Making assumptions based on ambiguous statements is dangerous. He does not use the words "mass deportation" he does not even say explicitly that he disagrees with Trump. Instead of agreeing he nuances his position first, noting the percentages (which I agree sound a bit far from reality) that cause him to not flat out agree.
The furthest you can take his words is that he is of the opinion that the government should do something about there being a disproportionate amount of non-American born in SV power. There are lots of ways he might think that might be corrected, some of which are not even unfair or racist. To assume the very worst is not constructive.
That "disruption" means killing off capital flow in Silicon Valley. People follow the money. Why would it be desirable at all to do that unless you're a racist ideologue?
In all democracies, policies that you're running on have to have effects before the next presidential election to assist in the reelection campaign. Ending visa programs will not significantly change demographics until 5-20 years down the line. Unless you think that Stephen Bannon will end democracy before the next election, ending visa programs will not be enough for him.
The furthest you can take his words is that he is of the opinion that the government should do something about there being a disproportionate amount of non-American born in SV power. There are lots of ways he might think that might be corrected, some of which are not even unfair or racist. To assume the very worst is not constructive.