Esperanto is meant to segregate/alienate people of particular linguistic
backgrouinds?
In fact, the phonology system of Esperanto is pretty similar to that of
Lojban. They have practically the exact same phoneme set: the only
difference is that Esperanto doesn't have {y}, and it considers {dj},
{ts} and {tc} single phonemes. I'm not completely certain, but I think
Lojban's phoneme set was copied from Esperanto. As for clusters,
Espeanto does allow some things that Lojban doesn't, but for the most
part it is Lojban that allows the most monstruous clusters.
I meant Esperanto's stronger adhesion to the Romance languages in various aspects. People whose native tongue is one of the Romances would find Esperanto easy to learn more than Thai or Arabic speakers would. And I think that is an indication of the alienative nature of Esperanto, while being called an
international auxiliary language; its internationality and auxiliariness, on the linguistic level, are actually limited.
Particularly the orthography of Esperanto can be more outlandish than that of Lojban. And while presumably few people would have difficulty in typing in Lojban, many would find it awkward to do the same task in Esperanto for the first time (the character set of Esperanto is far less universal than that of Lojban).
If the phonologies of Esperanto and Lojban look alike, that's not necessarily because the designers of one side
wanted to copy the other's, but rather because when you simplify a phonology it does gain more generality; the more things get simplified for the same purpose, the more they become alike.
I'm not completely familiar with Esperanto either, but I'm convinced that Lojban is linguistically more open than Esperanto can ever be.