"A democracy is only legitimate to the extent that people choose to participate in it" is correct, but only applies to the people within the bounds of the democratic state -- those upon which the effects of the democratic decisions will be applied to. Not to arbitrarily anyone.
So refusing the vote to blacks or women etc, within a state is undemocratic, refusing the entry to the state (and thus the vote) to those outside is another thing altogether.
Let's conduct a thought experiment. Given totally free entry and vote to the USA, what's to stop, say, 400 million devout muslims from migrating there, and voting at the very first elections they can vote in, for islamic law (or gradually introducing it)? That's, after all, the will of the (new) 400+350 million strong people.
You could substitute muslims for any other group. Or you could do the reverse experiment, migrating 100 millions americans to a muslim country of, say, 50-70 million people, and having the vote to change the laws and customs to americanized preferences of living.
It's only because a lot of people in the US think that how the US lives and operates is some kind of universal law or ultimate preference of mankind (forgetting that there are two fractions even in the us itself) that they cannot see the possibility of such experiments/distortions.
Meanwhile, people in places like Lebanon, that had these things painfully happen to them, are much more aware of the diversity of what people will.
Given a choice, the majority of the world would choose to move to Europe or North America. I'd bet if you polled, say, Guatemala, and offered everyone free residency and resettlement in the US, you'd have acceptance numbers over 80% at least. And a lot of the people choosing to stay would be those that are well off.
So what's the actual plan to deal with resettling a couple billion people (with significantly different values and standards)? And if we can magically provide a safe and wonderful country for them in tier 1 countries, why can't we do the same in their country of origin?
Or more directly, what's allowing tier 1 countries the ability to absorb so many people?
It is worth noting that the trend in migration from Mexico to the USA has actually reversed lately.
It is worth noting that the trend in migration from Mexico to the USA has actually reversed lately.
The only study that even claimed that misinterpreted the two studies that produced the raw numbers.
The inbound figures counted only working-age adults. It ignored all children and infants, including the huge number of unaccompanied infants.
The outbound figures counted everybody, including children and infants.
There was a net increase overall.
My experience with immigrants is that they generally want to be able to maintain some semblance of their culture in their new homes, but they generally aren't interested in foisting that culture on others.
As is the "boundless immigration open for all" scenario to begin with. But given that, what could happen? That's one possible answer.
>For starters, what is the motivation for these Muslims to migrate to America or western Europe if their goal is to create an Islamic state?*
Expanding islam to other places is part of the historical identity of islamism. Might not be on the goals of peaceful laymen, but it's very much a core tenet of more devout believers (not talking about militants either).
But an even more obvious answer, at the layman level, would be they'd migrate to take advantage of the wealth, infrastructure, opportunities etc. The making an islamic state can always come second. After you have those, why not change the laws and customs to your preference too? Especially if you are a large enough subset of the population?
>If your argument is that they want access to our economic prosperity, the act of converting our government would destroy the very system that created it.
That's how you see it. They don't necessarily see it that way, and I don't believe that it is that way in reality either. You can create prosperity under very many systems. I don't believe the US has some unique model for how a wealthy state must be run. We have from far more socialist economies that do quite well (e.g. nordic countries), to light totalitarian states that do great (Singapore), to "communist" single party states that are rising fast (China).
>If your argument is that they are dicks that only care about creating a tyranny of the majority to "punish" others
You call it "punishing" others and "being dicks".
As they see it, it's just putting others on the right track and being moral and just (according to their beliefs). Puritanical western societies have not done less (e.g. with the Inquisition and similar establishments).
>My experience with immigrants is that they generally want to be able to maintain some semblance of their culture in their new homes, but they generally aren't interested in foisting that culture on others.
That's because their small numbers make them humble and appreciative of where they have been received. When there was mass immigration (e.g. when the English and such religious nuts migrated to the US) they very much forced their religion and customs on others (native americans for one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_boarding_schoo... ), but also WASPs as the dominant majority group over Jews, Irish, Italians, Chinese, etc.
I don't think "choice" is how you decide these arguments. Either your choice to make noise limits my choice to sleep or vice versa. There is not always a way to limit the choice of none.
In regards to the condition of conflicting interests, all you really have is mutual agreement among all involved parties. In this case, you agree to make less noise late at night in exchange for my agreement not to turn the neighborhood against you by telling everyone what a dick you are. Unfortunately given the dissolution of community reputation isn't the effective check it once was, and as a result we end up being both alienated and mired in bureaucracy.
I believe you can also go to Svalbard if you do so without passing through another nation on the way which would restrict your passage.