Respectfully: if you're going to attempt to co-opt a political framing to which you are less than familiar, drawing a transparent parallel between the fundamentally consumerist nature of tourism and needing a place to live that lets you get to your job, and then attempting to tag it as nativism--let alone an "extreme version" of it!--is probably not the least disingenuous way to do so.

You are describing something functionally on the same scale as to the "extreme blowback" rich people get when people make fun of them on Twitter for, say, burning untold amounts of dead dinosaur goop to make an NFT or to not quite go to space as a personal stunt. It is somehow, however, though not the "economically just circumstances" of the hand-to-mouth mom. Which is a situation to which I will confess some confusion, but whatever.

Is it really right to equate a tourist's interest in accommodation with a resident's interest in a strong community?

The social consequences to a tourist going to a hotel instead of an Airbnb are nowhere even near the social consequences of an even modest increase in rents.

Only if you ignore the difference between immigration and tourism.

A tourist is fundamentally there for temporary and consumptive reasons. They don't have any long term interests about the place they visit. They are accommodated as guests. As such, it is only rational that they don't receive the exact same consideration as the residents who have their skin-in-the-game of that same place.

There are also plenty of non tourists who can't find regular housing who cram themselves into AirBnbs.

It's better than sleeping in your car.

Tourism isn't always good. Places get trashed, many "tourist" destinations are starting to regulate because people come in, trash the place, and don't give a fuck and leave. It's sad

No one said they aren't. Some people just don't want their next door neighbor renting out their home/apartment to a bunch of tourists who don't care about how disruptive they are to the people who actually _live_ there.