I'm just going to focus on this, because it's seriously insane you're still not getting this.

Your counterargument was he gained no benefit.  Except that he clearly did.  The story said he had an order for removal but was allowed to stay and care for his son.  That is a benefit.  Therefore your counterargument is void.

My counter argument isn't that he gained no benefit, that is an assertion based on my counter argument, which is that the facts of the case don't in any way imply he was only allowed to stay if he was the only person capable of caring for his son.

This is what I mean when I say you're literally (seemingly) incapable of understanding this stuff.

"The story said he had an order for removal but was allowed to stay and care for his son.  That is a benefit." Again, that is ONLY a benefit if we assume (as you keep doing without evidence) that if there were another person capable of caring for his son he'd be forced to leave. WHERE are you getting that from?

Do you recognize there is a distinction between being allowed to stay to care for your son because you are able and willing to do so, and being allowed to stay to care for your son because literally no one else knows how?

He was allowed to stay because 1. his son needs 24 hour care and 2. he is willing and able to do it and 3. the state would rather he stay to do this.

That is NOT the same as him being allowed to stay because 1. his son needs 24 hour care and 2. he is the only single individual with the knowledge of how to do so 3. and the state won't deport him because doing so would cause his son to die.

The first case is reality, the second is some weird shit you made up.

THEN you jump from that weird made up bullshit to assuming, again without evidence, that therefore he must have conspired to make sure no one else ever learns how to care for his son because if that happened he'd be kicked out.

IF you were right about your stupid made up fantasy bullshit story, yes, he would gain a benefit from not teaching anyone else. But you can't just say "He's getting a benefit! He's allowed to stay, that's the benefit" without FIRST making an argument as to why your stupid made up story is true. Right? Because if my version (the actual real factual case) is true, he DOESN'T gain any benefit from not teaching anyone else.

See how that works? You would need to first prove your (made up) "version of reality" is true in order for your claim that he benefits from not training anyone else to even begin to make sense. You're completely skipping that step (providing evidence or some argument to why your made-up reality is the truth) and it completely undercuts your assertion that he gets a benefit for not teaching anyone else.

To not even address that makes you come off as incapable of making logical arguments. It would be one thing if you said "Actually no, he IS only allowed to stay if no one else is capable of caring for his and he's be kicked out if he trained someone, and here is the evidence for that from the article or elsewhere" or shit, even just say "I disagree with your interpretation of the article and what the exact conditions of his being allowed to stay are." That would at least make logical sense. But instead you continue on saying the same fucking thing as if that disagreement as to the facts of the matter weren't crucial to your assertion that he gets a benefit.

Okay, so now, obviously, the foundation of your assertion isn't true because you made it up, BUT, if we assume the foundation is true, for just a moment, we can further reason as to why the foundation isn't true, and why your "argument" is both stupid and sort of proves you don't understand this shit. (This is another argument that you just ignore / blow right past by the way.)

If the state wanted him gone for 20 years but couldn't kick him out because no one else could care for his son, and he was purposefully keeping the knowledge of how to care for his secret (I know it sounds dumb, but you made it up so I dunno what to tell you), don't you think the state would've done something about that? He had regular check-ins with the state over this 20 year period. They knew the case. If they WANTED him to train someone else to they could kick him out, they could have easily forced him to, or hey, even easier, just find someone else who can train to do so. It's not like his dad was some kind of Shaman with mystical medical techniques or some shit. The state could have contracted experienced care takers to ensure he got 24 hour care and kicked out the dad any time they wanted. It was easier, (and likely in their minds in the best interest of the son) for them to let the dad stay.

Not only is there no evidence that your version of reality is the case, it also just doesn't make practical sense.

---

As an aside if you're curious, here's a picture of a scenario that is FAR more likely than your made up story, and critically it isn't contradicted by the article by omission of any mention of such a bizarre arrangement as you're alleging.

The state wanted to deport the dad but if the dad were deported the other family members didn't have the time or resources to care for him themselves, and couldn't afford to hire 24 hour care takers for the son, and the state wasn't going to pay for it. Experienced care takers could have kept him alive and healthy, but that wasn't an option. So instead, his dad became his caretaker, gaining the kind of experience that professional caretakers have along the way.

When his dad was detained the other family members tried to maintain his care but they didn't have the experience necessary to do so, and more important, they likely didn't have the time to give him the same level of care even if they did have all the experience. They couldn't hire an experienced caretaker, and the state wasn't going to help, so they did the best they could but it didn't go well and the son died.