Obama Trying to Deport Homeschooling Family

In 2010 a federal immigration judge awarded political asylum to a family whose German government was persecuting for having the temerity to homeschool their children. Now, three years later, the Obama administration seems poised to reverse that decision and deport the family back to Germany.

Uwe Romeike, his wife, and children were told that they could stay as legal residents in Morrisstown, Tennessee, when the family moved there in 2008 after being threatened by German authorities because they homeschooled their children instead of sending them to government schools.

In 2010, Mr. Romeike told reporters that, “I think it’s important for parents to have the freedom to choose the way their children can be taught.”

German authorities felt differently, though. The Romeikes were threatened with jail in the homeland unless they ceased homeschooling and turned their children over to the state.

Homeschooling has been illegal in Germany since 1938 when in the days of the Third Reich, Hitler’s regime wanted to be sure that he, not parents, controlled the nation’s children.

The Romeikes were lucky to get out of that oppressive situation and to the U.S., a country with one of the largest homeschooling tradition in the developed world.

Unfortunately, Obama’s extremely politicized Department of Justice under Eric Holder is attempting to reverse the government’s position and seeking to send the Romeikes back to this Nazi-era oppression.

Holder’s DOJ is claiming that homeschooling is “not a fundamental right” and because no one in Germany is allowed to homeschool, then the Romeikes have no case to say that they are being discriminated against.

So, I guess Eric Holder would have held in the 1860s that because all blacks in America were deemed less than a citizen, had no vote, could not go to school, etc., then none of them had been deprived of any rights.

The fact is, Obama and his cohorts agree 100% with this Nazi-era law that homeschooling should be illegal and that is why AG Eric Holder is looking to return the Romeike’s kids to essential enslavement to the German state.

Piers Morgan: We All 'Need The Nanny State Occasionally'
Big sugar and the USDA
  • GarandFan

    Well this is a legal issue. And everyone knows, when it comes to legal issues, the last idiot you want to hear from is Eric Holder.

    • Walter_Cronanty

      Unless you’re the Black Panthers

  • herddog505

    Is there some reason that these folks can’t just stay here on a visa? Or simply claim that they are here to vote for democrats do jobs that Americans won’t do and be allowed to stay?

    What’s doubly sickening is that Barry and his gang are full-tilt for amnesty, yet will send these people back to be (I assume) prosecuted.

    democrat law enforcement in action, ladies and gentlemen.

    • Brucehenry

      I could be wrong, but it’s my understanding that this administration has deported more illegal aliens in 4 years than the previous administration did in 8.

      • jim_m

        Except if they are relatives, in which case they get to stay.

      • Vagabond661

        The borders are porous. What difference at this point does it make how many he ships back? Do they stay shipped back or do they just turn around and walk across again? Is that really something to blow your horn about?

        • Brucehenry

          No hornblowing involved. Just responding to Herd. It seems strange that an administration that is “full-tilt for amnesty” would deport many more illegal aliens than any previous administration, is all I’m saying.

          • herddog505

            DHS lists two categories of people “deported”:

            Returned: “Returns are the confirmed movement of an inadmissible or deportable alien out of the United States not based on an order of removal. Most returns are of Mexican nationals who have been apprehended by the U.S. Border Patrol and are returned to Mexico.”

            Removed: “Removals are the compulsory and confirmed movement of an inadmissible or deportable alien out of the United States based on an order of removal. An alien who is removed has administrative or criminal consequences.”

            At any rate, here is a summary:

            2001 – 2008:

            REMOVED: 2.013M (252K / yr)

            RETURNED: 8.316M (1.04M / yr)

            2009 – 2011:

            REMOVED: 1.171M (390K / yr)

            RETURNED: 1.384M (461K / yr)


            So, it appears that Barry and JaNo are, indeed, “removing” more illegals / year than Bush did, but not “returning” more.

          • Josephine Violet

            This little set of facts is useless unless we know if there has been an increase in illegal immigration to correspond with an increase in removals and returns, and what percentage of these removals and returns are being issued “for cause”…in other words, in a slow economy, crime and violence increase. Could there be a correlation between an increase in charges against aliens? No fact stands alone.

          • herddog505

            True enough. However, the point of posting the data was to examine Brucehenry‘s claim about Barry deporting more people than did Bush.

    • JWH

      I find myself divided somewhat on this.

      In the first place, I have an initial impulse to say that should receive asylum because they are facing a degree of persecution in Germany for their decision to home-school their children … and I tend to believe that the United States should have a welcoming immigration policy.

      In the second place, though, I’m somewhat less sympathetic toward their position than I am to other asylum-seekers. For example, I would be more inclined to sympathize with a Coptic Christian Egyptian seeking asylum in the United States because of religious persecution that could result in death. Or to a young man from Central America seeking asylum because a gang like MS-13 has targeted him and his family for death. Or a man fleeing a totalitarian state because a family member has taken a political stand, and the government has targeted him for persecution.

      These levels of persecution involve a threat to life and limb, often because of a status that the individual can’t help. (And if you don’t believe me, pop into the Human Rights Watch Web site, pick a totalitarian country, and read some of the human rights reports. Some of the descriptions will make you sick to your stomach). When I consider those individuals’ plights vs. the Romeikes’ situation, I find myself more sympathetic to those classic asylum-seekers, and less sympathetic to the Romeikes.

      Why? I think it’s because of the gravity of the situation. From where I sit, the threat of, say, being starved of food and water, then beaten daily with a PVC pipe for months in a government prison, seems more dire than “send your kids to a government-accredited school or pay a fine.” The persecution, such as it is, does not strike me as nearly as dire.

      Which brings us to the legal arguments. On the legal argument, I find myself divided. In their briefs, the Romeikes and the federal government differ on whether “German homeschoolers” constitutes a “particular social group” that faces persecution under the standards of US asylum law, and whether the German government was specifically punishing the Romeikes for their religious beliefs or for their status as members of the home-schoolers’ group.

      Again, I am divided. On the one hand, I favor a somewhat loose interpretation of the “particular social groups” phrase. But on the other hand, I have to ask whether “German homeschoolers” is stretching the definition a bit much. Traditionally, when you’re looking for a “particular social group,” you look for some grouping that has immutable characteristics of some sort.

      This can lead to some perverse outcomes. For example, consider two people seeking asylum: A man who refused to be recruited into a street gang, and his wife. If both apply for asylum, the wife actually has a stronger claim. Why? Because she is a family member of a man who refused to be recruited into a gang and she can’t change the status of “family member.” But the man can change his “refused gang membership” status by joining the gang. Yes, it’s perverse as hell (and the man MIGHT still qualify for asylum), but that’s where the law stands.

      German home-schoolers, on the other hand, have as their distinct trait the fact that they want to educate their children themselves. This strikes me as an eminently mutable trait, so I have some difficulty with the idea that “German home schoolers” quality as such a group.

      Again, I’m somewhat divided on this. But if I were to apply the law as it stands to this case, I think I would have to come down against the Romeikes.

      • Commander_Chico

        Yeah the USA fucked a lot of Iraqi interpreters over, too.

      • herddog505

        Ditto. “You must zent your chiltren to ze public schule or face zee consequences!” ain’t quite “We’re going to throw your family into a gulag (or mass grave) for being X.”

        JWHI tend to believe that the United States should have a welcoming immigration policy.

        I completely agree. Except for a need to keep terrorists and criminals out and ensure that the people we let in are willing to work and obey the law, I’d be comfortable with open borders. Unfortunately, thanks to years of liberal policies, we don’t enforce the laws, we don’t insist on assimilation, and we’ve turned our country from “the land of opportunity” to “the land of the welfare check and f*ck you, gringo.” There’s also a hefty dollop of exploitation: cheap labor for shady businesses. None of this is good for the future of our country.

        • JWH

          I’d diverge with you a little on assimilation. I prefer that people who come here learn English and find productive jobs. But at the same time, the theme in this country is freedom. If you want to, say, wear a hijab out in public because your think your religion says you should, that’s up to you. Neither my opinion nor my government’s opinion really matters.

          • herddog505

            Oh, I don’t think that people should abandon their culture and especially not their religion; they shouldn’t anglicize their names (as I understand many immigrants did in years past). However, they also shouldn’t “balkanize” the country by being IN it but not OF it.

          • JWH

            Indeed. BTW, I read (skimmed) the legal briefs for the Romeikes’ case. Interesting factoid: Germany doesn’t require you to send your kids to public school. It requires you to send your kids to a school. Apparently, there are any number of private alternatives to public school available.

            The Romeikes did not wish to send their kids to those schools because they said they used the same texts/curricula as the German public schools.

            I would also love to get a look-see at their original I-589. The feds’ description of it is … less than kind. (“LIst of Bible verses,” if I recall the description correctly). Makes me wonder if they had competent counsel from the outset of their asylum effort.

        • JWH

          I completely agree. Except for a need to keep terrorists and criminals out

          And mimes.

  • Commander_Chico

    As long as they’re not on the wellie, they can stay as far as I’m concerned.

  • Soggytoast

    Your 1860 analogy makes no sense.

    Blacks are an exclusive group that were discriminated against. They were not allowed votes, school, etc, BECAUSE THEY WERE BLACK. The government’s legal argument is that the German Christians are not being discriminated against BECAUSE THEY ARE CHRISTIAN (like your 1860s blacks), but are instead subject to a policy that is applied equally to all Germans.

    The fact that the conflict with the policy is because of their religion is incidental.