Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Supreme Court refuses to hear appeal on asylum case

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Supreme Court refuses to hear appeal on asylum case




    The Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal from a German family seeking asylum in the United States because their home country does not allow home-schooling.

    The justices rejected an appeal from Uwe and Hannelore Romeike, who claim the German government is persecuting them because they want to raise their children in accordance with their Christian beliefs.

    The family moved to Morristown, Tenn., in 2008 after facing fines and threats for refusing to send their children to a state-approved school, as required by Germany's compulsory attendance law. They say German laws violate international human rights standards.

    Last year, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected that claim. The court found that U.S. law does not grant asylum to every victim of unfair treatment.
    Good decision.

    I feel for these people, somewhat. I wish that there were more liberty in Germany that would allow people to make their own educational choices for their children. I also wish that there were the liberty to do other things in Germany, such as deny the Holocaust. Not because I think Holocaust denial is a good thing, but because the liberty to do so should be there, no matter how abhorrent it is. Those, though, just are not valid reasons for granting asylum. If this were some new law that they could not have foreseen, I might have a little more sympathy in their case, but this law has been on the books in Germany since the Weimar Republic days. These folks knew before they had kids that if they were to stay in Germany, their kids would have to go to the state-sanctioned schools there. They made the choice to stay in Germany and to have kids anyway. If this was such a big deal to them, then they should have gone about seeking citizenship in the U.S. before they decided to have children, or they should have moved to somewhere else in the E.U. where this requirement doesn't exist. These days, moving from one country in the E.U. to another is really no bigger deal than moving from Georgia to Texas: you remain an E.U. citizen, you transfer your car registration/plates, and you deal with the local laws in that country.

    So these folks had options. Lots of options. They weren't fleeing some war-torn region and trying not to die in a pogrom or something. They just didn't like the schools that their kids were going to, pretty much not unlike a whole lot of other Americans. This is not a valid reason for political asylum, IMO. If Boston taught us anything, it should have been that we really don't need to be giving out political asylum willy-nilly. While I certainly don't think that these people are a threat or anything like that, they are still basically trying to back-door their immigration to the U,S,, and I don't consider that a reasonable move in this case.
    It's been ten years since that lonely day I left you
    In the morning rain, smoking gun in hand
    Ten lonely years but how my heart, it still remembers
    Pray for me, momma, I'm a gypsy now

  • #2
    It looks like they did the best they could but I have to agree that they shouldn't have gone the political asylum route. That said, this Justice Dept chose to appeal the decision of the judge who granted the family's request. I'm sure they spent considerable time, money and manpower going after the Romeike's. With everything else that they could be investigating and prosecuting, it's a bit odd that this was the burning issue that they went forward with.

    Obama has enforcement discretion in this matter (like the exemption of young illegal immigrants in this country). He should show this family as much compassion.
    May we raise children who love the unloved things - the dandelion, the worm, the spiderlings.
    Children who sense the rose needs the thorn and run into rainswept days the same way they turn towards the sun...
    And when they're grown and someone has to speak for those who have no voice,
    may they draw upon that wilder bond, those days of tending tender things and be the one.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Michele View Post
      It looks like they did the best they could but I have to agree that they shouldn't have gone the political asylum route. That said, this Justice Dept chose to appeal the decision of the judge who granted the family's request. I'm sure they spent considerable time, money and manpower going after the Romeike's. With everything else that they could be investigating and prosecuting, it's a bit odd that this was the burning issue that they went forward with.

      Obama has enforcement discretion in this matter (like the exemption of young illegal immigrants in this country). He should show this family as much compassion.
      That's my issue. I don't think this situation is important enough to have administration involvement so I disagree with the action since it took a direct action to deny this claim.
      "Faith is nothing but a firm assent of the mind : which, if it be regulated, as is our duty, cannot be afforded to anything but upon good reason, and so cannot be opposite to it."
      -John Locke

      "It's all been melded together into one giant, authoritarian, leftist scream."
      -Newman

      Comment


      • #4
        Perhaps they could immigrate to Mexico.
        The year's at the spring
        And day's at the morn;
        Morning's at seven;
        The hill-side's dew-pearled;
        The lark's on the wing;
        The snail's on the thorn:
        God's in his heaven—
        All's right with the world!

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Novaheart View Post
          Perhaps they could immigrate to Mexico.
          Apparently there's no need now.
          It's been ten years since that lonely day I left you
          In the morning rain, smoking gun in hand
          Ten lonely years but how my heart, it still remembers
          Pray for me, momma, I'm a gypsy now

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Adam View Post
            I support homeschooling. We have done homeschooling. I still fail to see how it's an issue of allowing this family to "raise their children in accordance with their Christian beliefs." There are religious students in public schools, and there are private schools operated by religious organizations. This emerging routine of everything being a matter of religious belief is starting to reek.
            The year's at the spring
            And day's at the morn;
            Morning's at seven;
            The hill-side's dew-pearled;
            The lark's on the wing;
            The snail's on the thorn:
            God's in his heaven—
            All's right with the world!

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Novaheart View Post
              I support homeschooling. We have done homeschooling. I still fail to see how it's an issue of allowing this family to "raise their children in accordance with their Christian beliefs." There are religious students in public schools, and there are private schools operated by religious organizations. This emerging routine of everything being a matter of religious belief is starting to reek.
              Well, in their particular case, the state-sanctioned curricula in Germany taught something that was contrary to their beliefs (not really sure what it was that was the issue, though), and religious freedom is one of the rights protected by all of those silly UN definitions about what rights people do and don't have. From an international standpoint, it's the basis for an asylum claim, just as much as a Christian fleeing Muslim persecution in Syria. I'm not saying that the two are equivalent or that I agree with it in this case, but that's the basis for the argument for asylum here.
              It's been ten years since that lonely day I left you
              In the morning rain, smoking gun in hand
              Ten lonely years but how my heart, it still remembers
              Pray for me, momma, I'm a gypsy now

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Adam View Post
                Good on them to correct a wrong regardless of why.

                The lower court's ruling should have stood on the merits of the case and the administration should have never gotten involved in the first place.
                "Faith is nothing but a firm assent of the mind : which, if it be regulated, as is our duty, cannot be afforded to anything but upon good reason, and so cannot be opposite to it."
                -John Locke

                "It's all been melded together into one giant, authoritarian, leftist scream."
                -Newman

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Adam View Post
                  Great, just what we need...IMPORTED semi-literate religious fanatics to augment the home-grown sort.
                  "Since the historic ruling, the Lovings have become icons for equality. Mildred released a statement on the 40th anniversary of the ruling in 2007: 'I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, Black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.'." - Mildred Loving (Loving v. Virginia)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Adam View Post
                    Well, in their particular case, the state-sanctioned curricula in Germany taught something that was contrary to their beliefs (not really sure what it was that was the issue, though), and religious freedom is one of the rights protected by all of those silly UN definitions about what rights people do and don't have. From an international standpoint, it's the basis for an asylum claim, just as much as a Christian fleeing Muslim persecution in Syria. I'm not saying that the two are equivalent or that I agree with it in this case, but that's the basis for the argument for asylum here.
                    It's a ridiculous argument. As you lot are always trumpeting, there's no right to not be offended. The schools taught many things my parents disagreed with. They encouraged us to question what we "learned"...at home, where they could provide a counter to the party line.

                    I think the option to home-school is a good thing, but it certainly doesn't rise to the level of a human-rights issue. There are many reasons to homeschool, but keeping children from being exposed to legitimate science education isn't a valid one.
                    "Since the historic ruling, the Lovings have become icons for equality. Mildred released a statement on the 40th anniversary of the ruling in 2007: 'I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, Black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.'." - Mildred Loving (Loving v. Virginia)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Celeste Chalfonte View Post
                      Great, just what we need...IMPORTED semi-literate religious fanatics to augment the home-grown sort.
                      How do you know they're semi-literate?

                      Are they any more "fanatical" about religion than you are about same sex marriage?
                      Not where I breathe, but where I love, I live...
                      Robert Southwell, S.J.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by phillygirl View Post

                        Are they any more "fanatical" about religion than you are about same sex marriage?
                        False equation. The fight for marriage equality is one in which one existing group of people demands treatment under the law equal to an existing group of people. The fight for God, Allah, Krishna, Babu, and Odin is the interface between mythology and the people who are willing to bleed for it.
                        The year's at the spring
                        And day's at the morn;
                        Morning's at seven;
                        The hill-side's dew-pearled;
                        The lark's on the wing;
                        The snail's on the thorn:
                        God's in his heaven—
                        All's right with the world!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Adam View Post
                          Well, in their particular case, the state-sanctioned curricula in Germany taught something that was contrary to their beliefs (not really sure what it was that was the issue, though), and religious freedom is one of the rights protected by all of those silly UN definitions about what rights people do and don't have. From an international standpoint, it's the basis for an asylum claim, just as much as a Christian fleeing Muslim persecution in Syria. I'm not saying that the two are equivalent or that I agree with it in this case, but that's the basis for the argument for asylum here.
                          Some of what schools, public or private, teach is untrue or unsettled. My parents, in dealing with a justice fanatic such as myself (some would say an injustice collector) often instructed me to answer the question in the way which will get the grade that I WANT, while remaining free to believe otherwise.

                          Mind you, this doesn't start with religion per se. Perfect example in a nonreligious context. "If a tree falls in the woods and there is no one to hear it, was there a sound." Of course there was. Even in first grade, this got under my skin. I would get angry about it. I would be logical about it: if 100 trees fall and there is a sound each time, then it's logical that the 101st tree will also make a sound, even if no one is there to hear it. You know I am right. The teacher knew I was right. My parents knew I was right…. but told me that if I wanted 100% on the test, I had to answer it the way the teacher wanted me too. It seemed dishonest, but of course I was just on my way to learning about the dishonesty in education. Fucking bots they were, the teachers and the nuns.

                          Let's take a wild guess that these fundamentalist parents are objecting to their children being taught Evolution. Tough shit. Let the kids go to school and feel superior to the other kids who actually believe in science. You know what is going to happen to these kids if they are homeschooled by Christian fundamentalists? They are going to reject all religion, or embrace some religion even more whacked out than their parents' version. They'll probably become Morons and move to Salt Lake.
                          The year's at the spring
                          And day's at the morn;
                          Morning's at seven;
                          The hill-side's dew-pearled;
                          The lark's on the wing;
                          The snail's on the thorn:
                          God's in his heaven—
                          All's right with the world!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Celeste Chalfonte View Post
                            Great, just what we need...IMPORTED semi-literate religious fanatics to augment the home-grown sort.
                            What a silly stereotype that you hold! Not at all atypical or surprising, but silly nonetheless. Those people that you are busy calling "semi-literate" tend to learn significantly better than their public-schooled and even private-schooled counterparts, with better testing, a greater college retention rate, and higher college GPAs on average. Those "semi-literate religious fanatics" even out-score their public- and private-schooled counterparts in *gasp* science.

                            Ohs noes! Whatever shall we do without a baseless, bigoted stereotype with which to denigrate people?
                            It's been ten years since that lonely day I left you
                            In the morning rain, smoking gun in hand
                            Ten lonely years but how my heart, it still remembers
                            Pray for me, momma, I'm a gypsy now

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Adam View Post
                              What a silly stereotype that you hold! Not at all atypical or surprising, but silly nonetheless. Those people that you are busy calling "semi-literate" tend to learn significantly better than their public-schooled and even private-schooled counterparts, with better testing, a greater college retention rate, and higher college GPAs on average. Those "semi-literate religious fanatics" even out-score their public- and private-schooled counterparts in *gasp* science.

                              Ohs noes! Whatever shall we do without a baseless, bigoted stereotype with which to denigrate people?
                              It would take more diplomacy than I can muster to explain the difference between intelligence and knowledge. Knowledge without intelligence is of no use. A computer can hold all of the world's knowledge and none of its intelligence. Thus far, computers are incapable of using the knowledge they hold to conceive an invention or to see it fabricated.

                              Turn on any given commentary channel, and within a short period of time you will undoubtedly hear from a person with collegiate credentials who demonstrates that those credentials do not equate to intellect. Rachel Maddow is a sharp cookie, but she has her head up her ass when it comes to Second AMendment, Immigration, and "Global Warming". Michael Medved and Dennis Prager are very intelligent men… until it comes to matters of religion and its role in government. Rush Limbaugh probably is the most intelligent of all of the talk show folks in terms of brain function and speed, and yet he is the least educated. Rush also says some shit just to stir the pot… he can't possibly believe some of the things he says and yet he knows how to make money by saying them.
                              The year's at the spring
                              And day's at the morn;
                              Morning's at seven;
                              The hill-side's dew-pearled;
                              The lark's on the wing;
                              The snail's on the thorn:
                              God's in his heaven—
                              All's right with the world!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X