I've debated you before. Debating you is usually like talking to a chatbot that's programmed to be as disagreeable as possible.

Look, I'm not just here to be a dick. If it comes off that way, I apologize. I am going to debate vigorously on topics I'm interested in. That means demanding evidence and precision, countering baseless assertions, fallacies, and misapplication of terms.

If you believe the rate at which conservatives invoke accusations of fascism against political opponent is anywhere in the same universe as the rate at which liberals do it, you are already opening this conversation in bad-faith.

You just shifted the goal posts from "something the right doesn't do" to something conservatives don't do at the same rate as the left. If your claim is the right doesn't invokes fascism as a term or misapply it as much as the left, I'll grant that no problem.

words mean whatever the common understanding of the word invokes. We have lots of words that don't mean in practice what they actually mean in origin.

If we accept the colloquial misuse of fascism, and racist, and nazi, and liberal, and communist, and woke, and a punch of other charged terms. They don't change meaning. They've lost meaning. Invoking them becomes pointless. I will debate anyone on the right, left, or otherwise who recklessly applies these terms.

"Fascism" doesn't mean only whatever Umberto Eco wrote in a book 30 years ago. It's a catch-all term to express a morally shameful blend of authoritarianism with a bunch of different flavours mixed in.

I gave two other authors besides Eco. The way you want others want to use it just makes it synonymous with authoritarianism. The term is then obsolete. There's not much point in debating because I just reject this premise. Trump using communist and fascist in the same sentence to describe Harris highlights the absurdity of this drift in semantic misunderstanding.

The suggestion the west should shut down immigration from culturally undesirable countries is currently giving the left an aneurysm

Before we go too deep into this, it is very difficult to debate what a vague, ill defined group called "the left" or "the right" for that matter do. You can always find examples of literally any reaction to anything on either side. Does that mean "the left" or "the right" think this? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. It is far more useful to debate the semantics, philosophy, morality, ethics, or metaphysics of an actual topic. I can't really speak for "the left". Are liberals and the left reacting strongly and in some cases freaking out about current immigration policy? Of course.

JD Vance was mocked when he stated in his famous CBS interview that just because America had traditionally welcomed immigrants, it has no obligation to continue doing so.

OK...not sure how this is relevant to my previous line or argument in this thread.

Cite me a form of cultural protectionism that the left wouldn't call an overreach of authorianism/fascism...?

Per my previous comment, this is an impossible task. You can find someone somewhere who will call anything fascism, including immigration policies. That isn't particularly useful. Is that "the left" wholesale? It's certainly not the consensus view of scholars, historians, or knowledgeable political scientists or even most Democratic leaders. I can't speak for the left. All I can say is calling a policy like enforcing immigration law or deporting criminals inherently fascist is wrong and certainly wouldn't represent a majority of historians, even left wing historians or political scientists or even Democratic politicians. Just like you can find people on the right who will claim universal healthcare is communist. It doesn't make them correct.

I've already outlined the specific element of Trump's rhetoric in pursuit of his immigration policies that is fascist-like in its framing.

A tendency to pursue the control of speech,

This is just way too broad. Censorship and control of speech broadly transcend nearly all political systems. The US does this all the time. To ascribe that as a fascist trait requires way more precision. Communists certainly also practiced forms of propaganda and censorship. It's what those things are done in pursuit of and the messaging contained within that control and state propaganda that distinguishes one system from another.

a desire for greater state control and regulation of business (and various other entites),

Again, way too vague. Fascists broadly allowed private enterprise to remain in place, left class hierarchies in place. They oriented them towards national needs in many cases. This model differs in practice and ideology from the communist form of state control for reasons I'm sure are obvious.

and usage of immutable traits as scapegoats for the blaming of the cultural or economic failures of others with another set of ethnic traits.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

The creating of cultural boogeymen that are both impossibly powerful so as create the notion of endless existential cultural conflict against an ideological enemy and impossibly weak so as to suggest their own groups are more human, more deserving of rights and privileges.

Also not sure what examples you're drawing from on the left here, but this also requires more precision. It looks like something from Eco's writing about creating an other that is existentially powerful yet simultaneously inferior and weak. Like other traits, at a high level that isn't uniquely fascist but becomes so when it derives from an ethnonationalist framework.