I'm simply trying to understand the other side here. Maybe I'm privileged and I don't see something very obvious. But so far, I don't see a case here.Oh well, it comes down to this: Pedantics of "Cost" vs "Value" vs "Monetary Cost".
Whats the value of water? Possibly infinite.
Whats the monetary cost of water? Mostly ... small. Because.... supply is decent, for now atleast.
Whats the value of citizenship of a first world country? Possibly a LOT.
Whats the monetary cost? Well, so long you are young, skilled and in reasonable health not very high. Australia, Canada, UK, Germany are all offering programs for PR with pathways to Citizenship.
So, you are paying with your youth, your skills and hence direct monetary cost is small.
Its similar to why cost search like google and its value. You pay by your metadata.
People are assuming that their own perceived value is the actual value. I think in a fairly transparent CRS system+with open data on draw dates inconsistency there's a lot of wishful thinking that leads to wrong expectations. When everything is so open a mature person shouldn't assume everything. That's where I am unable to understand the other side.
I've seen people call the immigration minister, PM, etc all sorts of names on twitter - I can't support people who do that in a right mind. I am not even able to see what frustrates them? Does landing on a TRV entitles them to stay permanently? These things are fundamentally wrong.
People have to define the core pillars/themes of their case. Saying stuff like "I paid taxes" is not a case. I worked in EU, US and other places where I paid way more taxes and I never said it. I never met anyone else who said it either.
The other side has to help me (and many others like me) understand better to empathize. We want success for all and happy to support people. But how do you support without reasoning?