Y'know, that's a good point

I just read a comment that asks "Why isn't this immigration amnesty-or-bust bill being shoved down out throats considered an ex post facto law?"

I mean, isn't it making the illegal acts of the past (the violation of various State and Federal laws regarding immigration and registration) no longer illegal and forgiving those who violated those laws, even though they KNEW they were violating the law when they committed the act(s)?

It isn't simply changing the laws, it is making those who are criminals into non-criminals long after the illegal act(s), and that is a specific violation of the Constitution (Article I, Section 9) (and the Founders thought such nonsense was important enough to ban the possibility to both the Federal Government (Article 9) AND the various States (Article 10), long before the passage of the 14th Amendment's "incorporation" clause).

So we have the Senate writing a law that is prima facie unconstitutional. And anything - and I DO mean "anything" - put out by the House will get sucked into committee, and come out as amnesty anyways. Barky will sign it, of course, with lots of people-of-color standing behind him to use as media fodder ("Who could possibly be against a law that helps all these guaranteed Democrat voters, I mean, poor struggling immigrants?"), John Roberts will find some way to call it a tax, and the deck chairs will look much nicer arranged this way, don't you think?