In my opinion, the whole "inclusionist" versus "exclusionist" distinction is much less important compared to "pushes their agenda no matter what" versus "listen

In my opinion, the whole "inclusionist" versus "exclusionist" distinction is much less important compared to "pushes their agenda no matter what" versus "listens to other parties' concerns". So it happens that proponents of mass immigration in power were firmly in the first camp. They shoved immigration down our throats and continue it to that day, and they label anybody who object as various "-ists". That's just not healthy and there will be unavoidable repercussions in the long run. It's much easier to argue policies with people who you previously did not screw other, and that, "screwed over", is what I feel about this situation. In all your claims I can sense the deeply ingrained notion that, no matter what I think, voice or oppose, it's me who will have to cave and make peace on your terms. What's if it's no longer so? What's if it's you who are looking forward to several decades of your valid concerns discarded and ignored? What if wheel has turned?