So far, you haven't been able to make a dent in either my arguments or the evidence I offered for it.
Your entire argument is that there’s an immigration section at an airport and that somehow makes immigration and refugees the same. You haven’t made any actual argument. Again, waiting for any legal definition or any law stating refugees as a class before 1951. You know you’re full of shit at this point and are just yelling into the void because your ego won’t let you admit you’re retarded.
Do tell where it says that you need constitutional amendments in place of treaties.
Durrrr look up why they needed a constitutional amendment to give citizenship to former slaves. Why not just make it a law? Pray tell!
Your entire argument is that there’s an immigration section at an airport and that somehow makes immigration and refugees the same.
C'mon man, what is this? I told you that refugees are a subset of immigration. You know what that means? English is my third language too, so I empathize if you're bad at it. This means that all refugees are immigrants, but not all immigrants are refugees. The fact that a historical law doesn't use the word doesn't mean that it's not the same concept - people fleeing religious persecution are refugees.
Again, waiting for any legal definition or any law stating refugees as a class before 1951.
I gave it you. You didn't like that you got an example.
You know you’re full of shit at this point and are just yelling into the void because your ego won’t let you admit you’re retarded.
I'm retarded, stoopid and also Hitler. Now address the points. It should not take a brain surgeon to refute retarded, stupid Hitler.
Durrrr look up why they needed a constitutional amendment to give citizenship to former slaves. Why not just make it a law? Pray tell!
It baffles me how you think this makes sense. You think that a treaty to give slaves citizenship would have sufficed instead of a constitutional amendment? It's very stupid.
Do pay attention. I said there is no 'the' legal definition, as if there is one that applies now and at the time of the law that I cited.
Like I said, I feel bad laughing at you for believing this.
“I have no argument to make so I’m going to make claims I can’t substantiate”
Go ahead! Prove your claim! Oh wait, you can’t…
Wait till you actually read the constitution!
So far, you haven't been able to make a dent in either my arguments or the evidence I offered for it.
Do tell where it says that you need constitutional amendments in place of treaties.
Your entire argument is that there’s an immigration section at an airport and that somehow makes immigration and refugees the same. You haven’t made any actual argument. Again, waiting for any legal definition or any law stating refugees as a class before 1951. You know you’re full of shit at this point and are just yelling into the void because your ego won’t let you admit you’re retarded.
Durrrr look up why they needed a constitutional amendment to give citizenship to former slaves. Why not just make it a law? Pray tell!
C'mon man, what is this? I told you that refugees are a subset of immigration. You know what that means? English is my third language too, so I empathize if you're bad at it. This means that all refugees are immigrants, but not all immigrants are refugees. The fact that a historical law doesn't use the word doesn't mean that it's not the same concept - people fleeing religious persecution are refugees.
I gave it you. You didn't like that you got an example.
I'm retarded, stoopid and also Hitler. Now address the points. It should not take a brain surgeon to refute retarded, stupid Hitler.
It baffles me how you think this makes sense. You think that a treaty to give slaves citizenship would have sufficed instead of a constitutional amendment? It's very stupid.