Disclaimer: I disagree with the foundation of your argument, but until the end of your post you were still making valid points, so I'd like to reply in kind, and try to help you shape up your arguments. Let us begin with agreeing that the current system is inherently racist, for arguments sake.

Im going to generalize without factual basis here, but the people who disagree with your arguments tend to react better if you avoid emotionally or politically loaded terms, and to stay on track.

Instead of saying that white folks have systematically fucked over minorities, a digression from your argument, point out that the US overthrew 'third world' countries legal governments to allow corporate income to increase. Same core argument conveyed, but it clearly highlights that the US implicitly contributed to the current situation. Those of the party of "personal and fiscal responsibility" will have a hard time disagreeing with this foundation, as long as you have good examples. Do not use Venezuela for this, too much contradictory data. Save it for highlighting the need to expand asylum qualifications.

This should open the door to bringing up the possibility of expanding aid programs, and further assistance if they are staunchly firm, and this keeps the conversation on righting our wrong and helping those who need it. Avoid parallels to reparations, and try to frame it as a mutually beneficial exchange, ie stronger nation means a stronger trade partner, or how they could be a good supply of educated employees if they were helped.

Quotas for certain groups based not on national-allies, and only on a basis of race is inherently racist. You should be arguing for a wider definition for claiming asylum, or some way for us as a country to have a reason to lower immigration standards for countries we have disproportionately affected if you want to have a greater impact on the people you wish to allow in the country. Your quota argument made you out for being hypocritical.

And let's look at your last paragraph.

"But whatever. I'm not gonna change your mind. You aren't gonna look past your surface level understanding of a situation generations in the making, and you certainly don't have the courage to change now and do anything about it. So go be yourself and slowly become absolutely irrelevant."

If you are wanting to change people's minds, keep in mind that this can include observers and not just the person you choose to respond to. You are framing their point of view here as shallow, and uneducated with the first bolded section which indirectly attacks those you want change their own views to align with your own; I shouldnt have to explain why this is not ideal. Last bolded part is more of this.

Your last sentence needs to be reevaluated entirely. Without context, it can be seen as the kind of rhetoric that incites movements like white nationalism. Include whatever context you intended, because in the conversation you framed by race is going to he the first thing a reader will go to.

So this turned into word vomit.

Tldr Keep your sub-points to verifiable and specific points/claims and avoid emotional language in all but talking of those you want to be helped. Frame your arguments in a way where it's obvious that both sides will benefit from this, and avoid derailing yourself. Do not attack the other person without reason.