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?
Really? Did they leave or stay?
It doesn't matter if they left voluntarily with their father or stayed in the US with other relatives. The United States did not deport them. The definition may help:
DEPORTATION, according to the U.S. IMMIGRATION and Naturalization Service (INS), is "the formal removal of an alien from the United States when the alien has been found removable for violating immigration laws."The children were not stated to be in the country illegally; to the contrary they were acknowledged in both cases to be natural born citizens. They were not formally removed by the INS or the court, which the father was. The case did not say they were to be formally removed. You are either arguing ridiculous viewpoints just to be contrary, or you truly have a reading comprehension problem.