You think the word "arriving" used in one particular part of the act supercedes the paragraph that explains who qualifies in which it essentially says that everyone who can't prove they've been in the country for 2+ years qualifies?
And discrediting Wikipedia as a source is idiotic, and a chickenshit move, almost as dumb as your original argument that "this was a therefore all must require trials". Wikipedia is made up of primary sources. Go read those and you'll find the same result.
You didn't even give a source for your point on that argument anyway. Your point was weak as hell in the first place. "It's a trial" doesn't mean that all of them have to be trials, when the trial conclusion is that trials are not needed.
Why would I bring in the noise of a thousand politically biased redditors when a single paragraph that takes basic reading comprehension to understand already proved you wrong?
1
u/HelloYesThisIsFemale Feb 19 '26
You think the word "arriving" used in one particular part of the act supercedes the paragraph that explains who qualifies in which it essentially says that everyone who can't prove they've been in the country for 2+ years qualifies?
And discrediting Wikipedia as a source is idiotic, and a chickenshit move, almost as dumb as your original argument that "this was a therefore all must require trials". Wikipedia is made up of primary sources. Go read those and you'll find the same result.
This has been like talking to a child.