A human child born in Mexico to humans from Mexico was brought to the US and legally received endorsement and allowed to utilize the legal (at the time) Humanitarian Parole.  This allowed permitted non-US Citizen humans to stay in the US and receive medical care.  The human child is 4 years of age.

 The human child requires a worn medical device that keeps her alive.  Without it she would die within 5 days.  This device is unavailable in Mexico.

 The recent revocations of legal status in the US due to Humanitarian Parole means the human child and associated non-US Citizen family members can be deported.

 The outcomes in this scenario, for this post, in this thread with the exemption of all other threads are as follows:

1: Human child receives no-cost medical care until age 18 and lives.  Cost of care after 18 is undetermined.
2: Human child is deported and dies once the device fails in 10 days.

 Should the human child and and associated non-US Citizen family members be deported?

 For reference:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/lawyer-says-trump-administration-revokes-224914718...

But Eegore, letting that child die might save me one tenth of a penny on my taxes

 Maybe.  Would you deport or no?

Of course not. But then, I wouldn't deport ANY PERSON  without due process, as the US Constitution demands.

 To be clear the human child would have due process.  Legal deportation - no part of my proposed scenario indicates a departure from due process.

 

You present a twisted scenario,, why?
Who WOULD deport someone Knowing it's their FUKKING DEATH?

 I would.  I have assisted actually.  Literally handed off a human in Sevastopol that was going to be killed.


Why even Pose such a question?

 It's a thought exercise.  On the surface certain things seem certainly easy to decide, but further examination presents difficulties.

 The idea of sending a human child away to her death is seemingly an easy answer, but at what age do we do it?  Or do we offer this one kid a free ride forever?  Do we do this for all children on the planet, or only one's who make it inside the borders?  Does the method of arrival matter (legal or illegal)?

 All this starts with a single question of whether the US Government deports, legally, this human child or not.

I want o see you get out of this one:
Warning: Schokking!

 I've put bullets into children myself.  This might save yourself the trouble of drumming up more videos to show me what urban conflict is like.  Children will die.

 
As for your question, the answer is logical. Don't deport.
For the rest, it is a very good idea to guard your borders and deport illegals.

 This seems like the common approach.  Basically if a human child with a lifetime medical issue arrives on US soil, they should get lifesaving care forever.  But it is acceptable to turn non-US citizen human children away.

 Is it acceptable to turn away from the US Border human children that will die within a week?

There is no dilemma. Save life--- always..

 I would like to think so however this is obviously unsustainable.  The dilemma is limited resource.

 Someone will have to go without care.  

The people I know, who have done that would never use it to settle an argument.

 I'm pretty sure they would conclude the actual act of killing a child is different than watching dead children on YouTube.  

 You answered the question so thank you for that.

 My follow up is essentially without infinite resource, how is the decision to limit care made?  It's reasonable to keep this one human child in the US for lifetime free care, however where does the limitation begin?

 I feel it could be plausible to give free care to age 18, then transfer that care to any of the thousands and thousands that would be next in line.  At that point it is technically, by US law, not letting a "child" die.

Saving that one child for the rest of her life, would cost less than a single helicopter. The US military has plenty of helicopters. one less wouldn't matter.