That's something I was going to ask about. It's my fourth question.
Just so I understand, you're saying that legislating backwards like this has never been done. I was going to ask if that is even.... Let's say it were to pass and this were to become the law. Is this even defensible in court? How could a court say, “You get citizenship, but you have none of the rights of citizenship”? That's the way I read the clause that was just read by Ms. Kwan. It gives citizenship but confers no “rights, powers, privileges, obligations, duties or liabilities”. You have it, but it gives you nothing.
Has that ever been done? Is that even defensible in court?