US Sup Ct refuses to hear Romeike homeschooling case
Family faces deportation to Germany, where they risk fines, imprisonment and loss of children for homeschooling.
In an Orders list just released, the US Supreme Court has refused to grant certiorari to the petition filed by the Romeike family seeking asylum because of persecution of homeschoolers in Germany.
The result is that the family faces deportation back to Germany, where they will risk fines, imprisonment, and loss of their children if they continue homeschooling.
Background on the case is set forth in these prior posts:
- DOJ seeks deportation of family persecuted in Germany for homeschooling
- More on the Romeike homeschooling deportation case
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Disgraceful.
The Romeikes need to fly down to Mexico then pay a coyote to bring them legally into the USA. Then they can apply for every welfare benefit and live on thebtaxpayers’ dime while they continue to homeschool their kids.
Oh expletive. This is not just a deportation case. I am convinced that this is paving the way for homeschooling to be eliminated…look at DiBlasio in NYC eliminating charters by denying them space in PS buildings…there was text in the AG’s response coming right out and saying there is no right to homeschool. Wow.
Why not join me in decriminalizing school truancy?
Sign the petition to decriminalize school truancy. Deprive the state of its claim on our children.
White House Petition: deny Federal funding to any state which enforces school truancy laws.
Ah, truancy laws…a Regional Superintendent’s weapon of choice.
If they want to defy the U.S. law, then I will give them what aid and comfort I can in defiance of U.S. Law as well.
SCOTUS won’t hear the case for christians seeking aslyum, yet our government is willing to grant asylum to people who have given “soft aid” to al-queda.
I am utterly sickened by this. As far as deblasio’s AG, holy smokes! This is my final year of homeschooling our children…16 years.
Both of these issues are utterly demoralizing to me.
Which of our institutions upholds traditional American values?
But Barackula’s relatives…who are here dead-bang illegally and have been nothing but leeches on the public teet…are given safe harbor.
What a dark, low, disgusting period in American history.
It’s always tempting to say one’s dark times are the darkest. But I am beginning to believe it. I’m not a historian, but have we ever faced such a concerted mass of essential anti-Americanism and denial or ignorance of this anti-Americanism within our government and society? At the same time, we see daily the near total moral collapse of an opposition party and the corrosion of the institutional checks on power. Witness John Roberts pusillanimous about-face on Obamacare. Corrupt, weak and blind men everywhere. The assault is endless and the defenses falling and failing. The two facts are like a virus and a secondary virus which compounds it.
1. But of course: the Romolkes are hardworking conscientious people who want to escape persecution and raise their family in peace. Send me
your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe freeangry troublemakers who blame America for all their problems.2. I’m guessing that the Left quietly (or not so quietly) will take this as a foot in the door toward ending homeschooling altogether (that is, ending homeschooling by people of whom they disapprove).
3. Hopefully a place will be found for the Romelke family somewhere.
I’m guessing that the Left quietly (or not so quietly) will take this as a foot in the door toward ending homeschooling altogether (that is, ending homeschooling by people of whom they disapprove).
Writing is laborious for me and I started the above comment before 9thDistrictNeighbor posted the same thought. Sorry.
Can totally relate—I have one arm in a sling and am typing with my left hand…but absolutely not with any “left” thoughts.
oOOOOho…
A lefty, huh…!?!?
We have a lefty, doughnut-despising, down-twinkle troll lurking around here, however.
Soookay…
Imagine the poverty of one’s life if that is what one lives for!
Anonymous down-twinkles without the guts to engage. Pitiful!
They don’t have the right connections, ask Obama’s drunken uncle.
As a practical matter, they need to move to Ireland, instead of Germany when they return. Ireland cannot refuse them, and the ROI allows homeschooling.
Extremely disheartening and absolutely disgraceful. The United States of America is officially no longer the land of the free or the home of religious liberty. Actually, I’ve known that for a few years now, but I was retaining hope that the Supreme Court would recognize the gravity of this issue not just for the Romeikes but for all of us.
What does freedom of religion have to do with this issue? The Romeike’s were free to go to church, to practice their faith and worship as they wish. They were free to teach their children anything they wish while their children were home.
But public schooling is the law in Germany. *Every* citizen is required to go to public school, regardless of faith, and since “persecution” is defined as targeting a particular group or religion, this issue is not persecution (the European court had already ruled on this).
By the same token, “home schooling” isn’t a tenet of the Christian faith. The Ten Commandments doesn’t contain “Thou shalt homeschool”, nor does the bible require the practice, so how is this a religious issue?
Is anything that some labels as “religious” above the law?
The bible has examples of punishment by stoning – so would it then be religious persecution if the United States doesn’t allow it? What about my religious freedom? Shouldn’t I be free to stone sinners with immunity due to my religious beliefs based on biblical teachings? Can I refuse to hire black people in my business because my religion doesn’t allow blacks? Really??
Your talking points are straight out of the AG’s brief.
If freedom of religion means only that one can enter a building on the sabbath to worship, then freedom of religion is meaningless. Many parents in this country fight daily battles against the values put forth by the curricula and culture of public schools…saying that your child can be exposed for 8-9 hours per day to values with which you disagree, but as a parent you may feel free to use the remaining time to counter that influence…well that makes no sense.
As for your final two points, (1) stoning occurs in countries currently following the laws of Islam, and (2) this is not a public accommodation issue, so crying racism doesn’t work either.
I never said the Romeike’s were pawns. In my original post, I said the HSDLA “explained it” to them, so they were well aware of what they were doing and knew it was a risk. They’d only be pawns if they were tricked or unaware.
That’s why I’m not concerned for them. They knew were they were doing, and took the gamble. Hey, that’s the way it goes.
The HSDLA was simply looking for a family they could use as a test case. Here’s a quote from the HSDLA website:
“In further developing the new strategy, Jim Mason, HSLDA Director of Litigation, suggested considering a political asylum case. He contacted former HSLDA Legal Assistant Will Humble, who was now actively practicing immigration law and who agreed to assist with the Romeike’s political asylum claim. Humble outlined the arguments that would have to be made for such a case, and HSLDA began to look for the right test case.”
The HSLDA is simply following a strategy for further their goals, and the Romeike’s agreed to take a risk and be part of that strategy. Pawns? Nope.
No doubt you’ll be happy when every American child is required to attend government-controlled schools, soaking up government-mandated values (such as unquestioning submission to the State, the superiority of Islam to all other creeds, and the complete normality of two mommies or to daddies), but little in the way of actual knowledge.
The United States was founded to be a different kind of place — a place where free, thinking citizens could inform themselves and challenge their government, which is supposed to serve them, not vice versa. The Romeikes mistakenly believed the U.S. was still such a place. The Supreme Court has informed them it is not.
The majority on the Supreme Court sees nothing wrong with the preposition that the State owns your children. Apparently you see nothing wrong with that proposition either.
My argument is that children don’t “belong” to anyone.
They are not owned.
The parents of a child have the responsibility during a child’s formative years to raise them and prepare them for life. The community is responsible for helping children grow and socialize via community activities (sports, 4H, scouts, etc.), with the ultimate goal of helping a child become a successful individual and citizen.
Obviously neither the parents (nor the community) want to have a troubled child becoming a troubled adult – nobody is served by that.
But people need to get past this notion that the children are “theirs”. Children aren’t owned by their parents or by their community.
Question: If a parent is abusing their children, should this be allowed because the children “belong” to them? Does not the community have an interest in curtailing abusive practices, since one day these damaged children could become problematic adults?
Note: Germany’s policy is also little different than what occurred in the United States during the late 19th century, when public education was seen as a means to “Americanize” the millions of children immigrating every year.
“But people need to get past this notion that the children are ‘theirs’. Children aren’t owned by their parents or by their community.”
So … Who is responsible for providing for their needs? (First of all, the parents.) Who is held accountable when children damage someone’s property? (Probably the parents.) Who makes the final decision about the intellectual and moral formation? In your view, apparently, the state does.
There is no indication whatsoever that the Romeike children were being abused, so mentioning abuse is a cheap trick. Every indication is that the Romeike children wanted to be educated as their parents were educating them. The State said no to the children as well as to the parents. So, the children don’t own their own future; the State does.
Hitting all the right straw-man arguments against homeschoolers: the “community is responsible,” i.e., ‘It Takes a Village.’ Homeschoolers are weird (“troubled”), unsocialized, there is a potential for abuse, “damaged. We get it, you don’t like homeschoolers, you don’t like religious people, you don’t like families (“…get past this notion that children are ‘theirs.'”).
In my words, “both” the parents and the community are responsible for the raising of children.
I never said the Romeike children were abused. Those were your words. Why be evasive about a simple question?
RE: “State owns their future” – really? Whatever. Don’t get me wrong, I like dystopian science fiction stories, but I don’t recommend you “live there”.
“Hitting all the right straw-man arguments against homeschoolers”
Do you hypocrite much? Actually you’re the one using straw man arguments.
1. I never said : the “community is responsible,” i.e., ‘It Takes a Village.’ I said it was a shared responsibility.
2. Homeschoolers are weird (“troubled”), unsocialized, there is a potential for abuse, “damaged.
I never said any of that either. Hmm… another straw man on your part. Actually I never used the term “homeschoolers” anywhere in my post. Nice try though, hypocrite.
3. We get it, you don’t like homeschoolers, you don’t like religious people, you don’t like families (“…get past this notion that children are ‘theirs.’”).
Geez, are there any more “straw man” arguments you want to make? Nothing about my lineage or perhaps skin color?
(For the record – the current subject being discussed was whether children are “owned” by their parents or the state, and I don’t believe their owned by anyone, but everyone has a shared responsibility to them. Very simple.)
Most of your comments here have been cut and pasted from other sites where you’ve posted on this same issue over the past few months. From whose list serve do you copy?
I would hope the comments would be similar, given that they’re mine and I always use the same name. I hadn’t thought about it, but I guess it must be shocking to you that I consistently uses the same username and consistently post my same views. So many people today hide behind a dozen different names and simply troll about with whatever views happen to irritate people. What a waste of time.
“Raise up your child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it.”
That is Old Testament hone schooling.
Next question?
What does freedom of religion have to do with this issue?
True enough; it’s not obvious that this should be considered a religious issue at all.
The battle for most of us is the fight against expensive and poor-quality government schooling and the institutionalized propaganda which is being substituted for education.
This is not an issue of religion, or freedom of religion. All Americans should have the right to fight for – and work toward – competent education.
But Clan Romeike aren’t Americans.
I’m curious as a procedural matter how the Court refuses to hear a case? Is it the decision of the Chief Justice or do they take a vote?
Did not mean to down arrow you at all. My apologies.
Homeschooling is important as much on the hard-left, unschooling side as the conservative, religious school-at-home side. I would guess we’d never find out how that vote sifted out. However, one could round up the usual suspects…before they round up the German Christian homeschoolers. Homeschoolers—a threat to the collective.
Thanks. And I agree — the Left fears and loathes homeschooling.
As I recall, 4 justices have to vote to take a case.
I think judge Rodgers put it very well:
“At one point in the petitioners’ brief, they assert that “the sole question before this Court is whether Germany is violating binding norms of international law through its treatment of homeschoolers.” Petitioners’ Br. 37.
Our role, however, is not that of an international court adjudicating Germany’s obligations to other countries in respect of its own citizens. Instead we sit as a court of the United States, enforcing statutes that implement some of the international obligations of the United States to other countries in respect of asylum applicants. As explained by the majority opinion, those obligations are fully met in this case”
Conclusion: It’s not the business of the United States court system to resolve disputes between other countries and their citizens, or other countries and international treaties they’ve entered.
If the Romiekes want to immigrate to the United States, that’s fine, but they need to go through normal immigration channels. No cutting in line, no taking a limited asylum slot from those who are truly persecuted (tortured, mutilated or killed as a “class”) because they happen to have an issue with Germany’s public education system.
This is especially true where multiple options exist. They could have simply crossed the border and gone to Austria, where the culture is similar, homeschooling is allowed, and the national language is German.
Regardless they will likely not be deported back to Germany anyway. They’ll be given time to get their affairs in order and emigrate to any country that will take them, which isn’t difficult given that they are European citizens and as such any country which is part of the European union is open to them. Since most European countries allow home schooling, this will likely be a non-issue.
Remember, the only reason the Romeike family came to the U.S. was as a test case for the HSDLA, which wanted a case they could leverage to try to make homeschooling recognized as an international “basic human right”. It certainly wasn’t the family’s only choice (easier options were available)and they were well aware it was a risky one – the HSDLA explained that to them. I certainly don’t feel badly for them – they knew what they were doing.
SacDude nailed it. I appreciate the parent’s position in all of this, but this is a matter of law… not emotion or knee-jerk “I don’t like its.”
While going back to Germany is not, perhaps, the ideal solution for this family, the fact is that their decision of conscience, like so many decisions of conscience, might have consequences. And if they believe in their position, the parents should have no difficulty suffering whatever those may be.
They need to go back and fight it out. Germans have a history of caving to pressure from their leaders. Maybe it’s time to change that.
parents should have no difficulty suffering whatever those may be.
Uh, yeah, sure. Except that they wouldn’t be parents anymore, because Germany WILL take their kids from them.
The point being lost here (and certainly wasn’t lost on SCOTUS) was that the Romeike’s don’t have to return to Germany. They can go to any European Union country. I think people either aren’t aware, or ARE aware and are attempting to be disingenuous in order to make the situation appear “dire” when it isn’t.
But the DOJ has issued a deportation order. Please explain how they can go to any other country?
For your consideration on how dire this situation may be, consider the Wunderlich family, where German authorities this past fall used battering rams to enter the family home, took the children from the parents, and took the passports as well…all due to homeschoolng.
Apparently you don’t know the history of the Wunderlich’s. They were homeschooling in Germany, knew the law, and were repeatedly visited by school officials who wished to test the academic proficiency of the kids. The officials repeatedly warned the Wunderlichs that what they were doing was illegal.
The Wunderlich’s then decided to leave Germany and head for France, which allows homeschooling.
What happened? Mr. Wunderlich couldn’t find employment in France. Perhaps they had a reason to avoid Austria, but it seems as though Mr. Wunderlich would have had better luck in a country with a similar culture and language.
Regardless, they knew if they returned to Germany they would be in trouble. But what did they do? They moved back. It was THEIR CHOICE.
Hence they return to their town, continue homeschooling again, and the when they are charged the judge wants the kids removed because they are a “flight risk”. Gee, I wonder why? Maybe because they DID move earlier?
Sure, it sounds terrible when placed out of context – but the fact is that it was poor decision making on the part of the parents.
I am fully aware of all of the details of all the travails of the Wunderlichs. Me. Wunderlich is a gardener, so perhaps it was difficult to find employment in that line of work. However, perhaps a quick consideration of EU unemployment numbers in the various countries to which the family fled: France=10.8 percent; Hungary=8.9 percent; Norway=3.5 percent. More to the point is the experience of the family while in France: notified by German officials, French social workers seized the children, who were returned to the parents after a judge stated that they did, indeed, have the right to homeschool in France. Mr. Wunderlich placed a priority on being able to provide for his family. They returned to Hessen and lived quietly until a neighbor narc-ed on them. To follow your reasoning, one might suggest it better for the family to have gone on public assistance in France….
Simple question: You left home because you were doing an illegal activity, so would you move back? There are families where the father works in Germany yet the family stays elsewhere – that was an option. People do it all the time – send money home to their family while they work remotely.
But they (again) MADE THE CHOICE. You may not like it, but the conclusion is no surprise – they knew the law. ESPECIALLY in Germany – where its common practice (civic duty actually) to report people who break the law.
We are not there yet, but there will come a time when appeals to the law will be of no effect. We have a Senate that does not follow the law. We have an AG who is in contempt of congress and who will not follow the law if it does not suit him. We have president marxist/pen-phone and a Supreme Court that makes stuff up when it suits them.
When a nation loses the consent of the governed, it starts at the edges and moves in. I am at the edge of what I expect will be a cascading change in opinion.
Don’t get me wrong–government is a good, law is a good–but the stuff we see happening is not good.
Can you please cite some support for the contention that they won’t be deported to Germany or may emigrate to any country that will take them?
I don’t necessarily disagree with you but I’ve not heard these possibilities for them in any news report or commentary.
It’s called “Voluntary Departure”. If you’ve lost your case and deportation is imminent, you can choose to leave voluntarily. You’re allowed anywhere from 60 days to a year to get your affairs in order (close bank accounts, sell property, etc.) and make transportation arrangements (which you must pay for yourself). The immigration department doesn’t care “where” you go, just as long as your gone by the agreed upon date.
Thank you. Will this DOJ defer to custom in this case? Will this family be permitted to “voluntarily depart” as tradition sets forth? I doubt it. I anticipate an aggressively expedited deportation unlike any seen before.
Really?
Really. Read J. Christian Adams’ “Injustice.” This DOJ, like the rest of the administration, is anti-Christian and vindictive. This is about “sending a message.”
Seriously? J. Christian Adams… the GOP activist from the Bush Administration days?
“Before coming to the Justice Department, Adams volunteered with the National Republican Lawyers Association, an offshoot of the Republican National Committee that trains lawyers to fight on the front lines of often racially tinged battles over voting rights. [mainjustice.com, 12/2/09]”
“In 2004, Adams served as a Bush campaign poll watcher in Florida, where he was critical of a black couple for not accepting a provisional ballot in early voting after officials said they had no record of the couple’s change of address forms, according to Bloomberg News. Democratic poll watchers had advised voters not to accept provisional ballots because of the risk they could be discounted under Florida law, Bloomberg reported.” [mainjustice.com, 12/2/09]
A July 6 article on Main Justice reported that Joseph Rich, former head of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division Voting Section, said that Adams “was hired in the Civil Rights Division Voting Section under a process the DOJ Inspector General later determined was improperly influenced by politics,” by Schlozman.
If I remember correctly, he helped create the bogus Black Panther voting intimidation myth. Not a person I’d recommend as a trustworthy source.
Remember, the only reason the Romeike family came to the U.S. was as a test case for the HSDLA, which wanted a case they could leverage to try to make homeschooling recognized as an international “basic human right”.
Looks like the Supremes need to check out UDHR Article 26(3).
(BTW, I think the UDHR is a joke, but we should probably hold progs to their own standards – not that they hold themselves to any, except maybe double standards.)
I’ve seen that, but then again, its a matter of interpretation, isn’t it? It does not state “Parents may homeschool”. Remember, Germany does give parents a choice as to whether religion is part of their child’s school curriculum, they can opt out; and Germany was already taken to court in Europe regarding the matter and their position was upheld.
Here, I’ll spell it out for you:
Article 26(3): Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
Homeschooling is a “kind of education”; now, refer back to Article 26(3)…
Which part is “a matter of interpretation”?
Again, I think the UDHR is a joke, but progs are constantly insisting that the US must bend to the will of UN dicators. Why not Germany?
The above questions are rhetorical; not interested over-nuanced snark from progs.
You disagree, and that’s fine, but that’s how courts work – they interpret laws based on context.
Re: “Again, I think the UDHR is a joke, but progs are constantly insisting that the US must bend to the will of UN dicators.”
Can you cite an example?
And isn’t having more than one “dictator” of a group a non sequitor?
The Romeike’s are not pawns of the HSLDA.
Here’s an example:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/03/09/148291825/the-fight-over-voter-id-laws-goes-to-the-united-nations
No, having more than one “dictator” of a group is NOT a non sequitor (sic); it’s a contradiction.
In your rush to snark, you deliberately misinterpreted my use of “dictators” to imply I meant dictators of the UN itself.
Here, I’ll make it more clear: …progs are constantly insisting that the US must bend to the will of dictatorships belonging to the UN
dicators.Better?
Yes, better!
I don’t know what to tell you. Germany’s mandatory public school law was challenged by similar families and upheld by the European Court of Human Rights, regardless of the text of Article 26. So unless the citizens of Germany choose to change the law, it’s wrote. End of discussion.
The U.S. Asylum law is also very specific on what is allowable, sometimes to the extreme. Examples:
The majority of journalists who have been beaten for doing their job get sent back home for not being in a particular “social group”.
That Guinean women who’ve survived female genital mutilation, made it to the U.S. and filled out their asylum paperwork get sent home, because, as a U.S. government lawyer put it (and the Associated Press paraphrased), “there was no evidence in the cases of the three women that the same individuals who harmed them would do so again”.
That a Guatemalan woman whom an asylum judge recognized was tortured by her government was sent home because she couldn’t prove she was tortured because of “race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a social group,” as the law enumerates.
Snarky? Perhaps. But its hard for me to shed a tear for the Romeike family. They have far more options than the truly persecuted.
The initial court judgment was in the Romeikes’ favor. Eric Holder’s Justice Department didn’t like that and was determined to deport them — although they had arrived in the United States legally, broke no U.S. laws, and supported themselves.
That’s the same Eric Holder who wants to give amnesty to practically everyone who enters the country illegally, overlook their various other crimes (ID theft, traffic offenses, etc.), invite them to get food stamps and free health care, etc., and be sure they vote.
Anyone who thinks the Justice Dept. went after the Romeikes in the interest of the rule of law and high principle is delusional.
@radegunda
You have outlined my biggest problem to the Romeikes’ case—the selective enforcement of immigration laws under the current DOJ and ICE. I mostly agree with sac2dude because being forced to attend a secular school in a western democracy is an EXTREMELY low bar for religious persecution. I am uncomfortable with such a low a bar in that it opens the door for a large group of people who can claim religious persecution. I 100% agree that a broad law like Germany’s is wrong and almost everyone should be able to educate their children how they deem best.
@Radegunda: Delusional?
Actually the Romeikes traveled to the U.S. under “false pretenses”. They arrived in Atlanta under a Visa Waiver Program – a 90 day pass for tourism or business, allowed for certain countries. And one of the prohibitions of using that program is “not for permanent residency”.
They didn’t request asylum of the U.S. while in Germany, nor did they when they immediately arrived in the U.S., but waited until they were settled with help of a contact they made through the HSLDA.
The rest of your diatribe is is exaggeration mixed with speculation.
Example: Regardless of the violence in Mexico, asylum claims are denied at an astounding rate. More than 9,000 Mexicans applied for asylum in 2012, and only 126 were accepted – less than 2 percent.
The majority of Mexican asylum applicants are individuals fleeing violence perpetrated by members of organized criminal cartels, hence they don’t fall neatly into one of the five protected grounds for asylum (race, religion, nationality, political opinion, and membership in a particular social group).
Doesn’t sound like a wide-open door to illegals by Holder to me.
Well, it looks like you learned what a non sequitur is…
What would a justice of the level of a Benjamin Robbins Curtis do over such a case, or rather of the moral infamy engaged in ruling after ruling by the judges sitting in this court?
He should change his name to Muhammad Barak Garcia.
Your comment fits your moniker. Or vice versa. 🙂
Be interesting to see how the DOJ handles the coming wave of Shar’ia-related lawsuits over religious rights.
Lesbian vs. Muslim? Dear me. Not so easy when a Christian isn’t around to beat up.
http://libertyunyielding.com/2014/03/02/muslim-barber-refuses-cut-hair-lesbian-whose-rights-trump-whose/#yoyAqjFFCsa6XMJi.99
Well, maybe they should change their name to Rodriguez, drive to the border, and Obama’s executive action “Dream Act” will put them into El Paso el quicko.
Or maybe Ted Kruz and Michelle Bachman should draft and introduce legislation that permit the family to stay here as a humanitarian gesture, and have the NEA bought and paid for Congresscritters vote against it.
What a nice issue – a white German family deported instead of MS 13 gangbangers and drug dealers.
It’s odd that none of America’s enthusiastic “sanctuary cities” are offering them refuge and support.
Told ya so.
I am happy for SacDude’s informative posts albeit they are delivered with an evidently trained heartlessness. How like the courts of Taney’s time. that offered no sanctuary to Scott’s family, even in free states. The LAW is the LAW to the letter of a narrow legal logic trained in the times of narrowness — free us from such heartless Judges, for such foolishness brings on mega-calamity and war.
His posts are cut and pasted verbatim from posts he has made on a number of other websites on the same issue. Verbatim. He did leave off some of the more rude remarks. He (could also be a she) disappeared after quitting time. Must be what you do with an out of state IT gig.
Do these people not realize how transparent they are?
i did a quick run through of Sacdude’s comments & they are basically in line with what i foresaw. He/she has a few more examples than I know of but there is no way USA will give political assylum to EU citizens , nor other western allies.
Remember Germany did not give assylum to the US army deserter from iraq theatre either. ( that one has gone to the EU court ) .
There is not much holding these nations together but shared ideas of political amnesty is one . it is not about educational or religious freedom , it is about political assylum.
Nor did the US allow the MS St Louis to port in the US to offload its sanctuary seekers from Germany. Similar arrangement then, eh?
Of course the comments are verbatim – I’m the same person posting them! There’s no point in re-writing how the asylum or deportation process works every time I’m on a site where people clearly don’t know. The level of disinformation is incredible.
My first post here was basically the one I’ve posted elsewhere where the subject comes up – Specifically that I don’t have a problem if the Romeike family wants to immigrate to the U.S. That’s fine, but do it via the normal process. No cutting in line, no taking of a limited asylum slot from those who need it.
And don’t push the nonsense that they are being persecuted for homeschooling. They could have moved almost ANYWHERE without the fear of deportation hanging over them, and still could have home schooled. Obviously moving to a different country in Europe where homeschooling is allowed would have been far easier than coming to the U.S.
What I find amusing is that I don’t have an issue with homeschooling, and I know many parents that have homeschooled their children, most have done exceptionally well and one recently earned a full scholarship to an out-of-state university. I DO believe that regulations should exist to “checkup” on the progress of homeschooled children academically – since its far too easy for a parent to claim their homeschooling children when, in fact, they could simply be helping with chores around the house. I feel that’s an exposure, but one easily remedied by periodic academic testing.
I do find the double standard amusing as well. The Romeike’s are mostly backed by conservative organizations like the HSDLA, but its conservatives that typically want to kick out all illegal aliens and have more stringent immigration laws. The lesson appears to be they want more stringent immigration laws for those people they DON’T like, but if its people they DO like? Well then, that’s okay!
I’m sure there are illegals from Mexico that are both Christian and homeschool. Will the HSDLA step-up and represent them as well? It’s a different take on that quote form Animal Farm: All illegal immigrants are created equal, it just seems that some are more equal than others.
Sac2Dude, I grew up with Hungarian and Cuban refugees. My son went to school with Vietnamese refugees. We’ve had family friends who are Balkan refugees. I’ve lived and worked in Mexico.
Most conservatives wanted the boy Elian to stay here. He was brought here by his mother, at the risk of her and his lives. She died getting him here. A refugee. Evil sent him back to the prison isle, Cuba.
There is no double standard. There are however those such as would gleefully “welcome” every indigent Mexican and Central American and cheer gustily the deportation of the homeschoolers with heartless ignorance and black heartedness in equal measure.
>>”And don’t push the nonsense that they are being persecuted for homeschooling. They could have moved almost ANYWHERE..”
Conflating two separate issues, and getting neither right. They WERE being persecuted in Germany. That’s simply a fact as much as you’d like to deny it. And whether they could have gone to another European country is irrelevant. They chose America based on an ideal and on their sense that their best chance of sustained homeschooling freedom was here, not in a socialist more or less authoritarian European country whose acceptance of homeschooling might be tenuous and not stand the test of time.
>>”What I find amusing…”
“amusing”? Really. I tend to think you’re not amused.
>>”I DO believe that regulations should exist to “checkup” on the progress of homeschooled children academically – since its far too easy for a parent to claim their homeschooling children when, in fact, they could simply be helping with chores around the house.”
An insulting strawman. Cite an example. It doesn’t happen. The test of results is the only test that matters – students who vastly outperform their peers. You’re arguing for the camel under the nose of the tent – “checkups” and “periodic academic testing” just presupposes more intervening state authority.
>>“its conservatives that typically want to kick out all illegal aliens and have more stringent immigration laws.”
A cheap and tired slander. Indeed, conservatives want immigration laws enforced. But it isn’t about “kicking [people] out” or “more stringent laws”, it’s about ensuring national sovereignty, maintaining rule of law and not rewarding and subsidizing illegality. We’re not subsidizing this family and they’re not on social welfare. They’re seeking asylum for very real reasons of religious persecution. Whether one agrees with this or not, it’s why they’re here. They did follow the process for asylum. And I’m sure any Mexican or any other minority who claimed religious persecution and sought freedom would get the same welcoming reception and sympathy from conservatives. Actually, “kicking out” isw exactly what you’re calling for here – kicking out this family. Where’s the vaunted compassion?
Your implication of racism and hypocritical intolerance falls flat.
Professor, thank you highlighting homeschooling. My wife and I homeschooled our three offspring and in the high school-aged years were fortunate in our state to be able to send them in and out of public school daily for subjects we could not cover that their interests demanded. All three do us proud. Thank you for the sympathetic exposition.
On the bases of my 100% prediction rate on home schooling refugees , i am happy to provide advice for 1% of what this case cost. Easy really , NOONE wants them
BTG Refugee Advisory Service . ( religious freaks a specialty ) .
I look at the beautiful children in their family picture; then, I look at your comment. I think I want to be a religious freak as well.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/372521/german-home-school-refugees-can-stay-deroy-murdock
Great news.
Thanks for the link.
So now they are common illegal aliens along with the Mexicans & not superstars of religious persecution.
Sometimes, I wonder if you simply can’t read or if your swinging for the bleachers in the All Star Idiot Game…
They have no status – their deportation like millions of others is on hold.