No, that is a false dilemma. the right (and constitutional) thing to do is give all these people the due process and access to legal representation that they are entitled to, and work out a legal solution to all these conflicting concerns.

read the habeas petition for VMS (the two year old). The child has a US citizen relative and the father seems to have transferred provisional rights of custody to them.

PDF: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.21...

> The child has a US citizen relative and the father seems to have transferred provisional rights of custody to them.

Right, I think that's the issue here it's not that the parents should be automatically allowed to say, it's that they were not given a chance in court to allow for that process - to find a relative.

There is a complication in the case because the provisional custody was canceled then renewed and transferred to Trish Mack.

> Also on April 22, 2025, V.M.L.’s father executed a Provisional Custody by Mandate under Louisiana Revised Statutes § 9:951, temporarily “delegat[ing] the provisional custody of” his two daughters to his U.S. citizen sister-in-law, who also lives in Baton Rouge, LA. The Mandate was notarized by a valid notary public in the state of Louisiana

> On April 24, 2025, the mandatary named in the Provisional Custody by Mandate terminated the agreement for personal reasons,

> V.M.L.’s father and Next Friend Petitioner Trish Mack executed a new notarized Provisional Custody by Mandate, delegating custodial authority to Ms. Mack

That sounds like something where due process is supposed to come into play. The best of a series of bad alternatives are worked out in a steady manner by a court system, rather than a hopped up racist at the border bragging about the president being in their corner.

I'm all right with changing that rule - anchor babies means we get two people and one them is brand new. Considering people are the most valuable resource, I think we should take all the potential anchors possible - let's give both parents citizenship automatically if they are parents of a citizen.

Let's fast track Aunts and Uncles too - maybe we can get the whole family.

> let's give both parents citizenship automatically if they are parents of a citizen.

Yeah that might work. Wonder if there is any legislative effort on that front. I guess with the current congress it won't happen, so perhaps nobody is trying.

Parents are not stupid. The parents knew and chose to take their chances.

What's the point in arguing about what-ifs? The children were deported. In real life. There's no need for hypothetical scenarios, focus on the actual point of the article and thread.

> The children were deported. In real life.

I am not sure what you're arguing for? Take the children away in real life and hand off to a random foster family. Sometimes they can stay with aunts or uncles. Sometimes there are no aunts or uncles.

> There's no need for hypothetical scenarios, focus on the actual point of the article and thread.

Ok, so what should we discuss about the article? To help the conversation move along it's easier to say "here is what I think" as opposed to tell someone "don't think or say that!" and leave it a that.

US citizen father wasn't allowed to take custody of his US citizen child, who was subsequently removed from the country to a place where the child presumably is not a citizen.

What about the mother? Do we know if she wanted the child to come with her or stay?

That's where court proceedings to establish custody would be necessary. But regardless, it's illegal to deport a citizen, especially to a third country where they are not a citizen.

> What's the point in arguing about what-ifs? The children were deported.

Anyone arguing in what-ifs agrees with the deportation but can't be that blatantly racist on here. Ignoring this specific case allows them to muddy the waters. Anyone playing Devil's Advocate consistently are usually part of the devil's party.