Anonymous full.metal.everything. 2w

Yeah times change bro. Is any change of government policy “arbitrarily deciding status?” We use to allow people to own other people and now we don’t. Fundamentally immigration wasn’t a right back then either, it was a conditional privilege. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights does the government say foreigners have the inherent unalienable right to move here

-5

Anonymous OP 2w

No, I wouldn't say that it is. Putting what I said in quotes and attaching it to an unrelated statement is some amateur hour shit if you're actually trying to prove a point. Also, wow! all the sudden it's a "conditional privilege" and not an "earned priviliege" when the gladibgly obivious hole in your logic gets pointed out, that's crazy seeing the goalposts get moved in real time.

2

Anonymous full.metal.everything. 2w

*glaringly obvious

3

Anonymous full.metal.everything. 2w

There’s no hole in my logic. An earned privilege is a conditional privilege duh. The point is that in either case a change in policy is not inherently “arbitrary” but I’m sorry you cannot grapple with an abstract example that points out the flaw in your logic

-2

Anonymous OP 2w

all earned privileges are conditional, but not all conditional privileges are earned. It's a "all squares are rhombuses, but not all rhombuses are squares" scenario. it's not my fault you don't know how to think around that difference.

6

Anonymous OP 2w

Anybody can comprehend the comparison you made between slavery and immigration policy, it's just anybody with half a working brain recognizes that it's not a valid comparison. Immigration policy is not the same as a genocidal state program like slavery. It's not "abstract," it's just fallacious and beggars the limits of analogy. you are either stupider than Hitler's military planning or just acting in bad faith lmao

5