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.
Precedent, used well or badly, is important to our legal system. It's been used since the founding of this country. Go tell over two hundred years of Supreme Court justices they were always wrong. Justice Scalia cites precedent, often going back to English Common Law.
As for the rest, you are reframing it as "defacto deported" rather than really deported. But that's not what was written by the original poster. And as for your examples, one can be a natural born citizen with a pedigree back to the Mayflower and still decide to leave with one's family.
Bottom line, the error of the original poster that the children would be deported was refuted.