By Dr. Miklos K. Radvanyi
Allow me to start this universal essay with a personal confession. At the age of twenty-five, with a promising professional career and a young family of my own, I became a refugee. Having rejected the tyrannical autocracy of the so-called Soviet-type Socialism, I sought my personal as well as professional future in the democratic West. After spending almost five years in the Federal Republic of Germany, I was offered a job in Washington, D.C., the United States of America. Wanting to earn rather than obtain American citizenship, I have worked hard to be worthy of the trust placed in me by my employer the U.S. Congress. This personal experience has inspired me to think repeatedly about the political, economic, and moral treatment of the global refugee problem.
History rarely announces the arrival of a new era. It usually disguises profound transformations as temporary crises. What began in the late 20th and the early 21st centuries as successive waves of refugees, asylum seekers, and illegal migrants is increasingly revealing itself as something far larger: a fundamental test of whether sovereign democratic states can preserve their institutions, while remaining faithful to the principles that made them successful. The debate has too often been reduced to slogans, trolls, lies, self-serving propaganda, and irresponsible internet memes. One side proclaims that borders are immoral, while the other insists that every migrant constitutes a threat. Neither position survives serious examination. The real issue is not immigration itself. Throughout history, the United States of America, Canada, Australia, and many European nations have benefited enormously from lawful immigration. The issue is whether democratic governments retain the authority – and the practical ability – to determine who enters their territory, under what conditions, and according to what kind of laws.
This distinction lies at the heart of statehood. Max Weber famously defined the state as the entity possessing the legitimate monopoly over the use of force within its territory. A sovereign state also possesses the legitimate authority to regulate admission into its political community. When that authority is systematically circumvented, sovereignty begins to erode not by conquest, but by gradual attrition. Illegal migration therefore represents more than a humanitarian or administrative challenge. It becomes a constitutional question. Laws derive their legitimacy not merely from being enacted, but from being enforced. If immigration statutes exist largely on paper, while governments prove unable or unwilling to implement them consistently, public confidence in the rule of law inevitably suffers.
What is the problem with the aggressively savage and barbarically lawless mass immigration from the globally uncultured regions to the developed democratic nations? The decades-old debate over how to address it politically, legally, economically, culturally, and morally – let alone resolve it – continues as it has had for the past half-century. Why have all attempts at a solution failed since President Ronald Reagan’s 1986 belated amnesty for illegals under the Immigration Reform and Control Act? Key parts of the Act allowed people who lived illegally in the USA since before January 1, 1982, and certain farm workers, to apply for legal residency. Supporters hoped that clearing the record for people already in the country would fix the system. Moreover, they believed that punishing employers who hired illegal labor would stop future illegal immigration. While about 1.7 million illegals gained legal status, and many later became citizens, the employer penalties did not stop illegal hiring, and future illegal immigration. On the contrary, the latter continued to grow, leaving the debate over border control and legalization active until today.
In 2015, there was a burgeoning campaign of refugees and illegal immigrants into the European continent. An estimated 1.3 million people, mostly from the Middle East, Africa, and Asia, flooded Western Europe in search for a better life. The European Union attempted to enact some regulations to address the problem, but to no avail. Today, the unending flow of refugees shows the political consequences across the continent. The unstoppable influx of illegal immigrants caused significant demographic and cultural changes within all the countries of the European Union. As a consequence, the overwhelming majority of European politicians question the long-term effects of this phenomenon and ask the ancient question: Are the barbarians only at the gates or are they already inside the city?
In light of its destructive tenacity, illegal immigration continues to generate a range of opposing assessments and proposals regarding the required course of action. Meanwhile, defeatism and gloom are growing over the obduracy of a conflict that has preoccupied much of the West’s attention for so long, even though the solution seems to be temptingly reachable.
Illegal immigration has never existed in a vacuum. The seriousness of illegal immigration on the future of the West confronts democracies with an existential question: Can the democratic state still govern effectively? The issue is not whether democracy remains morally superior to dictatorship. It undoubtedly does. The question is whether democratic governments possess sufficient authority, legitimacy, and institutional capacity to solve increasingly complex problems before public confidence erodes beyond repair. This is the emerging crisis of the democratic state. For much of the 20th century, Western governments exercised considerable control over the principal instruments of national power. They controlled their borders, regulated their currencies, maintained domestic security, educated their children, collected taxes, and generally monopolized the making and enforcement of law. Their authority was not absolute, but it was widely accepted as legitimate. That assumption has weakened dramatically. Globalization has transformed enormous economic influence beyond the reach of individual governments. Financial markets operate around the clock. Multinational corporations command resources exceeding the budgets of most states. Digital platforms influence public opinion across borders, often without meaningful democratic oversight. Cyberattacks can originate thousands of miles away. Artificial intelligence is transforming labor markets faster than legislatures can respond. The democratic state increasingly finds itself governing problems that no longer respect national frontiers. Illegal immigration illustrates this transformation vividly.
Large-scale illegal immigration is not only a border issue. It reflects demographic pressures, economic inequality, organized criminal networks – especially, drug cartels, human trafficking networks and Jihadi terrorist organizations -, armed conflicts, climate stress, and instantaneous global communications. No single government controls these forces, yet citizens understandably expect their governments to manage their consequences. This mismatch between public expectations and government capacity creates frustration. Citizens continue to hold elected national leaders responsible for outcomes that increasingly depend upon international developments beyond any one state’s complete control. The result is declining confidence in democratic institutions.
Trust, however, is the invisible foundation of constitutional government. Courts possess no armies. Legislatures cannot personally enforce every statute. Elections function because citizens accept both victory and defeat as legitimate. The rule of law depends not merely upon coercion, but upon voluntary compliance rooted in public confidence. When trust declines, every institution becomes less effective. Political polarization magnifies the problem. Democratic competition is healthy when opponents are viewed as mistaken. It becomes dangerous when opponents are regarded as enemies whose victories are inherently illegitimate. Increasingly, electoral defeats are interpreted not as temporary political setbacks, but as existential threats. Every election becomes “the most important in history.” Every compromise becomes betrayal. Every disagreement becomes evidence of moral corruption. No constitutional system can function indefinitely under such assumptions.
Technology introduces an additional paradox. Modern democracies possess unprecedented access to information. Governments can analyze data, monitor infrastructure, and communicate instantly with millions of citizens. Yet citizens themselves are overwhelmed by contradictory information, misinformation, propaganda, algorithmic amplification, and relentless political mobilization. Information abundance has not necessarily produced greater civic wisdom. Instead, many societies experience what might be called informational fragmentation. Citizens increasingly inhabit separate realities constructed by different media ecosystems, each reinforcing its own assumptions, while rarely engaging seriously with competing perspectives. The common factual foundation necessary for democratic deliberation gradually erodes.
Demography presents another structural challenge. Most advanced democracies are aging rapidly. Pension systems, healthcare expenditures, labor shortages, and fiscal sustainability will dominate public policy throughout the coming decades. Simultaneously, many developing regions continue to experience substantial population growth, creating migration pressures and geopolitical consequences extending far beyond immigration policy itself. The state must therefore balance competing obligations: protecting borders, while respecting humanitarian commitments; sustaining economic growth, while preserving social cohesion; encouraging innovation, while safeguarding employment; expanding security without sacrificing liberty. These are not temporary dilemmas. They define the governing environment of the 21st century.
Foreign policy compounds domestic complexity. Geostrategic competition among the United States of America, the People’s Republic of China, the Russian Federation, multiple regional powers, and emerging smaller states increasingly intersect with trade, technology, energy, supply chains, cybersecurity, and information warfare. The distinction between peace and armed conflict has become blurred. Nations compete continuously below the threshold of conventional war through economic coercion, cyber operations, espionage, political influence campaigns, and technological competition. Democratic institutions, originally designed for slower political environments, must now respond to crises developing within hours rather than months.
However, perhaps the greatest danger is psychological rather than institutional. When citizens lose confidence that democratic governments can solve problems, they begin searching for alternatives. Some demand ever greater centralization of executive authority. Others retreat into populism, ideological absolutism, or political nihilism. Still others simply withdraw from civic participation altogether. Each response weakens democracy further. The remedy is neither nostalgia nor authoritarian temptation. Democratic renewal requires rebuilding institutional competence. Governments must demonstrate that they can enforce laws consistently, administer public services effectively, protect constitutional rights impartially, and explain policy honestly to their citizens. Transparency strengthens legitimacy. Accountability restores confidence. Competence rebuilds trust.
Democracy ultimately survives not because it promises perfection, but because it offers peaceful self-correction. Its greatest strength lies in its capacity to recognize mistakes, replace leaders without violence, revise failed policies, and preserve liberty, while adapting to changing realities. The crisis of the democratic state is therefore not an inevitable decline. It is a test. The nations that succeed will not necessarily be those with the largest economies, the strongest militaries, or the most advanced technologies. They will be those whose institutions retain the confidence of their citizens because they continue to govern effectively, uphold the rule of law, and reconcile freedom with responsibility. History has repeatedly shown that democracies are remarkably resilient when they possess confidence in themselves. Their great danger is not external competition alone, but internal doubt about their own capacity to govern wisely. The 21st century will determine whether democratic states can recover their confidence – or whether history will record this period as the beginning of a long erosion of democratic self-government.
The future of both legal and illegal immigration will not ultimately be decided only in the deserts, seas, or border crossings. It will be decided in parliaments, courts, and among electorates willing to confront difficult realities without surrendering either their humanity or their sovereignty. The time has come to realize that those who strive hard to exploit the sanctity of the principle of “liberty for all” by their ideology-driven evil-minded hate with the intent to destroy the foundations of this liberty must be rejected uncompromisingly by the global West.