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.
If I recall correctly, the only thing that comes to mind is the time I cited plaintiff's argument in a court case (Barry v Mercein, I think) as being from the court. As this is what someone else had alleged, my mistake was not checking them for accuracy. Plaintiff's argument was still useful though because plaintiff's attorney would not have made such an argument unless he thought it had merit according to the laws of that time.
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.
If a child did not have a guardian available in the US, it would of necessity have been compelled to go with it's parents; A Defacto deportation, but let's get to the nub of it. Are you in favor of Anchor babies? Even if you believe this to be the law, do you believe this to be a good law?