Germans get political asylum in the US

[Ziggurat]

The two are not mutally exclusive. Home schooled kids generally do well on standardized tests. Just because Johnny knows his math and science doesn't mean he isn't also getting a whopping dose of Mormon fundamentalism or Nazism on a daily basis.

A child placed in a public school can still be indoctrinated by the parents. So that problem is not peculiar to homeschooling, and it is not fixed by public schooling either. But it does raise the question of what the role of schools should be. If schools are merely intended to teach children a set of skills and a base of knowledge (reading, mathematics, etc) that are considered requirements for effective integration into society as adults, then homeschooling appears to be a success, and many public schools utter failures. And if you want schools to do more than that on a compulsory level (optional activities like sports are a separate issue), you need to figure out what else you think they need to do, and why making it compulsory is justified. And then, if you want to argue against allowing homeschooling, why homeschooling cannot be trusted to provide it.

 

[ZeeGerman]

As far as I can tell, the rationale for granting asylum was that they were persecuted for homeschooling their children. Which could apply regardless of the reason the parents wanted to homeschool their children. And it also makes the argument that they could have sent their children to a private school irrelevant. The question is, do parents have a right to homeschool their children? Apparently the government of Germany says no, and the government of the US says yes. I don't see religion having anything to do with the decision to grant asylum. Nor do I have a problem with the US government saying that it's a right.

The real question to me is, what IS the reason to grant asylum here?
I simply fail to see the persecution as outlined in USCI regulations:

"Refugee Status or Asylum may be granted to people who have been persecuted or fear they will be persecuted on account of race, religion, nationality, and/or membership in a particular social group or political opinion."

Yes, home schooling is a right in the US and and not so in Germany. So is getting a driver's license under the age of 18. If I get in trouble with the law for driving without license aged 16 in Germany, would you say I'm entitled to asylum in the US?
Should US citizens who are busted for drinking alcohol under 21 be granted asylum in Germany?

puzzled...

Zee

 

[Alt+F4]

A child placed in a public school can still be indoctrinated by the parents. So that problem is not peculiar to homeschooling, and it is not fixed by public schooling either. But it does raise the question of what the role of schools should be. If schools are merely intended to teach children a set of skills and a base of knowledge (reading, mathematics, etc) that are considered requirements for effective integration into society as adults, then homeschooling appears to be a success, and many public schools utter failures. And if you want schools to do more than that on a compulsory level (optional activities like sports are a separate issue), you need to figure out what else you think they need to do, and why making it compulsory is justified. And then, if you want to argue against allowing homeschooling, why homeschooling cannot be trusted to provide it.

Homeschooled kids don't have the biggest problems facing public school education: parental apathy, transience, absenteeism and limited English. Also, the teacher/student ratio is very low with homeschoolers (unless of course you're a Mormon fundamentalist).

As for homeschooling to be a "sucess" then it depends on your definition of educational success. If sucess is based on high scores on standardized tests, then I guess they are a sucess. If sucess is based on become productive citizen in a democracy then I can't really say.

 

[Darat]

The real question to me is, what IS the reason to grant asylum here?
I simply fail to see the persecution as outlined in USCI regulations:

...snip...

Have to agree, it seems very strange grounds for granting asylum.

 

[Chaos]

The real question to me is, what IS the reason to grant asylum here?
I simply fail to see the persecution as outlined in USCI regulations:

"Refugee Status or Asylum may be granted to people who have been persecuted or fear they will be persecuted on account of race, religion, nationality, and/or membership in a particular social group or political opinion."

Yes, home schooling is a right in the US and and not so in Germany. So is getting a driver's license under the age of 18. If I get in trouble with the law for driving without license aged 16 in Germany, would you say I'm entitled to asylum in the US?
Should US citizens who are busted for drinking alcohol under 21 be granted asylum in Germany?

puzzled...

Zee

You made my day... or my night, as the case may be.

 

[Chaos]

Being in accord with your constitution makes it legal. That isn't the same thing as being justified.

How about you tell me what your mysterious "justified" is supposed to mean, then?

I'm not trotting it out because I don't like something, Chaos. I'm trotting it out to demonstrate that your "democracy" argument doesn't prove what you think it proves. Don't make false arguments, and I won't have to counter them.

You´re trotting it out to make a claim. You haven´t demonstrated anything, only repeated Libertarian "representative government I don´t agree with is tyranny" rhetoric.

Up to a point, yes. And if someone cannot tolerate those decisions, well, isn't leaving that society rather an appropriate response? Seems like you should be happy that we took these folks off your hands. And yet, you aren't.

First of all, the appropriate response is to leave instead of breaking the law, not to break the law and then proclaim yourself a martyr once it bites you in the ass.

Do you really think that would be a problem? If so, well, that says something very damning about German society, and I'm sorry to see that you're getting so worked up about Christians when you've got so many Nazis in your midst.

Is that supposed to be a strawman, or do you really believe this nonsense?

Turning kids into religious fanatics by withholding contact to non-fanatics from them harms these children - the same goes for political fanaticism.

Not to mention, there's more than a little irony in appealing to the dangers of a collectivist authoritarian ideology to argue against allowing individualist actions.

How about the danger of a group seeking to institute a fascist dictatorship and commit violent crimes against "the enemy"? Oh, I see, not your problem, right. I suppose you don´t object to foreigners or "ticks" (left-wingers) being beaten up or lynched by those poor persecuted Neonazis?

You're clueless, Chaos. "tyranny of the majority" is a valid argument, it's just not an absolute one. And unlike your earlier attempts to appeal to democracy, I never claimed it was either. Of course there's a balance between personal rights and the boundaries society can impose. But you have yet to form an effective argument demonstrating why homeschooling falls on one side of the line and not the other. Pointing out that some things fall on one side doesn't mean this thing does. And your references to Nazis and muslim suicide bombers are not exactly very convincing either.

You have yet to make your argument that homeschooling falls on the other side. You spoke up against outlawing it - now you make your case.

 

[Ziggurat]

Is that supposed to be a strawman, or do you really believe this nonsense?

I've got no idea how many Nazis are floating around Germany, waiting to indoctrinate their children as soon as they can get them out of school. So you tell me, you're the one who thinks it's a big enough threat to be relevant in this discussion.

How about the danger of a group seeking to institute a fascist dictatorship and commit violent crimes against "the enemy"? Oh, I see, not your problem, right.

Indeed, it's not my problem. As in, we allow homeschooling, and we don't have that problem. Is Germany just a worse society than the US?

I suppose you don´t object to foreigners or "ticks" (left-wingers) being beaten up or lynched by those poor persecuted Neonazis?

I guess that's a "yes" to my previous question.

 

[I Ratant]

The real question to me is, what IS the reason to grant asylum here?
I simply fail to see the persecution as outlined in USCI regulations:

"Refugee Status or Asylum may be granted to people who have been persecuted or fear they will be persecuted on account of race, religion, nationality, and/or membership in a particular social group or political opinion."

Yes, home schooling is a right in the US and and not so in Germany. So is getting a driver's license under the age of 18. If I get in trouble with the law for driving without license aged 16 in Germany, would you say I'm entitled to asylum in the US?
Should US citizens who are busted for drinking alcohol under 21 be granted asylum in Germany?

puzzled...

Zee

.
Why are we importing crazies?

 

[Alt+F4]

.
Why are we importing crazies?

I know! It's not like we are running out of them in the U.S.

 

[Ziggurat]

Homeschooled kids don't have the biggest problems facing public school education: parental apathy, transience, absenteeism and limited English. Also, the teacher/student ratio is very low with homeschoolers (unless of course you're a Mormon fundamentalist).

Indeed. Given these advantages, why should the state prevent it?

As for homeschooling to be a "sucess" then it depends on your definition of educational success.

Which is directly related to my question about the purpose of schools.

If sucess is based on high scores on standardized tests, then I guess they are a sucess.

Indeed.

If sucess is based on become productive citizen in a democracy then I can't really say.

I have seen no evidence that they fail in this regard. In fact, I've seen no evidence that they even perform as badly as inner city schools do.

 

[ddt]

You missed my point. There's no reason to think the US cares why they chose to homeschool their children. And my comment was about the US decision, not the decision of the parents.

As far as I understand the verdict of the US judge indeed indeed only focused on this question and left religion out of it. So yes, you're right.

However, I'm at a loss - as ZeeGerman aptly pointed out - how this could be grounds for asylum. This is obviously another issue where there are differing views on such rights on both sides of the Atlantic. Admittedly, within Europe, Germany is the most extreme case, with a total prohibition on home schooling, where other European countries have provisions for home schooling but not as liberal as in the US. I note, however, that German parents before have gone to not only the German court, but also to the ECHR, and that the German ban on homeschooling has been upheld there.

They preferred to homeschool their children. Which means private schools are no remedy for them.

Frankly, I can't imagine they couldn't find a suitable school in the Stuttgart area (they live in Bissingen an der Teck). I scoured some German news sites and blogs, and haven't found a definite time line, nor an interview in which they were asked about that. They were approached by the HSLDA, who were eager to establish a precedent of German "refugees".

As far as I can tell, the US doesn't care why they chose to homeschool, nor do I see any reason the US should care. Our government thinks it's a right, that is enough.

However, I think it's stark then to say it's grounds to grant asylum. That the US thinks homeschooling is a right for its citizens/residents, doesn't mean it has to admit anyone from all over the world for that reason.

I note that the ACLU is not just a pro-first-amendment organization, but is staunchly liberal.

I did express myself poorly, or incompletely. The ACLU may be liberal, but it defends communists, liberals, conservatives, fascists, alike - and it restricts itself to 1st amendment issues. Per wiki, the HSLDA shows its colours by advocating Christian causes outside the homeschooling issue.

That too is irrelevant. Most people who say, "Jesus is the son of God and my personal savior" do so out of religious reasons. But freedom of speech protects everyone's right to say that, regardless of why they might do so. If people have the right to home school their children, the reasons they might have for choosing to do so are irrelevant to that right.

Which brings us back to the question whether homeschooling is such a fundamental right that it warrants giving people asylum. And frankly, I think that's overt the top and offends the European courts that didn't rule it as such.

It also doesn't take into account the possibilities the parents had: sending their kids to a "suitable" private school, which are funded in Germany by the state for 70% of the funding public schools get. It also doesn't take into account the reasons they had for pulling their kids from the public school. What I found in this respect were two statements: for one, that they thought their kids heard "obscene" words - not specified which, so I suspect it's just the normal words for sexual body parts. For two, that the school teaches the kids more about witches and vampires than about God - my interpretation: they read Harry Potter in class and not the Bible. Gasp.

 

[Ziggurat]

Which brings us back to the question whether homeschooling is such a fundamental right that it warrants giving people asylum.

Yes, it does. That is indeed the fundamental question here. This particular court thought it did. And the reasons it thought it did don't appear to have anything to do with religion. Was the court wrong? Perhaps. Does the court decision have anything to do with religion? Not really.

It also doesn't take into account the possibilities the parents had

That's irrelevant. If something is a fundamental right, the presence of alternatives isn't sufficient to justify denying that right. And if it's not a right, it can be denied with or without the presence of alternatives.

It also doesn't take into account the reasons they had for pulling their kids from the public school.

That too is irrelevant. Motives don't matter here. The German state doesn't care what the motive is for breaking a German law, and the US government doesn't care about the motive for exercising what this court considered a right. They may matter when you're trying to figure out whether or not you personally sympathize with these folks, but they are beside the point legally, for both German and US courts.

 

[JWideman]

Homeschooled kids do well on standardized tests because there's a lesson plan homeschoolers can buy. The kids won't learn anything else, but they'll ace those standardized English and Math tests.

 

[ddt]

Yes, it does. That is indeed the fundamental question here. This particular court thought it did. And the reasons it thought it did don't appear to have anything to do with religion. Was the court wrong? Perhaps. Does the court decision have anything to do with religion? Not really.

I agree with this analysis.

On the question whether the court was right or wrong, I have the feeling we have to settle for "we agree to disagree". I'll try anyway. Which amendment to the constitution, or which SCOTUS decision, gives this fundamental right?

That's irrelevant. If something is a fundamental right, the presence of alternatives isn't sufficient to justify denying that right. And if it's not a right, it can be denied with or without the presence of alternatives.

Yep.

That too is irrelevant. Motives don't matter here. The German state doesn't care what the motive is for breaking a German law, and the US government doesn't care about the motive for exercising what this court considered a right. They may matter when you're trying to figure out whether or not you personally sympathize with these folks, but they are beside the point legally, for both German and US courts.

I disagree. The German state, or a German court, will react quite differently to these two cases.

1) Our kid is a cripple, we don't have a car, there's no bus running and the nearest school is 20 kilometers.

2) We don't like our kid hearing the word "penis" in third grade, nor do we like him/her reading Harry Potter.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Ummm, I'll take "Activists in the Judiciary" for $1000, Alex.


Interesting how the conservative element decries judiciary activism as long as it's of the Berger Court nature.

Gee, now how'd it wind up in the courts in Tennessee? The feds are appealing the decision and rightfully so. The judge is taking an issue - asylum - designed to protect life and limb, and misapplying it to a philosophical lifestyle choice.

I go both ways on homeschooling. But I do not see it as a political asylum issue.

Ziggurat - do you actually believe that homeschooling is one of those basic inalienable rights? I'm searching for it in the Old and New Testaments, the Constitution of the USA, and the State Constitution of Tennessee. It doesn't seem to be there, explicitly or implicitly.

Are you so hellbent on supporting homeschooling that you are willing to apply the political asylum doctrine - in a country not noted for its repression of ideas. Think hard before you just give a kneejerk response, 'cuz I have bad news for you.... homeschooling is illegal in China, and all Chinese education is secular. Now how much room do you think that judge has on his calendar in Speedbump, TN? I've got 235,000,000 children I need to send in applications for.

 

[Chaos]

I've got no idea how many Nazis are floating around Germany, waiting to indoctrinate their children as soon as they can get them out of school. So you tell me, you're the one who thinks it's a big enough threat to be relevant in this discussion.



Indeed, it's not my problem. As in, we allow homeschooling, and we don't have that problem. Is Germany just a worse society than the US?



I guess that's a "yes" to my previous question.

I´m done with you for now. Come back when you´re ready to debate honestly.

 

[ponderingturtle]

The two are not mutally exclusive. Home schooled kids generally do well on standardized tests. Just because Johnny knows his math and science doesn't mean he isn't also getting a whopping dose of Mormon fundamentalism or Nazism on a daily basis.

Maybe, but in this case it seems the parents had issues with specific words being taught. It seems likely they will give the whole sexual reproduction thing a miss in biology class.

 

[Ziggurat]

On the question whether the court was right or wrong, I have the feeling we have to settle for "we agree to disagree".

How do you know I'm not playing devil's advocate?

I'll try anyway. Which amendment to the constitution, or which SCOTUS decision, gives this fundamental right?

I expect the court would probably have considered home schooling something covered by the 10th amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

I disagree. The German state, or a German court, will react quite differently to these two cases.

1) Our kid is a cripple, we don't have a car, there's no bus running and the nearest school is 20 kilometers.

2) We don't like our kid hearing the word "penis" in third grade, nor do we like him/her reading Harry Potter.

Yes, there's a difference. But the relevant difference for the court is almost certainly not motive, but ability. Just consider what would likely happen if both those conditions applied to the same case. It would be perverse if the state demanded school attendance where it was not possible because the motives were wrong.

 

[Ziggurat]

Ziggurat - do you actually believe that homeschooling is one of those basic inalienable rights? I'm searching for it in the Old and New Testaments, the Constitution of the USA, and the State Constitution of Tennessee. It doesn't seem to be there, explicitly or implicitly.

Do you think the right to privacy is in there, explicitly or implicitly?

Are you so hellbent on supporting homeschooling that you are willing to apply the political asylum doctrine - in a country not noted for its repression of ideas.

Actually, no, I'm not sure it was the right decision. That actually was not really my point. My main point is that the relevant legal questions here are not about religion.

Think hard before you just give a kneejerk response, 'cuz I have bad news for you.... homeschooling is illegal in China, and all Chinese education is secular.

I'm not the one you need to worry about giving knee jerk responses. You should ponder why your example fits exactly what I've been saying.

Now how much room do you think that judge has on his calendar in Speedbump, TN? I've got 235,000,000 children I need to send in applications for.

Don't be silly. China also oppresses its citizens politically with the threat of violence, and we're not going to give them all asylum for that, even though that's exactly what the laws were designed for.

 

[Ziggurat]

I´m done with you for now. Come back when you´re ready to debate honestly.

I'm taking my ball and going home!
Come now, Chaos. You're the one who told me that German Nazis were a problem. There's really no point in acting offended, I'm just taking you at your word.