German homeschoolers denied appeal

[regentrude]

The US is a country where many laws have been changed because of civil disobedience. Laws are sometimes broken in order to change them.

 

But the people doing the civil disobedience were prepared to face the consequences - and not be bailed out by an organization with strong financial and legal support and receive asylum in a desirable country. Those people were beaten and went to jail, and accepted this as the consequence of their actions. And that is what in the end changed the laws. Had they been able to receive a cushy immigration to Germany, there would have been no change.

 

[Amira]

I understand.  In that situation, I would indeed comply.  If Scotland had rescinded the home education laws after we moved back, and I hadn't had the money for private school, I would have put my children into the local state school and worked my hardest to make sure that they got the best education that pushing and afterschooling could provide.

 

L

 

I have to agree with Laura here.  I do get that there are people who have to make this decision- that you really can't leave the place you're in, but you're not allowed to homeschool.  But educational concerns aren't worth the risk of losing your kids.  I might, however, try to homeschool under the radar to see how things really played out, but if it ever became clear that my kids would be negatively affected, it would be over. 

 

I also do not think that not being allowed to homeschool, but having the option of choosing public or private schools (including religious schools), is persecution.  We have to protect the laws regarding asylum, especially since there is a limited number of asylees each year.

[Guest submarines]

My problem with this case is that the family WAS granted political asylum through the federal court system. I do not think it is right for that asylum (which was given through the proper legal channels) to be taken away. This family has integrated into our community (I live nearby) and is valued as a contributing member. 

 

:iagree: This is what was forwarded to me today, and I tend to agree:

 

>>You need to understand the context.  I do not know any of the particular circumstances of the German family. What matters is that they were granted asylum on that basis and the U.S. Justice Department (a.k.a. the Attorney General) appealed that decision as a matter of national importance.  Furthermore the appeal was not successful because the refugee tribunal failed to consider “safe alternatives†that the family may have had and failed to avail themselves of prior to seeking asylum.  Instead the appeal that the U.S. Supreme Court failed to overturn explicitly stated that homeschooling is not a recognized right, and by referring to “teaching tolerance†as a legitimate goal of the German Government, it cements the notion that a suspicion that parents may not teach the appropriate level of tolerance may justify the state taking custody of the child. 

 

From my experience I would say that the refugee claim was based on persecution based on religious beliefs.  The notion that the parents are not passing on the “required†level of tolerance, was largely based on the idea that they may be taking the biblical teachings a little too literally.  The homeschooling aspect simply piggy-bagged on this central issue.  Indirectly the U.S. government’s assault on practicing Christianity (a Constitutional right in the U.S.) has now a new weapon against those people who home-school on religious grounds.   The non-religious home-schooling families are badly mistaken if they think that they are not affected.  Once the precedent is set that the state can examine your reason for homeschooling, and, with reference to the content of your education by finding it somewhat lacking against certain acceptable norms, there is no stopping that power.  It’s like in the classic story where no-one reacted when they went first for the Jews, and than for other groups, and at the end there was no-one else left to defend you.  The problem in the states is that, stupidly, the atheist homeschoolers are nearly outright hostile to the religious ones, without gasping the simple concept that the same principles protect their own rights to homeschool.  Hence – this aggressive response, sticking the head in the sand and trying to ignore what happened to the Germans.

 

From my experience, once this precedent is set, developments will be fast and furious, and this crowd will soon regret its own narrow-mindedness. <<<

[ssavings]

On HSLDA's Facebook page about 20 minutes ago (no, I don't follow them. Someone I know "shared" it, so it popped onto my feed):

Today, a Supervisor with the Department of Homeland Security called a member of our legal team to inform us that the Romeike family has been granted "indefinite deferred status". This means that the Romeikes can stay in the United States permanently (unless they are convicted of a crime, etc.) 

 

 

[regentrude]

On HSLDA's Facebook page about 20 minutes ago (no, I don't follow them. Someone I know "shared" it, so it popped onto my feed):

 

Today, a Supervisor with the Department of Homeland Security called a member of our legal team to inform us that the Romeike family has been granted "indefinite deferred status". This means that the Romeikes can stay in the United States permanently (unless they are convicted of a crime, etc.) 

 

I saw that too. It is a slap in the face of every person who risks torture and death and would be more deserving of asylum, but does not have the legal muscle and financial support of the HSLDA. Very bad precedent.

[simplemom]

"You make it sound sooooo easy. 'Just work on changing the law'. It is freaking hard to change the law!!!

 

At the moment a new law is being prepared to make homeschooling illegal in the Netherlands. You have NO IDEA how MUCH I want that proposal not to be turned into law. I'm not looking forward to having to emigrate in order to homeschool! Leaving all our friends. Leaving my aging parents. Leaving. my. country.

 

'Just work to change the law and *if* you don't want that....bla,bla,bla'. Pfoey."

 

Remeber, homeschooling in several states was illegal in the US for a long time (I'm not sure for how long, I should google it). Residents and representatives of each individual state had to FIGHT HARD to get homeschooling legalized. Now we have some states that require minimal reporting and some that have laws where the parents get headaches trying to meet their state's requirements. Most rights we have in the US came about through blood, sweat, tears, patience, banning together, and hard hard work. I really hope homeschooling does not get outlawed in the Netherlands. But for US history, the 1st Europeans that came here at first complied with England's laws and rule. Then when they were treated unjustly, they fought HARD to gain independence. It happened through the majority of the citizens in the colonies working together to change the law. Same thing with what happened to outlaw slavery in the US. The gov't didn't just say one day, "slavery is wrong, it denies a human right" ....a long bloody war and great division of our country occurred to get the law changed. Same with women's right to vote, MLK's work with others to change segregation laws within the US. None of the laws that we have in the US that gives women and men equal political rights, that outlaws segregation and job discrimation based on race or gender, that now allows for homeschooling in all 50 states, etc...came easily. The US citizens could have set back and said, "our laws stink". Their only options being: either moved, begrudgingly accepted them, or refused to follow them and suffer the consequences.

 

I am not a fan of our founding fathers, in that they were as a whole cruel to the natives when they came and took over US land on an assumption of entitlement, for freedom of religion being one reason for coming, yet purchased slaves and treated them cruelly for over a hundred years. But, as an American of European descent, I am glad George Washington and others didn't accept England's laws and taxes, that Lincoln took on tough issues and eventually abolished slavery, and that JFK and other presidents did so much for Civil Rights. Imagine if MLK never had marches and rallies, but accepted, "our government treats our race wrong, but I can't do anything about it." Imagine if MLK said, "Too bad for Rosa Parks getting arrested for sitting on the wrong seat on the bus, guess our race shouldn't do that anymore." He gathered people together to fight to change the bus law, some died over it. But, thankfully the law changed.

 

The opinion of whether or not homeschooling is a basic human right can be argued forever. But, whether it is or isn't (I lean toward it being a human right), other countries will need to do what the US has done and FIGHT HARD to change their own laws. I don't mean that insensitively, I just mean that was what had to happen here to get unjust laws changed. It hasn't been pretty, easy, and it has taken years to be where we are today. Before homeschooling was legalized in each state, many US citizens wanted to homeschool but couldn't because they had loved ones or jobs they couldn't leave, thus not being able to move to another state. They could have broken the law, I'm sure many did, but without hard work they would have never aided in their children or grandchildren being able to homeschool. I'm glad they stayed put and worked hard to change their state laws. It is because of them I can homeschool in my state today without having to move to TX.

 

To say PHOOEY, to US citizens who suggest working to change the laws of other countries is an insult, because many of our citizens DIED for the rights we have that other countries don't.

[SKL]

I saw that too. It is a slap in the face of every person who risks torture and death and would be more deserving of asylum, but does not have the legal muscle and financial support of the HSLDA. Very bad precedent.

 

Maybe they simply decided it wasn't worth expending any more government resources to usher this family out, especially considering all the other families they haven't deported.

[justasque]

:iagree: This is what was forwarded to me today, and I tend to agree:

 

>>You need to understand the context.  I do not know any of the particular circumstances of the German family. What matters is that they were granted asylum on that basis and the U.S. Justice Department (a.k.a. the Attorney General) appealed that decision as a matter of national importance.  Furthermore the appeal was not successful because the refugee tribunal failed to consider “safe alternatives†that the family may have had and failed to avail themselves of prior to seeking asylum.  Instead the appeal that the U.S. Supreme Court failed to overturn explicitly stated that homeschooling is not a recognized right, and by referring to “teaching tolerance†as a legitimate goal of the German Government, it cements the notion that a suspicion that parents may not teach the appropriate level of tolerance may justify the state taking custody of the child. 

 

From my experience I would say that the refugee claim was based on persecution based on religious beliefs.  The notion that the parents are not passing on the “required†level of tolerance, was largely based on the idea that they may be taking the biblical teachings a little too literally.  The homeschooling aspect simply piggy-bagged on this central issue.  Indirectly the U.S. government’s assault on practicing Christianity (a Constitutional right in the U.S.) has now a new weapon against those people who home-school on religious grounds.   The non-religious home-schooling families are badly mistaken if they think that they are not affected.  Once the precedent is set that the state can examine your reason for homeschooling, and, with reference to the content of your education by finding it somewhat lacking against certain acceptable norms, there is no stopping that power.  It’s like in the classic story where no-one reacted when they went first for the Jews, and than for other groups, and at the end there was no-one else left to defend you.  The problem in the states is that, stupidly, the atheist homeschoolers are nearly outright hostile to the religious ones, without gasping the simple concept that the same principles protect their own rights to homeschool.  Hence – this aggressive response, sticking the head in the sand and trying to ignore what happened to the Germans.

 

From my experience, once this precedent is set, developments will be fast and furious, and this crowd will soon regret its own narrow-mindedness. <<<

 

 

Germany's history in the area of "tolerance" (specifically, the lack thereof) is a strong factor in their concerns about what homeschoolers may be teaching their children.  I prefer the American approach to free speech, but I understand where the German public is coming from.  Never Again, you know?  Conversely, here in the US, we allow private schools as well as homeschooling families to teach whatever they please in the area of "tolerance", and I don't see anything in this case that indicates that "tolerance" or the lack thereof in the family's curriculum had anything whatsoever to do with the US's actions regarding the family's immigration status.  

 

On this board and elsewhere, I have seen skepticism/concern over this case from homeschoolers from all points on the religious spectrum.  This is NOT a Christian vs. Atheist issue.

[zoobie]

DP

[Amira]

On HSLDA's Facebook page about 20 minutes ago (no, I don't follow them. Someone I know "shared" it, so it popped onto my feed):

 

Today, a Supervisor with the Department of Homeland Security called a member of our legal team to inform us that the Romeike family has been granted "indefinite deferred status". This means that the Romeikes can stay in the United States permanently (unless they are convicted of a crime, etc.) 

 

If that's the case, it seems like a reasonable compromise.  It would be rough for the family to be deported, especially after 5-6 years in the US. I'm not a fan of deportation in very many cases, but that's another post.

 

Being granted indefinite deferred status just means that someone who's supposed to be deported isn't going to be deported. It doesn't create a legal precedent for oppressed-feeling homeschoolers everywhere in the world to get asylum status. The Romeikes aren't asylees anymore. 

 

I just wish HSLDA wouldn't see the Romeikes being allowed to stay as a victory because they'll probably want to push forward with this "triumph."  It's not a triumph, and HSLDA didn't get any laws or precedent changed.

[zoobie]

How does the US giving this German family asylum help change homeschooling laws in Germany? Or are we now talking about changing the US immigration laws on asylum?

[Tress]

To say PHOOEY, to US citizens who suggest working to change the laws of other countries is an insult, because many of our citizens DIED for the rights we have and other countries don't.

 

I didn't say PHOOEY to working hard to change the law. I said PHOOEY to the idea that 'if you don't want to work hard, you should leave'.

 

It's as if people think that if you work hard enough, you are guaranteed to change the law.

 

Really? Is that how it works in the US? I don't believe so.

 

Maybe I should try that whenever I hear about an American citizen who is in a terrible situation due to lack of health care. 'Maybe you should work to change the law, and if you don't want that.....why don't you leave your country?'

 

Can't imagine making many friends that way.

 

 

[SKL]

To say PHOOEY, to US citizens who suggest working to change the laws of other countries is an insult, because many of our citizens DIED for the rights we have and other countries don't.

 

Almost sounds like nobody else deserves fair laws unless someone dies for them.

 

Americans aren't the only people who have died fighting for their rights.  Far from it.

 

Why don't we hear this argument when we're talking about Shariah law etc?  I mean, if you're gay and living in a conservative Muslim country, you have choices!  Either act like you're straight, join a protest (it was nice knowing you!) or leave!

 

And the China thing someone mentioned - we are granting asylum to people who choose to break the law by having more kids than the government wants?  Losing your existing school-aged children over a difference of philosophy is less of a rights issue than being economically sanctioned for procreating more than x times?  I think reasonable minds can differ.

[momma2three]

I think ease of movement matters.

 

It is stupid to tell someone who is gay living under Shariah law "just to move," because realistically they are probably not able to: it is extremely difficult to move to another country (though this is actually an excellent example of deserved refugee status).  And when people say "America: love it or leave it!" they ignore the fact that it's very hard to move to another country.

 

However, moving from German to any other country in the EU is as easy as moving from New York to Connecticut.  Anyone who lives in the EU knows this.  Anyone who pays attention to basic world economics knows this.  Anyone who was old enough to read a newspaper when the EU was being formed should know this.  My understanding is that this family actually lived right on the border, too.  They would have had to move about 30 minutes away to live in France, where homeschooling is legal.

 

Instead, they moved to a much further away country that they had NO right to move to.  To prove... that they couldn't move countries?  Or something?

[Saddlemomma]

My DH just came into my office and told me he heard a blurb on the radio about this family being granted immunity.  However, we can't find any news on the web to back this up.  Drudge Report did, however, take off their story of the SC denying their appeal.  Hopefully we'll hear something more about this

 

DH just heard another news report on the radio which stated DHS has granted the Romeike family immunity.  This has now been confirmed with this report: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/03/04/dhs-grants-german-home-schooling-family-permanent-asylum-in-us/

[MrsJewelsRae]

What is "deferred status"? Does this mean that they're not taking up any legit "refugee" slots?

 

Regardless, I am happy for them, it must be such a relief. I would be heartbroken if my kids were forced into school, we feel very strongly about it for so many reasons, especially my youngest who has extremely severe food allergies, I'd be practically frantic with worry for him in school.

[Amira]

What is "deferred status"? Does this mean that they're not taking up any legit "refugee" slots?

 

Regardless, I am happy for them, it must be such a relief. I would be heartbroken if my kids were forced into school, we feel very strongly about it for so many reasons, especially my youngest who has extremely severe food allergies, I'd be practically frantic with worry for him in school.

 

Deferred status just means that you're supposed to be deported, but that they aren't going to deport you now.  There are many reasons why someone might be granted deferred status, but it does not mean this family have been granted asylum again. Someone can lose her deferred status, and it's certainly not as flexible as getting asylum.  It can be somewhat tenuous to be on deferred status.

 

FWIW, there is a difference between being a refugee and an asylee.  This family applied for asylum because they arrived in the US and asked to stay without having been designated as refugees before arriving. You're only a refugee if you were granted that status before arriving in the US and then entered the US as a refugee.  

[simplemom]

I didn't say PHOOEY to working hard to change the law. I said PHOOEY to the idea that 'if you don't want to work hard, you should leave'.

 

It's as if people think that if you work hard enough, you are guaranteed to change the law.

 

Really? Is that how it works in the US? I don't believe so.

 

Maybe I should try that whenever I hear about an American citizen who is in a terrible situation due to lack of health care. 'Maybe you should work to change the law, and if you don't want that.....why don't you leave your country?'

 

Can't imagine making many friends that way.

The healthcare situation in the US is EXACTLY what is being worked on right now to change! For generations, it has been accepted, and citizens are no longer accepting it. But like I said, our silly laws don't change overnight, it takes a long time and hard work. You using that example of healthcare is proving my point that citizens are NOT saying, " wow, our healthcare situation stinks, but we'll just go on as is and not work to change it." We are working to change it, although it may take a generation or two for it to work as should.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

:iagree: This is what was forwarded to me today, and I tend to agree:

 

>>You need to understand the context.  I do not know any of the particular circumstances of the German family. What matters is that they were granted asylum on that basis and the U.S. Justice Department (a.k.a. the Attorney General) appealed that decision as a matter of national importance.  Furthermore the appeal was not successful because the refugee tribunal failed to consider “safe alternatives†that the family may have had and failed to avail themselves of prior to seeking asylum.  Instead the appeal that the U.S. Supreme Court failed to overturn explicitly stated that homeschooling is not a recognized right, and by referring to “teaching tolerance†as a legitimate goal of the German Government, it cements the notion that a suspicion that parents may not teach the appropriate level of tolerance may justify the state taking custody of the child. 

 

From my experience I would say that the refugee claim was based on persecution based on religious beliefs.  The notion that the parents are not passing on the “required†level of tolerance, was largely based on the idea that they may be taking the biblical teachings a little too literally.  The homeschooling aspect simply piggy-bagged on this central issue.  Indirectly the U.S. government’s assault on practicing Christianity (a Constitutional right in the U.S.) has now a new weapon against those people who home-school on religious grounds.   The non-religious home-schooling families are badly mistaken if they think that they are not affected.  Once the precedent is set that the state can examine your reason for homeschooling, and, with reference to the content of your education by finding it somewhat lacking against certain acceptable norms, there is no stopping that power.  It’s like in the classic story where no-one reacted when they went first for the Jews, and than for other groups, and at the end there was no-one else left to defend you.  The problem in the states is that, stupidly, the atheist homeschoolers are nearly outright hostile to the religious ones, without gasping the simple concept that the same principles protect their own rights to homeschool.  Hence – this aggressive response, sticking the head in the sand and trying to ignore what happened to the Germans.

 

From my experience, once this precedent is set, developments will be fast and furious, and this crowd will soon regret its own narrow-mindedness. <<<

 

Wow.  You are extremely misinformed.

To start with, refugee status and asylum while marginally related, are very different.  The family never made a refugee claim.

In addition, the Romeike family was not targeted by the German government for teaching tolerance, and they could have placed their children in private Christian schools.  At no point were they accused of "not teaching tolerance."  Considering Germany's past, I can see why they have decided that tolerance is something that should be part of a well rounded education and why the government/society thinks it is important.

Please also keep in mind that objections raised to granting someone asylum do not have any bearing on U.S, law and do not set legal precedents for U.S. citizens.  The position of the Obama administration was simply that the Romeike's did not qualify for asylum for numerous reasons, and that the law they were saying persecuted them does 1.) not violate international human rights agreements, and 2.) is part of a goal that the German society finds reasonable. Trying to claim that this decision to object to asylum for this family sets a precedent displays a lack of understanding of the legal system and shows that you are falling for the HSLDA dog whistles.

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Deferred status just means that you're supposed to be deported, but that they aren't going to deport you now.  There are many reasons why someone might be granted deferred status, but it does not mean this family have been granted asylum again. Someone can lose her deferred status, and it's certainly not as flexible as getting asylum.  It can be somewhat tenuous to be on deferred status.

 

Correct.  It is granted often when families with young children have been ordered to be deported but no one in the family is deemed to be a threat.  Oddly enough, some of the sites glowing because the Romeikes have been granted deferred status have recently been calling the Obama administration using this step to block deportations as "presidential tyranny."

 

The legal difference here is significant, as the granting of asylum would have created a precedent for future asylum seekers.  Granting a deferred status does not.

 

[simplemom]

Almost sounds like nobody else deserves fair laws unless someone dies for them.

 

Americans aren't the only people who have died fighting for their rights. Far from it.

 

Why don't we hear this argument when we're talking about Shariah law etc? I mean, if you're gay and living in a conservative Muslim country, you have choices! Either act like you're straight, join a protest (it was nice knowing you!) or leave!

 

And the China thing someone mentioned - we are granting asylum to people who choose to break the law by having more kids than the government wants? Losing your existing school-aged children over a difference of philosophy is less of a rights issue than being economically sanctioned for procreating more than x times? I think reasonable minds can differ.

I'm not saying the US is the only country fighting for their rights or the only citizens that die trying to change the laws. It was just that it was presented as negatively for some posters to say " if you don't like the laws just change them or move", then someone said it wasn't easy to change the laws, and said bla,bla,bla, pfoey" , as if those who suggested changing the law was easy. It seems, I misunderstood the context and meaning if the remark, and I apologize for that. But, I wanted to make it a point that if the US has it easy regarding homeschooling so we shouldn't be ones to understand the predicaments of those where it is illegal and moving is not an option. We understand because our history, as every country's history, has had laws that aren't right. I just wanted to say it wasn't an issue of being "easy" , and I gave examples of how harsh it has been for our country to be where it is today.

 

And, no, all our laws and practices are not just today, our practice of healthcare being a prime example. I didn't mean to imply we are so great and countries with unjust laws don't have strong citizens, I just meant to defend the accusation that we shouldn't give a lecture that within civilized countries, laws need to change within their individual governments vs. other countries coming in to change them, because we aren't facing having to put our children in school by law.

 

I do again, apologize for taking offense to the Pfoey, bla,bla,bla comment though. I didn't understand the context.

[FaithManor]

Almost sounds like nobody else deserves fair laws unless someone dies for them.

 

Americans aren't the only people who have died fighting for their rights.  Far from it.

 

Why don't we hear this argument when we're talking about Shariah law etc?  I mean, if you're gay and living in a conservative Muslim country, you have choices!  Either act like you're straight, join a protest (it was nice knowing you!) or leave!

 

And the China thing someone mentioned - we are granting asylum to people who choose to break the law by having more kids than the government wants?  Losing your existing school-aged children over a difference of philosophy is less of a rights issue than being economically sanctioned for procreating more than x times?  I think reasonable minds can differ.

Here is the problem with the argument. While many countries would define sexual orientation as a protected status therefore awarding human rights to homosexuals, homeschooling has not been regarded as a human right within the international community. It sounds like you believe that parental homeschooling should be protected on the same level as reproductive rights or due process or freedom of speech, etc.

 

Since many, many UN countries with influence have a protected status for homosexuals, then the enforcement of Sharia Law to homosexuals is considered a violation of basic human rights. Though homeschooling is legal in many areas, just like the use of marijuana or alcohol or many other actions are legal, that doesn't mean that it has the same protected status as a human right, an inalienable right. The US itself does not define homeschooling as a human right. It is merely a legal activity for U.S. citizens.

 

This is where the discussion goes off the rails. Not every right that is defined by our constitution is a fundamental human right. Many countries do not allow the general citizenry to bear arms, many countries restrain the press, ....neither of these things is considered a human right. I doubt that most nations would consider homeschooling to rank up there with freedom from torture from your government, freedom of reproductive rights - ie. control over one's personal body - etc.

 

I doubt that one can make the case that homeschooling is a foundational human right that should be protected by the international community.

[IHaveNoIdeawhatIAmDoing]

HSLDA just posted this on facebook:

 

"BREAKING NEWS!!! The Romeikes can stay!!!

Today, a Supervisor with the Department of Homeland Security called a member of our legal team to inform us that the Romeike family has been granted "indefinite deferred status". This means that the Romeikes can stay in the United States permanently (unless they are convicted of a crime, etc.)

This is an incredible victory that can only be credited to our Almighty God.

We also want to thank those of who spoke up on this issue--including that long ago White House petition. We believe that the public outcry made this possible while God delivered the victory.

This is an amazing turnaround in 24 hours. Praise the Lord.

Proverbs 21: 1 "The king's heart is like a stream of water directed by the Lord, He guides it wherever He pleases."
~~Michael Farris"

 

I'm shocked, to say the least. 

[Amira]

Correct.  It is granted often when families with young children have been ordered to be deported but no one in the family is deemed to be a threat.  Oddly enough, some of the sites glowing because the Romeikes have been granted deferred status have recently been calling the Obama administration using this step to block deportations as "presidential tyranny."

 

The legal difference here is significant, as the granting of asylum would have created a precedent for future asylum seekers.  Granting a deferred status does not.

 

 

I had to laugh when I noticed that this was an acceptable reason for deferred status and not presidential tyranny.  I guess some can have it both ways.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Almost sounds like nobody else deserves fair laws unless someone dies for them.

 

Americans aren't the only people who have died fighting for their rights.  Far from it.

 

Why don't we hear this argument when we're talking about Shariah law etc?  I mean, if you're gay and living in a conservative Muslim country, you have choices!  Either act like you're straight, join a protest (it was nice knowing you!) or leave!

 

And the China thing someone mentioned - we are granting asylum to people who choose to break the law by having more kids than the government wants?  Losing your existing school-aged children over a difference of philosophy is less of a rights issue than being economically sanctioned for procreating more than x times?  I think reasonable minds can differ.

 

To the bolded, the difference is persecution and fear for one's life.

 

Regarding China, specific legislation was passed providing an exemption in those cases, otherwise they may not qualify.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Here is the problem with the argument. While many countries would define sexual orientation as a protected status therefore awarding human rights to homosexuals, homeschooling has not been regarded as a human right within the international community. It sounds like you believe that parental homeschooling should be protected on the same level as reproductive rights or due process or freedom of speech, etc.

 

Since many, many UN countries with influence have a protected status for homosexuals, then the enforcement of Sharia Law to homosexuals is considered a violation of basic human rights. Though homeschooling is legal in many areas, just like the use of marijuana or alcohol or many other actions are legal, that doesn't mean that it has the same protected status as a human right, an inalienable right. The US itself does not define homeschooling as a human right. It is merely a legal activity for U.S. citizens.

 

This is where the discussion goes off the rails. Not every right that is defined by our constitution is a fundamental human right. Many countries do not allow the general citizenry to bear arms, many countries restrain the press, ....neither of these things is considered a human right. I doubt that most nations would consider homeschooling to rank up there with freedom from torture from your government, freedom of reproductive rights - ie. control over one's personal body - etc.

 

I doubt that one can make the case that homeschooling is a foundational human right that should be protected by the international community.

 

Correct. For asylum to be granted, there needs to be evidence provided that the person seeking asylum is a member of a persecuted group with definable characteristics and/or there is a threat to their personal safety.  Homosexuals feeling Sharia law qualify on both counts.  It was noted in this court decision that the Romeikes could not show that homeschoolers were a group with definable characteristics facing persecution.  Now, if Germany were allowing other groups to homeschool but making it illegal for Christians, then the Romeikes would have had a more viable claim for asylum.

[Mergath]

I absolutely agree that this whole asylum situation is bogus and made up by the HSDLA, but I had to laugh at what you wrote above (in red, by me).

 

You make it sound sooooo easy. 'Just work on changing the law'. It is freaking hard to change the law!!!

 

At the moment a new law is being prepared to make homeschooling illegal in the Netherlands. You have NO IDEA how MUCH I want that proposal not to be turned into law. I'm not looking forward to having to emigrate in order to homeschool! Leaving all our friends. Leaving my aging parents. Leaving. my. country.

 

'Just work to change the law and *if* you don't want that....bla,bla,bla'. Pfoey.

 

 

That was mature.  :001_rolleyes:

 

If they aren't willing to follow the laws of their country, those are their options.  Of course they can stay and either homeschool illegally or enroll their kids in a school.  Or they can work to change the laws.  Or they can leave and live somewhere that will support their desire to homeschool.  I'm only stating the facts of the case.  You can "pfoey" it all you want. 

 

And it's supposed to be difficult to change the law.  If we could change them whenever we felt like it, they wouldn't do much good.

[CAMom]

I just want to say thank you for the discussion! I'm learning a lot!

 

I didn't have a fully formed opinion on this case but through reading some of the posts here which are leading me to research some other avenues, I can honestly say that my mind might be changing. :) I may end up coming down on the opposite side of where I thought I might.

 

I hope everyone stays nice so the thread doesn't get closed and I can continue to have my horizons broadened. ;)

[SKL]

To be clear, I am not saying that homeschooling is a fundamental right.  I'm saying that having custody of your kids is a fundamental right.  For both parents to lose it, they should have to be doing something extremely dangerous or mean to the child.  Another way of looking at it is:  a child has a fundamental right to live with his parent(s), absent extreme circumstances requiring separation.  And yes, I think this fundamental human right is universal.

[simplemom]

HSLDA just posted this on facebook:

 

"BREAKING NEWS!!! The Romeikes can stay!!!

Today, a Supervisor with the Department of Homeland Security called a member of our legal team to inform us that the Romeike family has been granted "indefinite deferred status". This means that the Romeikes can stay in the United States permanently (unless they are convicted of a crime, etc.)

 

This is an incredible victory that can only be credited to our Almighty God.

We also want to thank those of who spoke up on this issue--including that long ago White House petition. We believe that the public outcry made this possible while God delivered the victory.

This is an amazing turnaround in 24 hours. Praise the Lord.

Proverbs 21: 1 "The king's heart is like a stream of water directed by the Lord, He guides it wherever He pleases."

~~Michael Farris"

 

I'm shocked, to say the least.

So, what about the many other families in Germany right now that are facing trials for homeschooling against the law? Will HSLDA offer them a vacation here and then fight for the same victory? I am all for homeschooling, but can't see how this won't become a bigger issue when another family comes to the US like the Romeikes. If that family is told they can't stay indefinitely to homeschool, this situation will be brought up again and the HSLDA will say to the government, "you let the Romeike's stay, so how can you deport this other family?"

[ChocolateReignRemix]

So, what about the many other families in Germany right now that are facing trials for homeschooling against the law? Will HSLDA offer them a vacation here and then fight for the same victory? I am all for homeschooling, but can't see how this won't become a bigger issue when another family comes to the US like the Romeikes. If that family is told they can't stay indefinitely to homeschool, this situation will be brought up again and the HSLDA will say to the government, "you let the Romeike's stay, so how can you deport this other family?"

 

Legally they wouldn't have an argument as deferred status is a procedural status and can be followed by deportation at any time.  A family seeking asylum for homeschooling would/should be informed by their legal counsel that previous rulings have decided against homeschooling as a grounds for asylum.  Had the Romeike's been here a shorter period of time, they may not have received the deferred status.

[Lady Florida.]

And actions like this pretty much ensure that the sentiment in German society will remain staunchly anti homeschooling.

This has cause so much damage to the German movement to legalize homeschooling.

 

Nearly every time and every place HSLDA gets involved, the homeschooling movement is damaged. 

[Amira]

So, what about the many other families in Germany right now that are facing trials for homeschooling against the law? Will HSLDA offer them a vacation here and then fight for the same victory? I am all for homeschooling, but can't see how this won't become a bigger issue when another family comes to the US like the Romeikes. If that family is told they can't stay indefinitely to homeschool, this situation will be brought up again and the HSLDA will say to the government, "you let the Romeike's stay, so how can you deport this other family?"

 

A homeschooling family showing up now wouldn't be grated asylum (and they certainly wouldn't be able to enter as refugees) and wouldn't be allowed to stay in the US unless they had another legal method to remain.  Like others have posted, deferred status is far more likely to be granted to families with children who have been in the US for a long time.  You don't get it on the first day you arrive.

 

Deferred status and being an asylee are totally different things. I honestly don't think this necessarily creates a bad precedent, especially with all the court rulings against the family and the Supreme Court's refusal to hear the case.  

 

This is not an HSLDA victory.

[mathnerd]

In my opinion, asylum is for people who are fleeing persecution, genocide, violent state crimes etc. It is definitely not for people who want to live in the US because they want to school their kids in their own way and according to their own personal beliefs. I live in a metropolitan area and some of my co-workers have been asylees from parts of the world where there are horrible human rights violations (these people were from Myanmar, Bosnia, Vietnam and Ghana) - they received asylum and retrained in the STEM fields and are now productive contributors to society - some of their stories would give you nightmares and I constantly admire their courage, perseverence, faith in human dignity and their ability to adapt to their new life.

The premise that a family that wants to homeschool and not take up a public school or private school option in their homeland and needs to be equated to refugees and asylees from war torn, ravaged countries is laughable to me.

[Forget-Me-Not]

:iagree: This is what was forwarded to me today, and I tend to agree:

 

>>You need to understand the context.  I do not know any of the particular circumstances of the German family. What matters is that they were granted asylum on that basis and the U.S. Justice Department (a.k.a. the Attorney General) appealed that decision as a matter of national importance.  Furthermore the appeal was not successful because the refugee tribunal failed to consider “safe alternatives†that the family may have had and failed to avail themselves of prior to seeking asylum.  Instead the appeal that the U.S. Supreme Court failed to overturn explicitly stated that homeschooling is not a recognized right, and by referring to “teaching tolerance†as a legitimate goal of the German Government, it cements the notion that a suspicion that parents may not teach the appropriate level of tolerance may justify the state taking custody of the child.  

 

<snipped for brevity>

 

I keep seeing this particular phrasing thrown around and I can't find any source for it, other than maybe a requoting of a requoting of Michael Farris' interpretation of events. 

 

I read the  opinion handed down by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals and it states explicitly (bolding mine):

 

 

That the United States Constitution protects the rights of "parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control," Yoder, 406 U.S. at 233, 92 S.Ct. 1526; see Pierce, 268 U.S. at 534-35, 45 S.Ct. 571; Meyer, 262 U.S. at 400-01, 43 S.Ct. 625, does not mean that a contrary law in another country establishes persecution on religious or any other protected ground.

I haven't been able to find anything actually stated by the US Supreme Court upon it's denial to take the appeal. Does such a document exist?

 

 

 

[Lady Florida.]

 

 

  The problem in the states is that, stupidly, the atheist homeschoolers are nearly outright hostile to the religious ones,

 

The history of homeschooling in the U.S. suggests it's the other way around. Are you familiar with the early days of HSLDA? Have you ever read Dr. Moore's White Paper? There was once an "All for one and one for all!" spirit among homeschoolers. Then Michael Farris and a few others made it their mission to separate not just the religious homeschoolers from the secular ones, but a particular flavor of Christian homeschooler from every other homeschooler.

 

ETA: I also don't know of any secular or inclusive hs groups that make members sign a statement of non-faith. 

[Tress]

I'm on my ipad so I can't multiquote very well.

 

I do again, apologize for taking offense to the Pfoey, bla,bla,bla comment though. I didn't understand the context.

No apologies needed! :grouphug:

[Tress]

If they aren't willing to follow the laws of their country, those are their options. Of course they can stay and either homeschool illegally or enroll their kids in a school. Or they can work to change the laws. Or they can leave and live somewhere that will support their desire to homeschool. I'm only stating the facts of the case. You can "pfoey" it all you want.

That are indeed the facts. There have been many threads on this subject, I have never said anything different.

 

As I said, I was just laughing (and being a bit irritated) at your flippant way of speaking about this situation.

 

If I can handle you being flippant about people like me having to leave the country in order to homeschool, I'm pretty sure you can handle a 'phoey'. (Never knew that would get so many reactions, learn something new everyday.)

[LucyStoner]

The US is a country where many laws have been changed because of civil disobedience. Laws are sometimes broken in order to change them.

Yet none of our laws have been changed because people opposing them opted to seek asylum in other countries. If they want German law changed, they have to use methods available to them, including possible civil disobedience, while in Germany.

[albeto.]

   The non-religious home-schooling families are badly mistaken if they think that they are not affected.  Once the precedent is set that the state can examine your reason for homeschooling, and, with reference to the content of your education by finding it somewhat lacking against certain acceptable norms, there is no stopping that power.

 

I'm not worried. It's not a matter of being badly mistaken, it's a matter of being sufficiently informed. 

 

It’s like in the classic story where no-one reacted when they went first for the Jews, and than for other groups, and at the end there was no-one else left to defend you.  The problem in the states is that, stupidly, the atheist homeschoolers are nearly outright hostile to the religious ones, without gasping the simple concept that the same principles protect their own rights to homeschool.  Hence – this aggressive response, sticking the head in the sand and trying to ignore what happened to the Germans.

 

The "principles" that inspire my privilege to homeschool has nothing to do with religion. It's not ignoring oppression to ignore fear-mongering and reject faulty information.  To compare people denied homeschooling privileges in a country that doesn't offer homeschooling privileges with the Jewish Holocaust is beyond arrogant and intellectually and socially horrific. It is the height of hubris to try and ride the coattails of a truly sympathetic event in history in an attempt to emotionally manipulate people to give someone what they want.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

 

 

 

 

The "principles" that inspire my privilege to homeschool has nothing to do with religion. It's not ignoring oppression to ignore fear-mongering and reject faulty information.  To compare people denied homeschooling privileges in a country that doesn't offer homeschooling privileges with the Jewish Holocaust is beyond arrogant and intellectually and socially horrific. It is the height of hubris to try and ride the coattails of a truly sympathetic event in history in an attempt to emotionally manipulate people to give someone what they want.

 

 

Not to mention doing so when discussing Germany.  Wowza.

[RanchGirl]

I'm not sure how I feel about this, just thinking it through and reading everyone's opinions...  It's not clear to me that they could have simply moved to another EU country where homeschooling is legal at any point in the process.  Maybe *before* they came to the attention of the government officials, but at some point their passports were taken away.

 

When I think of all the Americans who had to homeschool underground so that I can now homeschool legally...  I just don't take it lightly.

 

The idea that someone could remove my children from me over an educational choice I have made is just so unfathomable.  It's a threat of kidnapping.  That's not genocide, but it's pretty serious to me. 

[justasque]

I'm not sure how I feel about this, just thinking it through and reading everyone's opinions...  It's not clear to me that they could have simply moved to another EU country where homeschooling is legal at any point in the process.  Maybe *before* they came to the attention of the government officials, but at some point their passports were taken away.

 

When I think of all the Americans who had to homeschool underground so that I can now homeschool legally...  I just don't take it lightly.

 

The idea that someone could remove my children from me over an educational choice I have made is just so unfathomable.  It's a threat of kidnapping.  That's not genocide, but it's pretty serious to me. 

I have not seen anything in any of the legal documents I've read that mentioned the lack of passports.  Many articles mention passports being taken, but I could not find a primary reference for this, or any information as to whether the passports, if taken, were returned to the family.  (That is, just because something is taken, does not mean it has not been returned.)

 

The legal documents state that the family entered the US under a visa waiver program.  For such a program, they must have passports.  Thus, I am skeptical that the family's passports were taken and not returned.

Regardless, as I understand it, EU citizens do not need passports to move between many EU countries, including France.

 

Remember, the family could, at any time, avoid anyone taking their children by simply complying with the law and sending their children to school.  

 

For the record,

 

Romeike specifically objected to the German public schools’ alleged teaching of evolution, abortion, homosexuality, disrespect for parents, teachers, and other authority figures, disrespect for students, bullying, witchcraft, disrespect for family values, and ridicule of Christian values.

 

Romeike worried that “[a] teacher, especially a fun or popular teacher, who tells my child that I am wrong, will steal the heart of my child away from me and my wife as parents.†

 

Romeike also felt that the one of the school’s textbooks was antithetical to Christian values because it taught that children “don’t have to do what the teacher says, they can make fun of teachers and principals.â€

 

Romeike further objected to the curriculum at public school because he claimed that one of the textbooks featured a story suggesting that “the devil can help you if you ask the devil, but God would not help you.†... Romeike could not recall the title of the story, or its author. "

 

 

 

[albeto.]

The teach witchcraft in Germany?

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

For the record, I think the Romeike family is being mixed up with another German homeschooling family.  I seem to recall in the other case the passports were seized at one point.

[WishboneDawn]

HSLDA just posted this on facebook:

 

"BREAKING NEWS!!! The Romeikes can stay!!!

Today, a Supervisor with the Department of Homeland Security called a member of our legal team to inform us that the Romeike family has been granted "indefinite deferred status". This means that the Romeikes can stay in the United States permanently (unless they are convicted of a crime, etc.)

 

This is an incredible victory that can only be credited to our Almighty God.

We also want to thank those of who spoke up on this issue--including that long ago White House petition. We believe that the public outcry made this possible while God delivered the victory.

This is an amazing turnaround in 24 hours. Praise the Lord.

Proverbs 21: 1 "The king's heart is like a stream of water directed by the Lord, He guides it wherever He pleases."

~~Michael Farris"

 

I'm shocked, to say the least.

I'm sorry but if Obama deserved the blame for having them deported, he deserves the praise for NOT having then deported.

 

Unless God is on the US government payroll now...?

[5of5]

To be clear, I am not saying that homeschooling is a fundamental right.  I'm saying that having custody of your kids is a fundamental right.  For both parents to lose it, they should have to be doing something extremely dangerous or mean to the child.  Another way of looking at it is:  a child has a fundamental right to live with his parent(s), absent extreme circumstances requiring separation.  And yes, I think this fundamental human right is universal.

 

Along these lines, I think a better argument can be made that it’s a right of the child to be taught by their parent.  Saying it is “fundamental†is argumentative because any such right is surely derivative.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I'm sorry but if Obama deserved the blame for having them deported, he deserves the praise for NOT having then deported.

 

Unless God is on the US government payroll now...?

 

Yes, apparently somehow the Obama administration was using the Romeike family as part of an insidious plot to persecute Christians...and then granted them a deferred action.  That darn anti-Christ confuses me sometimes. :(