DON VINCENZO writes:

On April 21, I wrote that U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati would soon decide the case of the Romeikes, a homeschooling German family seeking political asylum. Yesterday, the three-judge panel, including two George W. Bush appointees and one Clinton appointee, denied the Romeike petition, which had enormous popular support among homeschooling families in this country. I was not surprised.

The decision was unanimous, although one judge wrote a slightly different but concurring opinion. The petition faced tough legal sledding in the U.S. courts because other sovereign nations have denied similar asylum-seeking claims. Last year, New Zealand’s government denied a similar request, and one is pending in Canada. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has been quoted as saying that the Romeike denial of asylum does not “violate their fundamental liberty.”

The Romeikes were granted asylum by an immigration judge in 2010 and settled in Tennessee. The decision was overturned by the Board of Immigration Appeals two years later. The federal judges today upheld the board’s action:

The relevant legislation applies to those who “have a well-founded” fear of persecution on account of race, religion…in a particular social group.

As the Board of Immigration Appeals (Court) persuasively found, (N.B.: after an Immigration Judge had granted asylum) the German authorities have not singled out the Romeike in particular and homeschoolers in general for prosecution.

Following the ruling, several commentators lauded the decision, claiming that the Romeikes can go elsewhere within the EU to seek asylum. I suspect that such flippant conclusions are drawn from the lack of knowledge of how the EU operates. The Romeikes may find a country to take them, but I doubt if it will be another EU country.

In reading the opinion per curiam (of the court) I was struck by two considerations: on what basis was the Immigration Judge’s decision overruled, and why? The Board of Immigration Appeals must have been brought into the case because someone sought to appeal the judge’s preliminary decision. The only parties that could do so would be the Department of Justice or Homeland Security, and given the Romeike family background, I cannot fathom why such an action was taken unless their Evangelical Christianity was a definite liability in this case. (Note: the Home School Legal Defense Association was suing the Attorney General.)

But more at odds with the facts is the reasoning in the decision. The Romeikes were threatened repeatedly by German officials and  time after time the family made their decisions based on their religious principles. They were fined repeatedly and told that their children could be taken from them; yet they persisted. Why Immigration Judge Lawrence O. Burman could justify the Romeike claim, but Immigration Appeals and Sixth Circuit could not, is worthy of further investigation.

The Home School Legal Defense Association, the attorneys for the German family, has claimed that it will appeal the decision, but it is my belief that the U.S. Supreme Court will refuse the case.

Of course, the Romeikes have another tactic available to them: they can slip out of the country, wait a short time in Mexico and then return as illegal aliens, and not worry about being harassed by ICE (Immigration & Customs Enforcement) officials. Then, if the President and his party and GOP supporters pass an amnesty, the Romeike worries will totally evanesce.

 — Comments —

Laura writes:

Don Vincenzo writes:

I cannot fathom why such an action was taken unless their Evangelical Christianity was a definite liability in this case.

While I am sympathetic to the Romeikes, I believe there is a justified concern here on the part of the federal government. If  the inability to obtain an adequate education is a form of persecution then the doors are potentially open for many more thousands of foreigners, some with legitimate complaints and some who simply want to move here, to apply for political asylum.

Alex writes:

“Yesterday, the three-judge panel…”

To someone familiar with the history of the Soviet Union, a word immediately springs to mind: troika.

Deeply believing Christians? Ready to go to great lengths to resist liberal brainwashing of their children by government education? Everything about this family screams political enemies to the regime. This is all the troika needs to know to boot them out; nothing else matters, certainly not what the law says.

Laura writes:

Bear in mind that if they had granted the Romeikes asylum, Muslims in Europe who claim they wish to homeschool their children to be good Muslims would also have to be granted asylum here. I’m not suggesting that was part of the judges’ thinking, but some of the larger consequences probably were.

Debra C. writes:

If we had a sane and rational federal government committed to preserving the historic American nation, one which had implemented Lawrence Auster’s A Real Islam Policy for a Real America, then granting asylum on a case-by-case basis, looking favorably on the circumstances of people like the Romeikes, would be a matter of course.

And here is where I agree with Alex. Yet, where he sees the Troika, I see Islam, which has so influenced federal policies on a host of issues, most notably its representative’s October 2011 demand that all bias of Islam (the truth about Jihad) be “purged” from our security, military and intelligence agency’s training materials; that re-training be initiated for current trainers, and that penalties be imposed (such as has been meted out to Lt. Col. Dooley) for trainers/teachers who dare to practice Sun Tzu.

I see the Muslim brotherhood and the OIC written all over this. In fact, since 2011 an aggressive campaign has been waged by our federal government to remove Christianity from our military, including the counsel of chaplains to service members. On this point, here is a list by Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council of anti-Christian actions involving the military:

1. January 2010 — Department of Defense orders removal of tiny Bible references on military scopes and gunsights.

2. June 2011 — The Department of Veterans Affairs forbids references to God and Jesus during burials at National Cemetery.

3. August 2011 — The Air Force stops teaching the Just War theory because it is based on a philosophy of St. Augustine.

4. September 2011 — Air Force Chief of Staff prohibits commanders from notifying airmen of religious programs.

5. September 2011 — The Army issues Walter Reed Medical Center guidelines stipulating that no religious items (i.e. Bibles, reading materials and/or tracts) are to be given to the wounded.

6. November 2011 — The Air Force Academy rescinds support for Operation Christmas Child because it is run by Christians.

7. November 2011 — The Air Force Academy pays $80,000 for a Stonehenge-type worship center for pagans, druids, and witches.

8. February 2012 — The U.S. Military Academy at West Point disinvites three-star Army general, decorated war hero, and FRC Executive Vice President, Lt. Gen. (Ret.) William “Jerry” Boykin, because he is an outspoken Christian.

9. February 2012 — The Army orders Catholic chaplains not to read archbishop’s letter to soldiers.

10. May 2012 — The Obama administration opposes legislation to protect the rights of conscience for military chaplains who do not wish to perform same-sex “marriages.”

11. June 2012 — Obama administration revokes the long-standing U.S. policy of allowing military service emblems to be placed on military Bibles.

12. August 2012 — Lt. Col. Jack Rich of the U.S. Army emails subordinates saying they should be on the lookout for people who share FRC’s values because they are not “Army values.”

13. January 2013 — Obama announces the opposition to a provision in the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act protecting the rights of conscience for military chaplains.

14. April 2013 — Officials briefing U.S. Army soldiers include “Evangelical Christianity” and “Catholicism” along with the terrorist organizations Al-Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood, and Hamas as examples of “religious extremism.”

15. May 2013 — The Pentagon meets with Mikey Weinstein and the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) to establish new rules which would restrict the religious freedom of Christian and Jewish military personnel.

Don Vincenzo writes:

Allow me some clarification to my comments about the denial of the Romeike claim for political asylum.

It is unquestionably true that we are a nation of laws – “lex, not rex” was a widely-used phrase during my early years. To allow a violation of current law is, then, a breach of the social contract, and we should expect that governments at all levels to live up to their declared purpose in carrying out the laws of the land, state or community. But as anyone familiar with current immigration law knows, that is precisely what has not happened for at least four decades at all these levels, irrespective of the party in power. My uncertainty revolved around the issue if the Romeike were German Moslems seeking their objective, would the U.S. Attorney-General have requested the appeal to the Immigration Appeals Court? Since you cannot prove a positive, that is a moot point at this stage.

Further, the point that in granting the Romeikes petition we would open Pandora’s Box to any and all applications from similar Moslem asylum seekers, cannot be discarded. Since you cannot prove a positive, that is a moot point at this stage.

Laura writes:

As Debra points out, we should not have to worry about the ramifications regarding Muslims. If the government treated Islam as the serious national threat it is, then no Muslims, for any reason, would be granted asylum. But as it is, there is the definite possibility that if the Romeikes were allowed to say, the precedent would not benefit Christian homeschoolers in Europe only.

Don Vincenzo continues:

There is an interesting (ironic?) part to this tale that has occurred recently: The Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice have agreed to settle a nationwide class action lawsuit challenging the denial of work authorization to asylum seekers who have been waiting six months or more for a decision on their asylum applications. The settlement will help ensure that certain individuals who seek to file an asylum application or have already filed an asylum application, are entitled to new procedures relating to the crediting of time toward eligibility for employment authorization.

Remember Orwell’s felicitous phrase: everybody is equal, but some people are more equal than others.

 Debra writes:

I strongly believe that this case is meant to strike fear into the hearts of homeschoolers, as the Attorney General himself has maintained that there is no Constitutional right to homeschool one’s children; and therefore the parents are not being persecuted when Germany requires them to send their children to private or public school or face losing custody of them. (A more vile threat I cannot imagine.)

The current disposition of this case sets an extremely dangerous precedent antagonistic to parental rights and portends, nay signals, what additional liberties this administration and its followers intend to eliminate.

Laura writes:

While this ruling may strike fear in the hearts of some homeschooling parents, I do not believe those fears are justified. Homeschoolers make up one of the most vocal, persistent, intelligent and effective constituencies in American history. Any serious infringement of their freedom to educate their children in this country could only be accomplished by throwing many decent, law-abiding citizens in jail. I can’t see that happening any time in the foreseeable future.

I guess I don’t see what dangerous precedent this decision sets in this country, other than the precedent of denying asylum to those from other countries who want to homeschool. I agree that the Romeikes should have been granted permission to stay, without opening the doors to more fraudulent or inappropriate asylum cases, or, in the absence of that permission, the German government should have been publicly reprimanded and pressured by the Obama administration on behalf of the Romeikes. The real issue is Germany’s denial of parental rights.

Debra replies:

I must say I agree with you about Germany’s suppression of parental rights, over which we have no control.

But as a homeschooler I note the multitude of attempts at the state level to make onerous the requirements by which homeschoolers must abide. Some states are much more liberal in this regard (here is where liberal is a good thing, as in liberty-promoting). For example, Arizona is homeschool-friendly, while Pennsylvania is much less so.

And about the foreseeable future regarding the freedom to homeschool. Let me offer an anecdote. I was speaking with a Pastor about eight years ago, expressing my concerns about the redefining marriage lobby and that this was fast coming on us as an upending of the Judeo-Christian West. Well, he is ten years younger than I am, and his reply was: Not in our lifetimes. Perhaps the tide will turn, the Supreme Court will uphold CA Prop 8, and florists and photographers will no longer be sued for failing to get on board, and elementary school children will no longer be mainstreamed into homosexuality by their teachers. But here we are.

Laura writes:

With regard to homosexual “marriage,” the side in favor of it has had superior will and determination. It never would have gotten where it is, if its determination did not often exceed that of its opponents. Homeschoolers also possess great determination. A few years ago there was a proposal in California to require state certification for all teachers of any kind, which would have possibly affected homeschooling parents. Legislators were besieged with letters, e-mails and other forms of protest by homeschooling families and the measure was dropped. Here in Pennsylvania, where requirements are considered strict, parents still have lots of independence; a few years ago, all schools were required to admit homeschoolers for extracurricular activities. I realize homeschoolers are often harassed by school officials and they have every reason to be constantly vigilant. As I see it, this harassment is the greatest threat rather than any organized or systematic suppression of them.

Debra writes:

I must agree with you on the harassment of homeschoolers at the local level. I know of which I speak. But with the implementation of the Common Core curriculum it may indeed be that the federal government is getting its nose inside the tent to exert control over homeschooling as well. Notably, if it is true what Phyllis Schlafly states here, that, “It’s not only public schools that must obey the fed’s dictates. Common Core will control the curriculum of charter schools, private schools, religious schools, Catholic schools, and homeschooling.”

Laura writes:

Scary, I agree. Common Core means Common Idiocy. It’s Obamacare for schools. Imagine having to follow that in your own home. And because the tests would be required, you couldn’t get away from it.

Please follow and like us: