I think most people who move to the US (bar political refugees) do so because they want US style affluence, and the political aspect of the move is not so relevant. I don’t think they’re thirsting after US democracy or freedom. It might also be a case that the migrants prefer the cultural aspects of US life.
The problem is in trying to work out how much, if any, of the affluence and culture are due to, or dependant on, the political setup you have.
Constitutional monarchy, various forms of republic, commonwealth, are all pretty much democracies.
Although there are likely dudes who do not want American style freedom & democracy forced down their throats at the point of a gun, pretty much any and every educated person does want democracy and freedom. Aspidistra’s cite makes that pretty clear.
But when UDS defines" American style freedom & democracy" to include “society that has US-style imprisonment levels? Income disparity? US levels of social and community cohesion? Do they like the balance the US strikes between, say, freedom of speech and the control of pornography? Do they favour the US combination of strict formal separation of church and state with overt religiosity in public life?” then we are getting away from American style freedom & democracy into American society and culture. That’s not what was asked.
Let us take a look at the “not free” nations of the world:
http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/fiw09/MOF09.pdf
other than the ruling classes and the ignorant, I doubt if many living in the “not free” nations would not prefer to be in a “free” nation. Sure, some might prefer Sweden and it’s somewhat socialist democracy to the USA, or some other version. But given 100% open borders, full disclosure and free travel, the blue nations on that map would be seriously depopulated in a decade.
I think just about every aware and educated person in the world (who isn;t a member of the ruling class) would like to live under this definition of “free”
http://www.freedomhouse.org/uploads/fiw09/FIW09_ChecklistQuestions_ForWeb.pdf
I accept that there’s a distinction between the broader “society and culture” and the narrower “freedom and democracy”, but I don’t think it’s a clear bright line. Issues like freedom of speech, the liberty of the individual and the separation of church and state are quite obviously aspects of “freedom and democracy” as well as society and culture.
And the OP specified American-style freedom and democracy – as distinct, presumably, from freedom and democracy as understood and practiced in other countries generally regarded as free and democratic. So we have to ask ourselves what is distinctive about freedom and democracy as experienced and expressed in the US.
One of the features, I suspect, of “American style freedom and democracy” is a particularly heavy emphasis on an understanding of freedom to mean the freedom of the individual from restraints imposed by the state or by the wider community, as opposed to the provision of social supports (e.g. education, healthcare, income support) which may increase personal freedom. The list of questions that msmith537 posted points to that, I think. (The US has a long history of providing free universal education, and relatively readily accessible tertiary education, and I believe this is an important element in the US’s democracy, but msmith537 doesn’t mention it.)
Another, perhaps, is a (relative) emphasis on property rights as an aspect of freedom – hence at least some Americans think of, e.g., Scandinavian tax rates as socialist and so involving some compromise of freedoms which are better protected in the US. They might be less likely to ask themselves whether US imprisonment rates represent a compromise of an individual liberty which is better protected in counties which imprison less readily, though that seems to me a legitimate question.
But there was a massive difference between these!
The US coming in after the start to help an alliance of nations with mutual self-defence treaties win two World Wars is totally different from the US invading for its own benefit.
Yes, immigation to the US is almost always economic. Witness the millions of illegal Mexicans who live in hiding. They don’t benefit from a critical press - they just want poorly-paid backbreaking work (which is profitable by Mexican standards).
See, that’s what you don’t get - France was occupied by a foreign power at the time; Cuba, Haiti, Somalia and Iraq were not. Do you really not see the difference?
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Americans don’t understand nationalism.
Can we poor benighted foreigners cherry-pick? 
I quite like your written Constitution thingy (or at least some of it), but would be happy to to keep my Westminster parliamentary system, high voter turnout, low levels of political corruption, and national health and insurance systems (among others). Oh, and I definitely don’t want your DMCA, ACTA, and various other three- and four-letter acronyms.
Trying to scale back my sarcasm for a moment; I do think that most people want the benefits that are often associated with free and democratic societies, but to suggest they that should adopt the “American style” is not only presumptuous and naive, but could even be perceived as downright insulting.
(ETA: I don’t think your intention is to be insulting astro)
We define “patriotism” as being pro-American (or indeed, pro-Republican), no matter what country you’re from.
We are perhaps the most nationalistic people on Earth.
What we don’t understand is anyone else’s nationalism.
The real problem is that the United States did absolutely nothing to support a democratic Vietnam. South Vietnam was merely an anti-Communist dictatorship. Washington supported Ngo Dinh Diem as leader of the South, the man who refused to allow the Vietnam wide elections that were mandated by the Geneva Conference and was a Catholic who hated the Buddhist majority. Many South Vietnamese celebrated his assassination, but it only went downhill from there.
We can’t say that the Vietnamese rejected democracy when they never presented with that as an option.
Not exactly, IMO.
Ask a Frenchman if France would still be the same country if it became a dictatorship, and he’d answer, “mais oui, naturellement”; France, after all, has gone through dozens of types of government in its 1500 year history, and yet was always France.
Ask an American the same question about America, and nine times out of ten he’d say no. To him, the form of government - in effect, the Constitution - *is *the nation, not the land and the people. No other nationality thinks that way, and it colors the way Americans see the world.
That’s not right. Americans like every other nationality I know define their country in terms of many factors, the goverment is just one part.
Some factors may be more important than others, but I guess thats going to depend on who you ask.
Me, I want European-style democracy and freedom, not American.
Most people probably have a hierarchy of needs regarding their government system, a bit like the personal food/shelter/other needs one. I suspect “stable” is right at the top of most people’s lists, followed by “non-murderous”, then “non-corrupt”. “Indigenous” is probably next (ie, not run by foreigners) though I may be ranking that too low for some people’s tastes. “Allowing free dissent” next, and then maybe “democratic”.
It would probably be instructive to look at which countries have adopted democracy over the past couple of decades, what their reasons were, what sort of system they have adopted and what they think of the results. The only example which springs to my mind would be Argentina which seems to have adopted a fairly US-style model. I wonder what they think of it.
Ah. Bhutan too. British-style constitutional monrachy, looks like.