No, it does not. The question asks what it asks. If you like the laws of your country, city, or state the way it is and want to keep it that way, who should you be the most afraid would try and change it? Someone who chose to move there because they liked it, or someone who is only there because their parents liked it?
False. It's asking why would someone come to an area in the first place if they didn't already kind of like how things were done there?
Yes, we do. It's called citizenship.
So you would argue that we should do away with the requirement of citizenship in order to obtain the right to vote since it marginalizes migrants?
You are crossing swim lanes, and misrepresenting what I said by cutting out parts of my post. The thread subject says local laws, your op says country, and all the posts throughout this thread seem to mash local, state, federal as if they are the same. They are not.
It might be better to distinguish between say someone moving from rural Texas to Houston, vs. say someone moving from California to Texas vs. say someone moving from Mexico to the US (all of those are just examples to illustrate a point.)
At the federal level you make a strong point about someone wanting to bring with them into the nation the culture and methods of law from their home country, and ultimately you end up with a conversation about multiculturalism vs. assimilation (even though it is never that cut and dry.)
State to state, or rural to city is another matter.
The issue at hand though is the same, who *should* win in terms of moving wherever. Those that are established vs. those that are new. The reality is you end up with some blend of elements that change with others not changing so much, and there is really not much you can do about it as democracy suggests will of the majority no matter if made up of those living there longer or those newer to the area (or community, or state, or even federal level.) Generally speaking majority elects representation, who appeals to that majority to stay in power. Seemingly shifting law (which impacts everything from economics to social climate) towards the will of that majority.
Immigrants to this nation who obtain the ability to vote do the same thing, by pool of political lean will guide their representation. Just requiring citizenship to vote (that I agree with anyway) does not necessarily remove all of our ideologies that end up translated to political lean, which end up becoming a voting force.
It seems like what you want to argue is if coming to the US accept it the way you find it, but that never really happens even with those who have been here longer. We have had enough legal, social, economic, and otherwise advancement that cannot be entirely (arguably even partially) blamed on immigration.