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?
Once again, you are trying to distract from the issue at hand, and change the subject. The answer is no, and no, so get back to the real issue on this thread - the court did not order the children deported. It only said that the citizenship of the children (acknowledged by the court to be "natural born") would not affect the decision to deport the parent.
You make the mistake of thinking that those of us trying to tell what the law actually is are arguing in favor of it. Instead, we're trying to explain that the law is what it is, and you claiming it's not is tinfoilish. Example: Adultery is wrong and repugnant but in many states, the law allows it. But to claim it doesn't in a state with no law against it, is nuts.