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.
If "precedent" is superior to "first principles" why do Scientists always insist on arguing from "first principles" rather than "This is so because such and such great scientist said so." Sorry. Precision requires that arguments stand on their own, and not be based on the opinions of others. The entire concept of "Precedent" is a logical fallacy. It basically substitutes Habit for thought.
In any case, what is the "precedent" for a court decision regarding a person Knowingly born to a foreign male becoming President? I certainly don't know of one. " To "first principles! Robin! "
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.
You certainly can, but willingly, not because the US government is forcing your illegal alien father out of the country. If this happens in every case, how is an anchor baby ever going to meet the residency requirement? :)
Bottom line, the error of the original poster that the children would be deported was refuted.
Really? Did they leave or stay?