It is not legal loop holing. It is clearly spelled out who is not covered by the Conventions. And the people in question do not meet the requirements of the Conventions.
Yet in spite of that they are being provided with many if not most of them!

Quote Originally Posted by denuseri View Post
A bit of legal loop holing to justify it doesnt mean its right. Besides there are quite a few legal scholars out there that disagree with your point of view.