> 9/11 (...) created mass migration that resulted in many democratic countries becoming more authoritarian

That's a very bizarre interpretation. Sorry in advance for my long dissection of this comment.

First, saying that 9/11 created mass migration. Migrations have always occurred throughout human history, whether to flee political persecution, bad economic conditions, environmental disasters (both natural and human-made). There are more migrants and refugees now than in the past decades, but that could (partially) be attributed to factors which have nothing to do with 9/11: harsher climate, neocolonial military (or economic) "interventions" in the global south (venezuela, mali, etc), automation of work without wealth redistribution, development of larger transnational chains favoring outsource exploitation in poorer countries (eg. Bangladesh labor is cheaper to exploit than Tunisian/Mexican), and many others.

Second, implying that global north ("democratic") countries are the ones welcoming the migrants and refugees. I don't have recent stats on the topic, but a few years back it appeared a vast majority of people sought refuge in neighboring countries, not in Europe/USA. Moreover, the Global North has a serious history of exploiting undocumented/refugee labor in slave-like conditions (minus the shackles) and broad Internet access has made such information available/verifiable to many people, who no longer look up to France (for example) as a haven of peace and prosperity, but (rightfully) as a place of despair and endless abuse in the hands of the powerful elites. European countries are very good at pretending they can't host more asylum seekers and other immigrants, but are among the richest countries on Earth with incredible levels of food/housing waste... and they sure find resources to pay for their walls, prisons and ~thugs~ cops.

Third, considering that authoritarianism is a new development in "democratic countries". I don't know of a single country who has a well-earned reputation as a democracy. To my knowledge, all pretend-democracies (such as France where i reside) have a strong history of political repression, secret services plots, neo-nazi (or otherwise fascist-inclined) infiltration and cooperation with law enforcement and the military, non-monetary forms of corruption on every level (and less obvious forms of monetary corruption, see "Outrage" for a french example of police filling their pockets from ordinary citizens). Authoritarianism and racism has been on the rise for a few decades now: our parents' teachings from WWII are long gone. In France specifically, there were quite a few authoritarian setbacks throughout the 80s-90s (see for example the Pasqua-Debré racist laws), but it's really with Sarkozy as Ministry of Interior (2005) that the nomenklatura's discourse started shifting towards outright fascism. It started with the threat within, the dangerous young people from popular districts and the engineering of an "insecurity feeling" via state/industry-controlled media. Then when Sarkozy became president (2007), he made a famous stigmatization campaign against Rroma people.

Sarkozy may have been presented as a right-wing president, but a more apt description is a fascist candidate. Because, as Mussolini suggested back in the day, fascism is the merging of Corporate and State powers, and Sarkozy represented just that: he was a close friend of Bolloré and many other neo-colonial fortunes, and made sure the State intervened in favor of big business at every turn. At that time, a new far-right international was forming around the ideas of a "clash of civilizations" and immigration as "reverse colonization"... and you could see Marine Le Pen dancing at balls in Vienna with neo-nazis from all across Europe. Over the next decade, their vocabulary/concepts were imposed on all publications by private-owned media, while public media contributed to the same climate of fear without spelling the concepts out. And here we are now fast forward almost 15y, with Macron elected as a shield against Le Pen's racism, who himself took very racist measures as soon as he was elected (such as doubling from 45 to 90 days maximum time in retention centers for undocumented people who are not accused of any crime), and insisted a refugee boat (the Aquarius) should just be left to rot and sink in the Mediterranean sea, despite some local governments offering them asylum.

How did we arrive to this strange place in history? I'm not sure, but i'm very sure immigrants doesn't have the mystical powers you attributed them. What happened is the product of our oligarchy and political police, not ordinary folk who just want to live a "normal" life. How do we leave this strange place in history and aim for democracy? We need to understand the failures and inadequacies of past and present systems: elections have proved time and time again they're nothing more than a scam, and as long as we delegate power unconditionally to power-hungry psychopaths, all we'll get is dictatorship with a pretty and colorful sugar coating (don't even get me started on actual political repression in Europe, the topic is long and scary). We need power to, by and from the people now. That means abolish every election and everything that resembles a Nation-State: let the people orgnaize in their communities and let no community ever dictate their way of life to others. Anarchism and self-organization are the only path that can divert us from that future we're headed towards that consists of ever-increasing inequality, political repression, climate catastrophes and refugees, and civil war over basic abundant-yet-not-shared resources.