The Constitution also does not guarantee that the state will not take your children away from you. The US takes children from people for a variety of reasons or, more accurately, the states which make up the US do. They are not always good reasons.

If separation from your children was a reason for asylum, imagine all the illegals whose children are US citizens, applying for aslyum - if that's the precedent you want to set, well, that's fine.

The key here though is that there is no ensconced 'right' to raise your own children in the US, which is why states can take children from unfit parents (the definition of 'unfit' varying extremely widely from state to state).

By the way- I don't actually happen to support splitting families over immigration issues myself but I understand the argument of those who do. We split families over other broken laws (by sending lawbreakers to prison) so why not immigration lawbreakers?

The main reason I don't support splitting them is that immigration law is both a mess, unfair, badly applied and isn't a 'safety' law. But that's just me.



Legally I wouldn't. One is a right ensconced in the Constitution. The other isn't. You may not like that or agree with it, but that's the fact.

(Now whether that should be the case or not is another matter, but not pertinent here).



Whether it would cause such a flood or not in reality isn't relevant. The entire basis of Common Law is that it COULD. Legal precedent is supposed to take into account what could happen if a precedent is set. This one didn't. That makes it a bad ruling.