating illegally.
It's not like you can only be against illegal immigration because they forgot to fill out some form. Legal immigration has a component of deciding who gets in.