I explained what I meant. He knew she was illegal. He may have been naive. Not wise when dealing with people who shouldn't be here.
So maybe naive, maybe she didn't tell him her immigration status until after they were in later stages of their relationship; you are just assuming wrongdoing and "criminality" on his part.
And if they would have taken the child from rhe mother without her permission they would have violated her rights. Like I said. There was no win.
Again, I didn't say that -- you really need to quit twisting my words around to try and make your claims sound "better."
Then you don't really know.
What they shoild do is not the same thing as what they are required to do. The government should have deported her a while ago. But they were not required to apparently.
Oh, you are familiar with the details of her case and why she wasn't deported earlier?
They didn't deport a US citizen.
They deported the US citizen child, complete with not providing her with her US Passport. Yes, you'll try and claim they just "let her go" with the mother but that isn't really accurate -- or else they would have let both parents decide, let the lawyer speak with her mother, sent her with a passport, etc.
We are back to should vs required.
Me too.
Should vs required.
So you claim but pretty sure you aren't an expert in immigration law, either. Regardless, it is wrong when the father, who shares custody, goes to court to keep his child in the country, for the government to ignore that and hurry and remove the child to a country it has never been before.
And for the claim that the mother wanted the child to stay with her, as pointed out; it is illogical to think that a mother who is being deported, has no income in her old country, no housing, etc. would want to talk her child where she doesn't know how she will feed her child, where she will put it to bed -- where instead she knows the child will be well fed and cared for, and in familiar surroundings, if given to the father.
