On these wiki definitions:

Ethnic cleansing: "with some researchers including and others excluding coercive assimilation or mass killings as a means of depopulating an area of a particular group"

"Mass killings" is a big detail which is hard to overlook. If we can't agree where ethnic cleansing includes mass killing it's hard too agree if ethnic cleansing is taking place.

Personally, ethnic cleansing to me sounds like Rwanda or Yugoslavia, which is not happening in the US yet.

I'm guessing that they want to keep 'genocide' for the worst cases ? While others want a more general term including it ?

I think some also tried to push for the term 'ethnocide' for when mass killings were not involved ?

It's a wikipedia definition, and should be weighted as such. There exists a continuous spectrum of arguments about the definition of genocide, with Holocaust-denial existing at one extreme and a hard line against things like forced displacement, systemic/legal erasure, or forced deprivation of a population, i.e. systematic actions that materially contribute to the elimination of a group, at the other. Somewhere in between the two are all the arguments in support of mass atrocities throughout history.

I'm comfortable once we can agree that it's merely a question of degree and that we're indeed very solidly on the genocide spectrum.

I would like to believe Americans are capable of identifying genocide before we've gone full-Rwanda. I would like to hold my fellow Americans in higher esteem than that. I would like a pony.