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.
Wow that’s some amazing nigger logic. What does immigration have to do with refugees you absolutely defunct moron?
I'm amazed that you wouldn't know. Refugees are a subset of immigrants. And who do you think people trying to avoid religious persecution are? They got special treatment, refuting your claim that prior to 1951 there was no different treatment.
Yes it actually does, this is how law works. Congress would have to pass an amendment otherwise.
That's not how law works. Don't they teach civics in your country? Treaties don't create enumerated powers. Ask any first-year law student in your vicinity.
Again straight fabrication. The presumption of evidence is all that’s required.
Based on nothing.
What retardation are you spewing?
I corrected your analogy. The US needed an authorization to wage war.
I'm amazed that you wouldn't know. Refugees are a subset of immigrants. And who do you think people trying to avoid religious persecution are? They got special treatment, refuting your claim that prior to 1951 there was no different treatment.
I’m amazed you’re really trying to play this angle. So let’s do your retarded game. Name one place anywhere in that law where the word refugee is used. I’ll wait! Also refugees are not a subset of immigrants, they are a temporary protected status. Try again!
That's not how law works. Don't they teach civics in your country? Treaties don't create enumerated powers. Ask any first-year law student in your vicinity.
Maybe you should try not being retarded. The enumerated powers created the treaty then used it as justification for the law.
Based on nothing.
The intelligence reports said otherwise
I corrected your analogy. The US needed an authorization to wage war.
They did?! So Ukraine violated international law when they attacked Russians on Russian soil, or are you now playing retarded like with every other part of this? Preemptive defensive wars are acceptable, I get you’re butthurt constantly being wrong, but you don’t have to go full libtard about it.
Not off refugee designation, they have to reclassify, again you understand fuck all.
And what is someone fleeing religious persecution then?
Show me anywhere before 1951 that they were classified as refugees. Show me where they were classified as temporary status. Again you have nothing so you’re grasping.
Again, come back when you speak to a first-year law student. I can't believe you keep doubling down on something this idiotic.
Again you have nothing, no basis other than your ego saying NUH UH.
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?
I'm amazed that you wouldn't know. Refugees are a subset of immigrants. And who do you think people trying to avoid religious persecution are? They got special treatment, refuting your claim that prior to 1951 there was no different treatment.
That's not how law works. Don't they teach civics in your country? Treaties don't create enumerated powers. Ask any first-year law student in your vicinity.
Based on nothing.
I corrected your analogy. The US needed an authorization to wage war.
I’m amazed you’re really trying to play this angle. So let’s do your retarded game. Name one place anywhere in that law where the word refugee is used. I’ll wait! Also refugees are not a subset of immigrants, they are a temporary protected status. Try again!
Maybe you should try not being retarded. The enumerated powers created the treaty then used it as justification for the law.
The intelligence reports said otherwise
They did?! So Ukraine violated international law when they attacked Russians on Russian soil, or are you now playing retarded like with every other part of this? Preemptive defensive wars are acceptable, I get you’re butthurt constantly being wrong, but you don’t have to go full libtard about it.
Unfortunately, many do become citizens.
And what is someone fleeing religious persecution then?
God forbid. Call me a retard, that's fine, but implying that I will ever become an American citizen is going way too far.
Again, come back when you speak to a first-year law student. I can't believe you keep doubling down on something this idiotic.
Not off refugee designation, they have to reclassify, again you understand fuck all.
Show me anywhere before 1951 that they were classified as refugees. Show me where they were classified as temporary status. Again you have nothing so you’re grasping.
Again you have nothing, no basis other than your ego saying NUH UH.