The basis of all laws are treaties. You don’t get the domestic law on refugees from no basis.

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.

Every single adopted refugee and asylum law are directly taken by UN conventions. There is no legal definition of a refugee without the 1951 UN convention. It is the entire legal framework for every domestic law on the matter.

First of all, I don't at all disagree with you that the refugee treaty is bad, because I believe that there should be 0 refugees - at least from culturally incompatible countries. 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.

No it wasn’t. In fact aside from lazy posturing by the UN there was no actual actions taken. The UN Security Council did jack shit. If you can show one actual action taken by the UN other than words I’d love to see it.

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.)

Furthermore, if the standard for a violation of international law is "the Security Council doing something about it", then you cannot simultanouelsy argue that not letting in unlimited refugees is a violation - as the same is true there.

I'm not arguing that you should like international law, although I think that its prohibition on wars of aggression is generally good, but if you hate it you should hate it for the right reasons.

The basis of all laws are treaties. You don’t get the domestic law on refugees from no basis.

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.

Every single adopted refugee and asylum law are directly taken by UN conventions. There is no legal definition of a refugee without the 1951 UN convention. It is the entire legal framework for every domestic law on the matter.

First of all, I don't at all disagree with you that the refugee treaty is bad, because I believe that there should be 0 refugees - at least from culturally incompatible countries. 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.

No it wasn’t. In fact aside from lazy posturing by the UN there was no actual actions taken. The UN Security Council did jack shit. If you can show one actual action taken by the UN other than words I’d love to see it.

The Security Council doesn't make wars illegal, it makes laws 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.)

Furthermore, if the standard for a violation of international law is "the Security Council doing something about it", then you cannot simultanouelsy argue that not letting in unlimited refugees is a violation - as the same is true there.

I'm not arguing that you should like international law, although I think that its prohibition on wars of aggression is generally good, but if you hate it you should hate it for the right reasons.