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.
No you didn't say they were, just that they would have been. A distinction without a difference to your argument. Your post is still there. It says
Following the guidance in this case, the children, despite the claim of being NBCs, would have been deported with their father.In fact, the children would not have been deported, equally the wife would not have been deported. They had the option to accompany their father and husband or not.
You've butchered quotes to reverse their meaning, not understood that "we're not going to resolve the doubts" means the court didn't settle the issue, so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised with your misinterpretation of these cases. The children were described as natural born citizens. They were not deported. They would not have been deported. As very young children, they might be expected to accompany their father, but they could equally have stayed in the US with their mother, or other relatives.