Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the presumption of innocence HAVE rough edges. Countries that dedicate themselves to freedom must (A) keep hate down to a very low level and (B) employ sufficient police resources to keep the small amount that remains in check.
Democrats are dangerous, first, in that they deny the hatred that exists in Islam. The question isn’t whether a majority of Muslims are hateful. A free society cannot survive if even several percent (single digit type) of their people are violent. And, second, because Democrats would so handicap the police that we would be unable to control the few that are violent. As to whether Islam inherently percolates a stream of haters, as long as Muslims are in denial of the problem they are posing to the world, it will be difficult for non-Muslims to figure out what’s wrong with them.
With regard to immigration and assimilation, there is a practical limit to how many immigrants who don’t share our democratic values we can allow into the country at any one time. “Learning” doesn’t all take place in school. Much occurs in life, as people go about their business, earning a living and interacting with others. Immigrants, living in ethnic enclaves and sustained by welfare will not learn our democratic values.
BOTTOM LINE: To keep our democratic values, we must control our borders, limit immigration, deny welfare to immigrants and insist that they support themselves, and support law enforcement. The Democratic approach will only continue to undermine our democratic values, while the Republican approach will strengthen the values that made our country great and will do so again.
We shouldn't grant anyone entry as an immigrant if they do not share our vision of democratic values and swear an oath saying so. Not even one should be allowed who won't. I understand that the oath of citizenship was changed recently to remove the "defend the United States". Don't know if that was true, but if so, says a lot to me about those managing immigration, and none of it good.