I don't have to! Because I didn't bring the argument into the conversation.
Burden of proof [1] should be a required reading before posting on this site.
Even the upcoming "Gold Card" visas you mention, which are indeed the closest thing to this idea, come with some additional requirements that no money in the world can circumvent.
It is a fantasy, whether you all like it or not. Life is not a James Bond movie.
> Burden of proof [1] should be a required reading before posting on this site.
Ironic, then, that you don't understand it. You've confused "Burden of proof" with "Burden of imagining an argument for someone else who was too lazy to actually make one."
Let's try that out: "If you disagree with me, you are wrong and insane, because of reasons that you will have to find for yourself. Insert evil cackle here."
> Even the upcoming "Gold Card" visas [...] come with some additional requirements that no money in the world can circumvent.
Oh my, look! A golden opportunity for you to show off your honest commitment to (real) Burden of Proof.
Yes, share with us these unnamed "additional requirements" you claim exist. (Hopefully not inside an invisible dragon in your garage.)
Since you assert they are not subject to corrupt presidential whims and waivers, that must mean they are federal statute, in which case linking to them should be a breeze.
Nobody even asked you to "prove" something, you were only asked to give an actual argument instead of a flat denial. Stop pretending like you're some kind of victim of unreasonable requests.
> Even the upcoming "Gold Card" visas [...] come with some additional requirements that no money in the world can circumvent.
