Of course you do. There have been refugees for as long as there have been states. I would be very surprised if there were no laws at all before the international conventions.
Prepare to be shocked then. There wasn’t. The entire legal framework of what we call refugees started in 1951. Before then there was no legal protections for or legal designations of refugees.
But it in no way requires what you said is justified under it. These are all domestic laws, and in a dualistic legal system, implementation laws go above treaties.
Those domestic laws are literally framed from the 1951 convention, there is no other legal basis. Again domestic laws require a basis, the UN convention is that basis. If the US left the UN tomorrow those domestic laws become voided.
The Security Council doesn't make wars illegal, it makes wars legal by authorizing them. Wars not waged in self-defense are presumptively illegal under international law. It's like saying that the police trying to get a warrant to raid your house, failing, but doing so anyway is not illegal because the judge who refused the warrant did "jackshit" about it. That's not his job. (This is leaving aside that the US has a veto and would be a judge in its own case.)
Preemptive self defense is already listed under standing UN resolutions, the Security Council refused to rule on the matter. Your analogy is horrendous, this is really where the court refused to see a case so the war is justified.
Prepare to be shocked then. There wasn’t. The entire legal framework of what we call refugees started in 1951. Before then there was no legal protections for or legal designations of refugees.
You do know how many refugees there were from Belgium and Spain before WW2?
Those domestic laws are literally framed from the 1951 convention, there is no other legal basis
They don't "need" that legal basis. You can make such laws in absence of any treaty.
Preemptive self defense is already listed under standing UN resolutions, the Security Council refused to rule on the matter.
You're very confused. Self-defense requires an imminent threat and does not require Security Council authorization, nor was there any attempt to make it rule for this to be a "refusal".
Your analogy is horrendous,
Then show it to be that.
this is really where the court refused to see a case so the war is justified.
It's based on your own claims. And no, being laughed out of court because your lies are so transparent doesn't justify either a raid or a war.
You do know how many refugees there were from Belgium and Spain before WW2?
And there was not a single law on whether or not a country had to take them in or how they had to be treated. Same with the Irish famine refugees, on and on and on.
They don't "need" that legal basis. You can make such laws in absence of any treaty.
Yes, they actually do, that’s the entire premise of the legal system.
You're very confused. Self-defense requires an imminent threat and does not require Security Council authorization, nor was there any attempt to make it rule for this to be a "refusal".
Wait till you find out that’s why there were intelligence reports of weapons of mass destruction.
It's based on your own claims. And no, being laughed out of court because your lies are so transparent doesn't justify either a raid or a war.
The people claiming international laws were broken were the ones laughed out of court. Let me help you understand, claim of illegality was made, courts refused to hear claim, defendant (US) wins by default.
And there was not a single law on whether or not a country had to take them in or how they had to be treated. Same with the Irish famine refugees, on and on and on.
You sound very sure of yourself. Of course, such sweeping claims are rarely correct, and indeed yours isn't. It didn't take me long to find this:
The Immigration Act of 1917 required all immigrants aged 16 years and older to demonstrate they could read. However, Congress exempted from this new literacy requirement all those seeking admission to the United States to avoid religious persecution.
Yes, they actually do, that’s the entire premise of the legal system.
You're very confused. If Congress lacks the power to allow refugees, then a treaty does not magically create that power, nor does abrogation of that treaty remove the power. This isn't complicated.
Wait till you find out that’s why there were intelligence reports of weapons of mass destruction.
That does not make for an imminent threat. The only allowable reason for a self-defense invasion is when the other side is about to attack you.
The people claiming international laws were broken were the ones laughed out of court. Let me help you understand, claim of illegality was made, courts refused to hear claim, defendant (US) wins by default.
Nope, the US applied to a judge for a warrant to wage a war, this was laughed out of court. Conclusion? Illegal war.
You sound very sure of yourself. Of course, such sweeping claims are rarely correct, and indeed yours isn't. It didn't take me long to find this:
The Immigration Act of 1917 required all immigrants aged 16 years and older to demonstrate they could read. However, Congress exempted from this new literacy requirement all those seeking admission to the United States to avoid religious persecution
Wow that’s some amazing nigger logic. What does immigration have to do with refugees you absolutely defunct moron?
You're very confused. If Congress lacks the power to allow refugees, then a treaty does not magically create that power, nor does abrogation of that treaty remove the power. This isn't complicated.
Yes it actually does, this is how law works. Congress would have to pass an amendment otherwise.
That does not make for an imminent threat. The only allowable reason for a self-defense invasion is when the other side is about to attack you.
Again straight fabrication. The presumption of evidence is all that’s required.
Nope, the US applied to a judge for a warrant to wage a war, this was laughed out of court. Conclusion? Illegal war.
Prepare to be shocked then. There wasn’t. The entire legal framework of what we call refugees started in 1951. Before then there was no legal protections for or legal designations of refugees.
Those domestic laws are literally framed from the 1951 convention, there is no other legal basis. Again domestic laws require a basis, the UN convention is that basis. If the US left the UN tomorrow those domestic laws become voided.
Preemptive self defense is already listed under standing UN resolutions, the Security Council refused to rule on the matter. Your analogy is horrendous, this is really where the court refused to see a case so the war is justified.
You do know how many refugees there were from Belgium and Spain before WW2?
They don't "need" that legal basis. You can make such laws in absence of any treaty.
You're very confused. Self-defense requires an imminent threat and does not require Security Council authorization, nor was there any attempt to make it rule for this to be a "refusal".
Then show it to be that.
It's based on your own claims. And no, being laughed out of court because your lies are so transparent doesn't justify either a raid or a war.
And there was not a single law on whether or not a country had to take them in or how they had to be treated. Same with the Irish famine refugees, on and on and on.
Yes, they actually do, that’s the entire premise of the legal system.
Wait till you find out that’s why there were intelligence reports of weapons of mass destruction.
The people claiming international laws were broken were the ones laughed out of court. Let me help you understand, claim of illegality was made, courts refused to hear claim, defendant (US) wins by default.
You sound very sure of yourself. Of course, such sweeping claims are rarely correct, and indeed yours isn't. It didn't take me long to find this:
The Immigration Act of 1917 required all immigrants aged 16 years and older to demonstrate they could read. However, Congress exempted from this new literacy requirement all those seeking admission to the United States to avoid religious persecution.
https://www.uscis.gov/about-us/our-history/stories-from-the-archives/refugee-timeline
You're very confused. If Congress lacks the power to allow refugees, then a treaty does not magically create that power, nor does abrogation of that treaty remove the power. This isn't complicated.
That does not make for an imminent threat. The only allowable reason for a self-defense invasion is when the other side is about to attack you.
Nope, the US applied to a judge for a warrant to wage a war, this was laughed out of court. Conclusion? Illegal war.
Wow that’s some amazing nigger logic. What does immigration have to do with refugees you absolutely defunct moron?
Yes it actually does, this is how law works. Congress would have to pass an amendment otherwise.
Again straight fabrication. The presumption of evidence is all that’s required.
What retardation are you spewing?