[bushpilot1]

YOU told us YOU cannot understand what YOU read.

YOU read a document but did not understand what it meant.

How can you come here..read our posts and understand what we are saying.

How can you read and understand Supreme Court decisions.

By YOUR own words YOU cannot.

[sometime lurker]

Garbage. I admitted an error (you have several but won’t admit them) so you are making the same composition fallacy, and assuming that one human error means all statements are erroneous. In a previous discussion Diogenes Lamp made an error, I pointed it out and he correctly acknowledged it. SO are you saying you’ve never made an error? Or just that you never acknowledge your errors?

The court cases are clear - the child is a natural born citizen, but that doesn’t affect the status of the deported parent. The child is free to stay in the US with a different guardian, or to return later.

[sometime lurker]

Actually, I understood very well what the document meant - did you read it? It said the child was NOT deported. It had Supreme Court in the header, so I thought it was from SCOTUS - that was my error, it was actually the US government presentation as to why the writ should be denied. So the US government maintains the child was not deported. Nothing misunderstood about that.