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.
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.
Again, retard, waiting for where the word refugee was used even once. Since you have nothing, including no legal definition, you’ve ceded the entire argument. Not going to bother with the rest since it’s all the same as this.
waiting for where the word refugee was used even once
And like I told you, a rose by any other name.
Since you have nothing, including no legal definition, you’ve ceded the entire argument. Not going to bother with the rest since it’s all the same as this.
I guess you finally realized how stupid your "Congress would need to pass a constitutional amendment if the asylum treaty was abrogated" was.
Already gave you the legal definition of immigration, good job going full retard. The only thing you have is an ego so large you believe it supersedes all reality.
I guess you finally realized how stupid your "Congress would need to pass a constitutional amendment if the asylum treaty was abrogated" was.
No, that’s completely true. Again, legal definitions have basis. I get retarded sperging and ego stroking is all you have.
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.
Again, retard, waiting for where the word refugee was used even once. Since you have nothing, including no legal definition, you’ve ceded the entire argument. Not going to bother with the rest since it’s all the same as this.
And like I told you, a rose by any other name.
I guess you finally realized how stupid your "Congress would need to pass a constitutional amendment if the asylum treaty was abrogated" was.
Already gave you the legal definition of immigration, good job going full retard. The only thing you have is an ego so large you believe it supersedes all reality.
No, that’s completely true. Again, legal definitions have basis. I get retarded sperging and ego stroking is all you have.