Read the assertion from the original poster that the children were deported, then look at our posts and the case itself. He claimed the children were deported. The cases don't say that. Refuted.
I didn't say the children were deported. I said the ruling did NOT protect them from being deported and that the court expected the children to go with the father back to Mexico, which is why they wrote there was no hardship for the preschool children "involved in moving to Mexico." The second case wasn't about deportation. It was a denial of a request to waive the two-year requirement to go back home before applying for permanent resident status. In effect, it's LIKE a deportation, and the children would certainly be expected to go home with their father and mother. The stated policy had no concern that they might be U.S. citizens.
The COURT didnt' order them deported, it ordered the FATHER(s) deported. What happened is that the family went with him(them), and were "defacto" deported whether they were "legally" deported or not.
His argument is that it is silly to believe a "natural born citizen" can be forced into a foreign country for any reason. I concur. Imagine Abraham Lincoln being forced into Canada because his dad could have been a border crossing Canadian. :)
Because Judges so heavily regurgitate the expectorations of prior courts, the logic in the legal system can become quite twisted. "Precedent" is a combination of the Tu Quoque fallacy mixed with argumentum ad verecundiam." (Other people were treated that way, and it's always been done that way before!) :)
The badly written 14th amendment in conjunction with Wong Kim Ark did a lot of damage.