Amen and amen.
>Mr. Duruk's thought's are frustrating to read because he assumes his privilege. He assumes he's owed an easy and straightforward journey to citizenship
An example of this is the widely shared diagram explaining "How to move to the USA legally"(https://www.reddit.com/r/coolguides/comments/6rbwfx/how_to_m...). The creator (Reason magazine, which I generally sympathize with more often than not)'s intent is to sarcastically mock the US immigration system's vagaries. But as many (not all, but enough) in the Reddit thread point out, why is the US (or any country) supposed to make entry into it for non-citizens "easy"? (This is completely separate from whether doing so might be a good decision for the country from a long-term economic perspective.)
>While I do not agree with this administration's immigration policies, I have enough perspective to realize that immigration policy is ultimately beholden to the local population. That is what democracy entails.
Indeed. In a democracy, the populace is always "right" in the sense that the populace is entitled to do whatever it votes to do that is compatible with its laws and relevant treaties. (And, of course, said democracy is always free to amend said laws and exit said treaties.) Again, this has nothing to do with whether the decisions the people and their elected representatives make is "right" in the sense of benefiting the country or people in the long term. Even if such a thing were possible to determine objectively, it doesn't matter because the people have spoken, for better or for worse.
It's been frustrating to see "democracy" defined too often as "what the people decide, unless it goes against what I and other experts think is correct". It's not supposed to work that way. The recent wave of looting and rioting is going to cause the people, temporarily cowed, to once again speak their mind and remind the world the next chance they get at the ballot box.