Ummmm, did you not read the OP?? This was already covered in the footnote in the second decision I cited.
"It is believed to be detrimental to the purposes of the program and to the national interests of the countries concerned to apply a lenient policy in the adjudication of waivers including cases where marriage occurring in the United States, or the birth of a child or children, is used to support the contention that the exchange alien's departure from this country would cause personal hardship."The children, as ydoucare pointed out, are free to stay in the United States.
ydoucare made an anecdotal claim without any evidence to back it up. I showed in the OP that the majority opinion (despite liberal whining in the dissent) expressed an expectation for the so-called natural-born citizen children to move to Mexico. They aren't "free" to do anything. They would have to rely on a 3rd party (as ydoucare mentioned earlier) to to provide legal representation or sponsorship/guardianship in order to stake a claim to U.S. residency.
The fact that most families will want to stay together and thus the children will stay with the parent is not relevant to the law.
Natural-born citizenship isn't based on law, nor is it defined by law (which was established via Minor and Wong Kim Ark). All this does is admit that the natural condition is controlled and determined by the citizenship of the parents and where they can legally reside. This idea of being "free" to do what they want is more dependent on 3rd parties and the maturity of the child, as Ydoucare wrote earlier, "This is very common for children over ten years of age." Guess what?? Obama wasn't over 10 years of age when his father was denied his extension and was ordered back to Kenya. Even by ydoucare's own anecdotal standards, Obama goes to Kenya.
I give you an analogous case: A woman born in the US, whose parents were also born in the US, marries a foreigner who overstays his student visa. He gets deported. She has the choice to go with him, or to stay in the US without him. She is obviously natural born by your definition, but has the same situation as the children we’re discussing.
This is yet another poor analogy (you seem to have a knack for inventing them). It's not the same situation, because the wife has control over her choices, particularly in regards to which citizenship she chooses for herself upon getting married. She's not dependent on third-party representation and the example is out of the realm of natural citizenship (unlike in the case of children) because it is upon marriage, based entirely on her own election.
Do you understand the distinction between expectations of what a reasonable family might do, and what the law says they must do?
Natural-born citizenship isn't based on law,
Wrong. It was originally based on English common law.
Obama wasn't over 10 years of age when his father was denied his extension and was ordered back to Kenya. Even by ydoucare's own anecdotal standards, Obama goes to Kenya.
Once again, yes or no, do you understand the difference between a family's voluntary decisions as to whether the child stays or goes, or what the law mandates?
That's it for me for most of the day, and possibly for this thread - it's gotten very wierd with bizarre theories that the law doesn't matter.
Do you understand the difference between the government forcing you to leave the country and it being a decision of the family to stay or leave, no matter how old the child.
Seriously, do you have a reading comprehension problem?