Show me any country on the planet that would accept the notion that literally anybody has a right to entry.

But that's not what the international law in question deals with.

The international law requires that when a refugee is already in your borders, you cannot return them back to the country where they face persecution. And you have to give them basic due process in order to make their claim that they will be persecuted if they go back home.

Nothing to do with right of entry. You have every right to refuse them entry. But if they're already in your country, you can't deport them without at least giving them a hearing.

That's what this provision was about - taking a bunch of people and not even giving them a right to a hearing if the triggers were met.

Why do you think that's there?

Because that happens in a bunch of federal statutes - jurisdiction to challenge rulemaking and other matters gets funneled to the DC Circuit, because that's where all the federal agencies are. The same reason why whenever I sue a state agency here in Florida, I have to file in the district court that includes Tallahassee instead of down here in Miami.

For goodness' sakes, there's a comparable provision in the Clean Air Act (first one that came up in my google hit) from decades ago:

law.cornell.edu: 42 U.S. Code § 7607 - Administrative proceedings and judicial review | U.S. Code | US Law

Not everything is brand new to the world and deliberately crafted for some nefarious purpose - but if it's objectionable, then members of the House could have insisted on its removal as a condition to approve it.