>>1862343>2- Those immigrants have heavy cultural differences that propose different social values from their host country to the point of conflict by disagreement on fundamental rights.Same could be said for the Israeli/Palestine conflict,apartheid in South Africa, and colonization of natives by western empires.
Democracy via popularity contest does not protect minority groups and can quickly become ochlocracy, the "pathological" version of popular rule. If one respects the institutional democracies they should also recognize the fundamental right of any subgroup to their own sovereignty.
Concerns about human rights could be solved by implementation of the "Non Aggression Principle." That people must be allowed to leave property controlled by an authority which imposes unreasonable rules from their point of view. The challenge of course is avoiding the problems of "ghettoization," which would be much easier if the cost of living was not artificially high because of technological suppression. If we look at social networks and forums this general principle allows people to have their cakes and eat them too, although TPTB make it difficult to start new communication/transactional networks through forced integration into their surveillance/censorship public/private partnerships.
Furthermore the cultural clash is heightened by coercion. An example of this is black markets. Black markets exist because there are cultures of prohibition all over the world. The implementation of prohibitory markets has itself bred violent, and especially in the United States, ghetto culture. Humans cannot be ironed out like a wrinkly pair of pants, without great costs, and then the protection of human rights has failed in its implementation. Institutionalization may be viable for a portion of the offending population, but it's unavoidable that many in the group will feel alienated and dissatisfied, which leads to market capitalization failure of human potential.
