Quote Originally Posted by Dutchcedar View Post
WTF do UN immigration conventions have to do with this?

Confusing copy and paste, BB.

As expected.
A guide to the Geneva Convention for beginners, dummies and newly elected world leaders

Merkel will have reminded Trump that the United States is a party to the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. This prescribed the continuing application of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which was adopted to address the aftermath of World War II. That original convention was agreed in Geneva so it is sometimes referred to as the Geneva Convention.

As the US voluntarily accepted the 1967 protocol to the refugee convention, it is legally obliged to implement it. Despite Trump’s personal complaints about these “rules,” all other states party to the protocol and convention can legitimately expect the US to comply — hence the expressions of dismay from other heads of state and officials as Trump announced his executive order.
The Supreme Court’s Opinion on the Revised Trump Executive Order: What Does It Mean For Refugees?

Legal and political analysis of the Supreme Court’s decision on the Trump executive orders has largely focused on the part of the original and revised orders that imposed the travel ban on several predominantly Muslim countries. Less noticed have been the paragraphs at the end of the decision that discuss the orders’ suspension of the refugee resettlement program.

Recall that the second executive order suspended the overseas refugee program for 120 days and cut the overall number of refugee admissions for the current fiscal year from 110,000 to 50,000. The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal’s decision on June 12 affirmed, on statutory (that is, nonconstitutional) grounds, the lower court’s preliminary injunction that barred enforcement of both the visa and refugee provisions in the executive order. (Because of the lower court’s injunction, the refugee program has continued to operate this year.)

In ruling on the injunction issued by the district court and affirmed by the Ninth Circuit, the Supreme Court adopted the same formulation it applied to the injunction that barred enforcement of the visa ban provision