Edit: rather than “tend to be right”, I should have said can be right given the right argument and evidence.
Gun-free America, strong covid public health policies, "hate speech", device surveillance, etc ... you name the slippery slope and you'll find at the bottom of the slope that it's hell for some people and paradise for others. Some people prefer highly authoritarian governments that manage (and minimize) life risk and others prefer hands off governments with self-managed risk.
Seriously, moving to a different country is hardly an option. In nearly all cases, fighting to keep your country good is your best bet.
The even worse problem with this line of thought is the econ-101 conclusion - that they must be OK with things if they don't demonstrate otherwise by voting with their feet. (Not ascribing that assertion to the parent.)
The vastly overwhelming majority of immigration barriers in the world keep people out of other countries, not keep people in them.
The motivation behind those barriers is, broadly speaking, in keeping out moochers and undesirables, not "Actively helping some country on the other side of the world repress its citizenry."
You'll be hard-pressed to find people who support strict immigration controls for the latter reason. You don't have to look hard to find supporters of them for the former reason.
I bet my rulers in the USA are happy that the EU makes it difficult for our people to move there. On the other hand I am certain our populace mostly thinks about keeping “the other out” sure.
Cannot both things hold on their own time and place, and depending on where the person holding the view sits?
Mexico’s ruling class is likely glad for our immigration law, as it keeps their populace pinned in. Economic issues always cut two ways, and the press will stoke emotion about only one of the two, for some reason.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in...
And with regards to this specific debate, being tough on crime and (largely unnecessary conspiracy level) fear over pedophilia are both conservative darlings.
The 2nd amendment has typically been the only love of conservatives.
Where were they when the police illegally searched us in dozens of ways, or when free speech was limited to easy to ignore "free speech zones"?
They've only clamoured to defend free speech once the right to freely abuse weaker social classes was at risk of being taken away.
Stronger ones always have and always will abuse weaker ones. It's pretty much a tautology. Freedom of speech and classical liberalism in general is the only defense the weak have.
You know, that's called... Europe.
Im case of companies based in other countries there is not even that, there is basically nothing I can do, as a EU citizen, to prevent companies from spying at me. Not even voting. I can refuse using that companies hardware or services, which is hard enough with the likes of FANG or MS.