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.

The courts didn't come to the conclusion that immigrants aren't people. Probably the opposite in fact.