It's not a slippery slope when it's supported by evidentiary claims: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope#Non-fallacious_...

It's not when there's already evidence that we're slipping down the slope. We have verbal interviews of Steve Bannon's intent and philosophy and leaked drafts of policies aimed at slashing legal immigration by 50%.

Supporters of Trump and his policies go out of their way to try and soften and explain what he "really" means by saying to ignore what he or his advisors literally say. I think this is dangerously naive and the time is past giving the benefit of the doubt and sticking to rigid logical standards. This isn't philosophy class and this stuff poses real world dangers.

I had to look this up :). But I would have to disagree on that. Trump/Bannon have a recorded history of anti-immigration, anti-muslim rhetoric. And they also took a pretty long time to openly call out against the antisemitism.

The Obama administration has deported many many illegal immigrants and yet I've never felt that way for them.

This is also called history repeating/rhyming with itself.

While I appreciate the recognition of the fallacy, just because the reasoning fits the template for a fallacious argument doesn't mean that it is. The slippery slope argument is only a fallacy if other evidence doesn't exist to suggest we're on such a slope.

There is historical precedent in this particular instance...

this is also called the fallacy fallacy

There is ample historic precedent for regimes and loud minorities implementing agendas by first going after the easiest targets (jews, kurds,hooligans,illegal immigrants) then slightly generalising (disabled, kurdish supporters, all "potentially violent", immigrants in general) in some steps until the end goal (political opponents, political opponents, political opponents and...political opponents). Hence in this case, the slippery slope is a given and justified.

Slippery slopes have happened before.