One of the chief difficulties I have with a lot of the (otherwise well-justified) teeth-gnashing in the US about Trump is the willingness to bandy around the word 'fascism' in a manner that's heavily tinged in American exceptionalism. There's this assumption that pervades a lot of criticism that anything short of the rigorous standards the US prides itself on is equal to fascism. Media restrictions are probably the best example; while Trump's war on the press is certainly extremely troubling in some quite fascistic ways, the conversation seems to uncritically proceed on the basis that any sort of media restriction amounts to fascism. This is despite such media restrictions existing in most western democracies, to one extent or another. It's of course true that if certain policies are assumed to be unconstitutional in the US, then pursuit of those policies is a pursuit of unconstitutionalism, and unconstitutionalism might be considered to be a hallmark of fascism (in some ways). But then that's distinct from saying that the underlying policies are themselves, taken in a vacuum, fascist, and if you were merely labelling as 'fascist' the pursuit of unconstitutional policies, it would cease to be 'fascism' if Trump were to say "I think we should amend the Constitution to allow certain media restrictions". The logical chain appears to essentially be that, if something is contrary to the US Constitution, it is probably fascist, which not only fetishises the US Constitution strictly within the US context, but also reeks of American exceptionalism.
Similarly with jus soli. It's not a prerequisite for a liberal democracy, or a necessary ingredient for a non-fascist state. There's certainly very good arguments for why it should not be done away with, or how doing away with it in a certain way would be fascist. But the assumption that, because it's different to what America has, its removal would therefore portend the rise of the American Reich, seems to ignore global context, or involve quite a leap.