The error of calling migration to a land of disbelief hijrah, and the danger of residing in a land of disbelief

The Shaykh: For this reason, we always and forever advise our brothers, some of whom have been there for a long time, who have distorted the meaning of hijrah by calling America a place of migration. This is a reversal of the legal facts, because I told you: hijrah is only prescribed from lands of disbelief to lands of Islam. So how can these people who migrate from lands of Islam to lands of disbelief call those lands a place of migration?!
We always and forever advise these people to hasten their return to their homelands. Some of them say, and their statement has a point, but not the whole point. They say: We are free here, as you mentioned earlier. It is known from European systems that they do not interfere with acts of worship or religions, and so on, unless the believer approaches political work that contradicts their methodology or system. So they say that in Islamic lands we cannot live freely. I tell them: You are greatly mistaken. If you want to live in any Islamic land without interfering in politics that contradict the country's policy, no one will tell you not to pray, not to establish the prayer, not to perform Hajj, or anything else, except in some lands deeply immersed in misguidance. But it is not correct to apply this statement to all lands of Islam. This is from one aspect.
From another aspect: Those who migrate from lands of Islam to lands of disbelief and tyranny have a very, very limited perspective, such that the old Arabic proverb applies to them: "So-and-so does not look beyond the tip of his nose." That is, only from here to here. The Muslim is supposed to look to the far distance, and the very far distance. If a Muslim flees from a land of Islam because there is some disbelief in it—and we say this openly—or tyranny, and he goes to another land, if he cannot establish the state of Islam here, can he establish it there? He will not be able to, because as the Syrian proverb says: "Anything that is on the side of my pocket, do not approach." If you want to establish a Muslim state in France, in Britain, in Germany, in America, you will need centuries and many, many centuries. But while you are in lands of Islam, you may need a quarter of a century, half a century, a century of time; there is no obstacle. But in any case, establishing the Muslim state, the Islamic methodology, and the Islamic society in these authentic lands of Islam is much, much easier than establishing it there. But have those who travel to lands of disbelief set before their eyes the goal of establishing the state of Islam there? If they had thought about this a little, none of them would have traveled from an Islamic land to a disbelieving land at all.
For this reason, I say: It is not permissible for a Muslim to travel from an Islamic land to a disbelieving land, no matter how much religious freedom there is. Because, imagine, Muslims lived there for a century, and what after that? I say something, and this is fairness in the matter and not exaggeration in excess or deficiency. It is possible that if these Muslims residing in some disbelieving European lands were the elite of Muslim scholars and their righteous people, and they united so as to form a model Islamic town, and the disbelieving system there allows the establishment of such a town, and they continue to spread the da'wah around them in the best manner, as the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) began, then it can be said that this action is permissible. But I still say: This action that is intended to be established there is easier and closer to reaching the desired goal if established in lands of Islam. And now we stop here to proceed to answering the other questions, because I say: a lesson and a tooth do not come together.