You didn't answer my question, but here's what I'm saying: > If you have to work your way round to "they are not people" for the law to be consistent, consider

You didn't answer my question, but here's what I'm saying: > If you have to work your way round to "they are not people" for the law to be consistent, consider that it might be a bad law. I disagree that the law (which has been changed, amended and clarified) has been 'consistently obvious', and I still maintain that the conclusion of 'immigrants aren't people' invalidates the law.