I understand that, because it's in relation to adopted children, but now.... Your previous advice was that the previous amendment would affect nobody. It was of no force and effect, effectively.
That was your advice to parliamentarians across the aisle and to me, but for Nathaniel—not me, but the example kid from Zambia—this amendment doesn't actually solve the problem of his having a kid abroad. He is going to be treated differently, whereas now, on that previous amendment, where you told me it would have no force and effect, wouldn't that have solved that problem so that he could have passed that citizenship on directly?