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.
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!
A rose by any other name is still a rose. And immigrants are not necessarily 'permanent'. Visit any country outside your own, and the passport control is called 'immigration', even if you're staying only temporarily.
Maybe you should try not being retarded. The enumerated powers created the treaty then used it as justification for the law.
If the enumerated powers existed beforehand, then you don't need the treaty to justify the law. I'm stunned that you are capable of not understanding this.
The intelligence reports said otherwise
That was based on nothing too, but I meant your claim.
Preemptive defensive wars are acceptable
I already told you when. It's not an abstract, long-term threat - only an imminent threat justifies a war. And you know as well as I do that Saddam Hussein wasn't about to attack America.
you don’t have to go full libtard about it.
Didn't know that opposing the Iraq War makes me a libtard, but I guess we're back in 2003.
A rose by any other name is still a rose. And immigrants are not necessarily 'permanent'. Visit any country outside your own, and the passport control is called 'immigration', even if you're staying only temporarily.
This is cute, let’s try the legal definition!
Immigration is the international movement of people to a destination country of which they are not usual residents or where they do not possess nationality in order to settle as permanent residents. Commuters, tourists, and other short-term stays in a destination country do not fall under the definition of immigration or migration
Oh noooo! It’s almost like you’re completely full of shit!
If the enumerated powers existed beforehand, then you don't need the treaty to justify the law. I'm stunned that you are capable of not understanding this.
Yes, yes they literally do. Enumerated powers don’t have carte blanche, they have to justify their actions, even in a convoluted way.
That was based on nothing too, but I meant your claim.
Oh man, wait till you find out what international law is based on.
I already told you when. It's not an abstract, long-term threat - only an imminent threat justifies a war. And you know as well as I do that Saddam Hussein wasn't about to attack America
And when you’re in control of the security council you can define terms, fascinating how that works?!
Didn't know that opposing the Iraq War makes me a libtard, but I guess we're back in 2003.
Opposing a war isn’t the same as pretending it was illegally conducted, the intentional conflation and obfuscation is what makes you a libtard.
Commuters, tourists, and other short-term stays in a destination country do not fall under the definition of immigration or migration
If you ever do a tourism to another country, you'll never find your way. Because you will have to be looking to IMMIGRATION. Regardless, even this is comically immaterial, as the IMMIGRATION ACT made specific exemptions for people fleeing religious persecution (i.e., refugees), which you denied was a thing before 1951.
Oh noooo! It’s almost like you’re completely full of shit!
Why are you so touchy about this subject? There is absolutely no reason to sperg out. Am I sperging out at you even though you have no clue what you're talking about?
Yes, yes they literally do. Enumerated powers don’t have carte blanche, they have to justify their actions, even in a convoluted way.
Even if that were true, there's absolutely no reason why you need a treaty.
Oh man, wait till you find out what international law is based on.
The desire and interests of the great powers.
And when you’re in control of the security council you can define terms, fascinating how that works?!
You can't, it's in the UN Charter, and America doesn't control the Security Council anyway.
Opposing a war isn’t the same as pretending it was illegally conducted, the intentional conflation and obfuscation is what makes you a libtard.
You sound like you're trying to make the warmongers' case for them with your WMD.
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.
A rose by any other name is still a rose. And immigrants are not necessarily 'permanent'. Visit any country outside your own, and the passport control is called 'immigration', even if you're staying only temporarily.
If the enumerated powers existed beforehand, then you don't need the treaty to justify the law. I'm stunned that you are capable of not understanding this.
That was based on nothing too, but I meant your claim.
I already told you when. It's not an abstract, long-term threat - only an imminent threat justifies a war. And you know as well as I do that Saddam Hussein wasn't about to attack America.
Didn't know that opposing the Iraq War makes me a libtard, but I guess we're back in 2003.
This is cute, let’s try the legal definition!
Immigration is the international movement of people to a destination country of which they are not usual residents or where they do not possess nationality in order to settle as permanent residents. Commuters, tourists, and other short-term stays in a destination country do not fall under the definition of immigration or migration
Oh noooo! It’s almost like you’re completely full of shit!
Yes, yes they literally do. Enumerated powers don’t have carte blanche, they have to justify their actions, even in a convoluted way.
Oh man, wait till you find out what international law is based on.
And when you’re in control of the security council you can define terms, fascinating how that works?!
Opposing a war isn’t the same as pretending it was illegally conducted, the intentional conflation and obfuscation is what makes you a libtard.
If you ever do a tourism to another country, you'll never find your way. Because you will have to be looking to IMMIGRATION. Regardless, even this is comically immaterial, as the IMMIGRATION ACT made specific exemptions for people fleeing religious persecution (i.e., refugees), which you denied was a thing before 1951.
Why are you so touchy about this subject? There is absolutely no reason to sperg out. Am I sperging out at you even though you have no clue what you're talking about?
Even if that were true, there's absolutely no reason why you need a treaty.
The desire and interests of the great powers.
You can't, it's in the UN Charter, and America doesn't control the Security Council anyway.
You sound like you're trying to make the warmongers' case for them with your WMD.