In effect, that is what would have happened. It's why the court said "involved in moving to Mexico."
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.
Right. I stand by this because I said by "following the guidance." The expectation that the children were going move to Mexico with the father is right there in black and white (no offense to Obama). The point is that the court was NOT doing anything to protect the citizenship that was alleged.
They had the option to accompany their father and husband or not.
That's not suggested in the majority opinion. The dissent was trying to make a play on the hardship that was going to be created if the family chose to stay behind. The majority didn't buy that argument.
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.
Sorry, but nothing has been butchered here. You're using an fallacious appeal to an argument you've already been pwned on in other threads.
You are butchering the language again. If the father chose to take the children to Mexico, that does not mean the children were deported. If the court expected the family to stay together and all move to Mexico, that does not meant the children were deported. You can distort language all you like, but deported means deported. The children would not have been deported. Period.