Jump to content
IGNORED

Eric Holder: Homeschool family political asylum (MERGED)


sunshine

Recommended Posts

so for what it's worth (at least, for my own edification)

seems that the the family was granted asylum by a Tennessee immigration judge in Jan 2010, on the basis that their religious beliefs [which extended to homeschooling their children] could/was likely to lead to the children being removed from their custody and placed in state care pursuant to a law introduced in Germany in 2007, effectively amounting to persecution.

They came to the US, over neighbouring US countries, at the encouragement of HSLDA who offered to assist them with their claims and after they had taken their claim to the Eu Ct of HR and it had been rejected.

The US Government appealed the immigration judges decision. As far as I can tell, the family is now appealing the appeal. (my chronology might be wrong, and I can't find the actual decisions).

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 99,00.html

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/featur ... 25350.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/01/us/01 ... d=all&_r=0

also - hane: for what it's worth:

Political asylum is intended for people who will suffer actual danger should they be returned to their homelands.

I'll say this again, because it's really important. Danger, a fear for physical safety, has bugger all to do with you being a refugee. A well founded fear of persecution does not need even entail a fear of physical danger. Yes, in most cases, physical endangerment is involved. But no - the actual physical harm was not the basis for any determination of asylum. Rather; the physical harm was the form that the persecution took. If a particular religious group were denied rights accorded to others (eg: education, property ownership etc), there would be no 'danger', but there would be decent grounds for an asylum claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 110
  • Created
  • Last Reply
so for what it's worth (at least, for my own edification)

seems that the the family was granted asylum by a Tennessee immigration judge in Jan 2010, on the basis that their religious beliefs [which extended to homeschooling their children] could/was likely to lead to the children being removed from their custody and placed in state care pursuant to a law introduced in Germany in 2007, effectively amounting to persecution.

They came to the US, over neighbouring US countries, at the encouragement of HSLDA who offered to assist them with their claims and after they had taken their claim to the Eu Ct of HR and it had been rejected.

The US Government appealed the immigration judges decision. As far as I can tell, the family is now appealing the appeal. (my chronology might be wrong, and I can't find the actual decisions).

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 99,00.html

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/featur ... 25350.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/01/us/01 ... d=all&_r=0

also - hane: for what it's worth:

I'll say this again, because it's really important. Danger, a fear for physical safety, has bugger all to do with you being a refugee. A well founded fear of persecution does not need even entail a fear of physical danger. Yes, in most cases, physical endangerment is involved. But no - the actual physical harm was not the basis for any determination of asylum. Rather; the physical harm was the form that the persecution took. If a particular religious group were denied rights accorded to others (eg: education, property ownership etc), there would be no 'danger', but there would be decent grounds for an asylum claim.

But they weren't being denied rights accorded to others. No one told them that their super-special-snowflake children couldn't have an education. They were told that their super-special-snowflake children couldn't be denied an education by the parents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But they weren't being denied rights accorded to others. No one told them that their super-special-snowflake children couldn't have an education. They were told that their super-special-snowflake children couldn't be denied an education by the parents.

Maggie, I'm not making a claim for the family. Please understand that.

HOWEVER

I gave an example of one form of persecution that didn't amount to physical danger. I didn't say that was THE way you could establish an asylum claim. Another would be to show that a law that purports to get general unduly targets one particular social group. If your religion requires you to homeschool; the only people who homeschool are your fellow believers; there is a penalty amounting to persecution for homeschooling/following your religious beliefs - that could well meet the criteria for admission as a refugee. And, as I understand, that's what the case was about. (with a diversion into the dog awful natural rights and parental rights argument)

Does the distinction make sense? Being deprived of rights is one form of persecution; it's not the only one. See all the points about of physical harm. Persecution comes in many forms. Any of them would meet the grounds for an asylum claim.

There is a gravity threshold implicit in persecution. here, part of the question was about wether removing children from their parents custody for homeschool would, in fact, amount to persecution ie that it was serious enough. It's not just some form of discrimination that's suffered by refugees on the basis of their group membership; it's a serious threshold. So another question for the appeal is likely to be, would jail time and removal of children, even if the precursor conditions were met, amount to persecution? (And i'm guessing here - I really have no idea what the basis for the appeal will be etc...)

ed for clarity, which may or may not have been achieved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone else said they should have gone to Austria where the language and culture are similar.

I agree this is not the normal procedure but it is much harder to immigrate here legally than you're saying. People enter the lottery and wait years and even decades for permission to live here. If we reformed that system then these questionable asylum cases wouldn't happen.

The lottery system is NOT how most legal immigrants in the US receive their green card.

Some come here through student visas to study, then stay and work and have their employers sponsor a green card. Another way is to apply for a US job and have your employer sponsor you for a work visa, then you can begin the green card process shortly after that.

For educated, employed immigrants, it's a matter of having your employer process the paperwork noting your work contribution. The key is staying at the same employer for a few years. Barring criminal activities, it's a pretty straight forward process.

My parents work for a large company which hires a significant amount of Chinese and Indians for their R&D and IT department (yea, I know....). Their legal department actually does all the green card processing for their workers. You manage to stay with them for three years, you are virtually guaranteed a green card.

I dated a guy who worked with my parents at the company for two years. He originally came on a student visaand received his engineering PhD in six years. When I met him, he had less than a year to qualify for an employee sponsored green card. It's hardly decades of waiting for him. His case was common enough that he was surrounded by coworkers who received green cards through this process.

My parents immigrated to the US in the 80's and while the process was even more hideous then, they and most of their fellow biologists, chemists and other educated immigrant friends got their green card through work. It's not foolproof. Not all immigrants find employers who will sponsor them. However, the vast majority of my parents' immigrant friends who wanted to stay all ended up with a green card.

The other popular option is to marry an American, but I saw few that took this option. The lottery system barely registered a blip among legals. It was more for illegals and those that could not obtain a student or work visa.

If a German family wanted to immigrate to the US over immigrating to Austria, it's a matter of finding a job in the US and acquiring a work visa. Given Germany's friendly relations with the US, I doubt it would require months or years of waiting to get a visa, as in other hostile and/or developing nations.

In fact, if a company sponsors you to come, the waiting can be minimal. It's illegals, typically those that lack education, money and/or skills to get an student or employer sponsored visa who depend on lotteries and smugglers (more often the latter).

I agree that the US immigration system needs reforming. We have need for unskilled workers and yet we deny people the chance to come. However, the German homeschooling family do not have those problems. I think we can assume the father is relatively educated (i.e finished high school), may have some smattering of English (is it taught in Germany), and has a previous, relatively well paying job in Germany. If that's the case, it's a simple matter of putting his resume out to the US to find a job.

The German family's asylum isn't because we have a poor immigration system. It's because they are being used as a political test case. The family would have a much easier time immigrating here through employee sponsored visas than through the asylum courts. This is not the mark of a desperate family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

also - hane: for what it's worth:

I'll say this again, because it's really important. Danger, a fear for physical safety, has bugger all to do with you being a refugee. A well founded fear of persecution does not need even entail a fear of physical danger. Yes, in most cases, physical endangerment is involved. But no - the actual physical harm was not the basis for any determination of asylum. Rather; the physical harm was the form that the persecution took. If a particular religious group were denied rights accorded to others (eg: education, property ownership etc), there would be no 'danger', but there would be decent grounds for an asylum claim.

I completely agree, and what I posted on my friend's FB page was pretty much shorthand. The students of mine who were classified as political refugees have been everything from Vietnamese "boat people" to Polish Solidarity members to Kosovar Albanians, to name a few. The German homeschooling family with the HSLDA ties, I daresay, hardly had it as tough as the aforementioned groups.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maggie, I'm not making a claim for the family. Please understand that.

HOWEVER

I gave an example of one form of persecution that didn't amount to physical danger. I didn't say that was THE way you could establish an asylum claim. Another would be to show that a law that purports to get general unduly targets one particular social group. If your religion requires you to homeschool; the only people who homeschool are your fellow believers; there is a penalty amounting to persecution for homeschooling/following your religious beliefs - that could well meet the criteria for admission as a refugee. And, as I understand, that's what the case was about. (with a diversion into the dog awful natural rights and parental rights argument)

Does the distinction make sense? Being deprived of rights is one form of persecution; it's not the only one. See all the points about of physical harm. Persecution comes in many forms. Any of them would meet the grounds for an asylum claim.

There is a gravity threshold implicit in persecution. here, part of the question was about wether removing children from their parents custody for homeschool would, in fact, amount to persecution ie that it was serious enough. It's not just some form of discrimination that's suffered by refugees on the basis of their group membership; it's a serious threshold. So another question for the appeal is likely to be, would jail time and removal of children, even if the precursor conditions were met, amount to persecution? (And i'm guessing here - I really have no idea what the basis for the appeal will be etc...)

ed for clarity, which may or may not have been achieved.

I get that you're not making a case for the family here, but I think you're missing a bit of information here. It is possible to homeschool in Germany. But whether or not you can, depends on the best interest of the child. The way I remember this case, which got a fair bit of coverage in the media before the Romeikes migrated, was that they objected mainly to swimming lessons and sex-ed. Courts decided that that was insufficient reason, and the parents had no right to withhold education from their children. Point being that the case was all about the children's rights to an education that is afforded to everyone in Germany, versus the parents' rights to educate them. I think that probably needs to be taken into account.

The Romeikes aren't the first family who run into trouble in respect to German laws. The constitution guarantees freedom of religion, so you can believe whatever you like. But you're also entitled to an education and the state has a duty to provide you with one. The idea is that every child gets the same opportunities. As a parent, you can pick schools, but you can't deny your child a public education. So, the question is whose rights are more important in this respect. In Germany, a child's right to an education and the same opportunities everyone else gets, outweigh the parents' rights to homeschool.

Whether or not that counts as persecution is for the US courts to decide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you're also entitled to an education and the state has a duty to provide you with one. The idea is that every child gets the same opportunities.

This is the core of my enormous frustration with any argument about "parental rights". They cannot, CANNOT, trump a child's right to an education etc...

As a parent, you can pick schools, but you can't deny your child a public education. So, the question is whose rights are more important in this respect. In Germany, a child's right to an education and the same opportunities everyone else gets, outweigh the parents' rights to homeschool.

As I understand in Germany you can enrol your child in a private school, so the right that a child has isn't to a public education per say, but to an education on particular topics. From what you say in this families case those things would be sex ed, and swimming lessons - and of course, classroom interactions with your peers.

So let me phrase your framing of the question another say - does the states ability to mandate participation in certain activities justify removing children from their parents, and incarcerating said parents, if they refuse to let the children participate?

Are a child's right to sex ed and mixed swimming classes more important than their right to be bought up within their families belief system? Which, however abhorrent it sounds, is a basic child right under the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

It's not just children's right to the same education as everyone else vs. parental rights; it's more complex than that.

I don't think this is a good asylum claim, I don't. But I'm not sure it's *entirely* legless. And I know, it's not FGM or being physically assaulted for your religious beliefs or reeducation camps, but again - it's "genuine fear of persecution". Having your children removed, and you being put into jail - this is pretty heavy stuff.

Anyway. I know I sound like I'm going into bat for the family. I'm not. I just think the whole thing is fascinating, esp to really see what it means to be a refugee. For what it's worth, I'd love to see protections extended to women on the basis of persecution (ie: make women a protected category) but given how many people would be entitled to asylum claims on that basis, can't see it happening anytime soon ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the core of my enormous frustration with any argument about "parental rights". They cannot, CANNOT, trump a child's right to an education etc...

As I understand in Germany you can enrol your child in a private school, so the right that a child has isn't to a public education per say, but to an education on particular topics. From what you say in this families case those things would be sex ed, and swimming lessons - and of course, classroom interactions with your peers.

So let me phrase your framing of the question another say - does the states ability to mandate participation in certain activities justify removing children from their parents, and incarcerating said parents, if they refuse to let the children participate?

Are a child's right to sex ed and mixed swimming classes more important than their right to be bought up within their families belief system? Which, however abhorrent it sounds, is a basic child right under the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

It's not just children's right to the same education as everyone else vs. parental rights; it's more complex than that.

I don't think this is a good asylum claim, I don't. But I'm not sure it's *entirely* legless. And I know, it's not FGM or being physically assaulted for your religious beliefs or reeducation camps, but again - it's "genuine fear of persecution". Having your children removed, and you being put into jail - this is pretty heavy stuff.

Anyway. I know I sound like I'm going into bat for the family. I'm not. I just think the whole thing is fascinating, esp to really see what it means to be a refugee. For what it's worth, I'd love to see protections extended to women on the basis of persecution (ie: make women a protected category) but given how many people would be entitled to asylum claims on that basis, can't see it happening anytime soon ever.

No worries, I understand that you're not batting for the family, and I'm not batting against them. All I'm saying is that according to German laws, the case is pretty clear, and it's up to the US to decide what to do about it now. Legally speaking, the religious persecution idea doesn't fly in Germany on the basis of homeschooling. And yes, if they kept their kids from school, CPS would step in. I'm not qualified to say whether or not the children would be taken away - personal experience tells me that they probably wouldn't, but supervision of the parents would be in place, but don't take my word for that. So, legally, I can't answer your question sufficiently. Practically, I don't know enough to make a call.

It is a complex case however, that throws up many questions. I hesitate to formulate an opinion, precisely because of those questions. My first instinct would be to say "yay Germany, give those kids opportunities beyond the SOTDRT, so they'll have something to fall back on", but that ignores a whole host of issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No worries, I understand that you're not batting for the family, and I'm not batting against them. All I'm saying is that according to German laws, the case is pretty clear, and it's up to the US to decide what to do about it now. Legally speaking, the religious persecution idea doesn't fly in Germany on the basis of homeschooling. And yes, if they kept their kids from school, CPS would step in. I'm not qualified to say whether or not the children would be taken away - personal experience tells me that they probably wouldn't, but supervision of the parents would be in place, but don't take my word for that. So, legally, I can't answer your question sufficiently. Practically, I don't know enough to make a call.

There was a case of a family, which refused to send their children to school in Germany. They had to pay penalty charges , but the children were never taken away. The oldest sons went to public school for the last year of school, because the parents said that they trusted their sons now enough and that the sons would stay on the "right path". The sons didn't have friends in school but they got really really good grades. They were only bad at sports. They are now in apprenticeships (they get an real education!), but they didn't continue on to make the "Abitur", cause they would have to read Goethes "Faust" (devil!!!). ;)

I will look and try to find the newspaper article(s).

Edit: http://www.sueddeutsche.de/karriere/sch ... n-1.128201

http://www.taz.de/!28493/

http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-63344771.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Like everyone else"? There are millions of people living in the US illegally because the system is so unworkable. If there were a straightforward way to apply for citizenship (instead of lotteries that you can enter and wait decades to win) then there wouldn't be so many illegals or fake asylum cases.

As someone up thread said, most legal immigrants in this country come in on student or work visas. Those are not hard to get. I had a co-worker who was told his work visa was not going to be renewed by the company. He had a work visa with another company in 3 weeks time. If you have an in-demand skill, finding someone to sponsor a work visa is not hard.

I do think our immigration system is broken, but making it easier to immigrate here is not the answer. The U.S. cannot absorb every person that wants to move here. There's only so many resources. So, yes, judgement calls need to be made. Some people will not be allowed to come.

As for this family, I do not think they qualify for asylum. If they truly wanted to move here, one of the adults in the family should have looked for employment with a company that would sponsor a work visa. That would have been the fastest and surest way to get and stay here. The fact that they tried to claim asylum instead of taking the easier and safer route was done simply for publicity purposes. They can cry "persecution" and make themselves seem the martyrs for Christ. I hate to stereotype, but nearly every highly religious person I've ever met goes out of their way to claim they are persecuted for their beliefs. It's like a contest to see who can suffer more for their religion. From being wished "Happy Holidays" by the kid at Target to not getting the right to tell everyone else what they can and can't watch on tv, they all try to out do one another in the persecution claims department. This family is just one more in that group of "woe is me, I'm persecuted because I have to do something I don't want to do". So, yeah, I have no sympathy for them at all and think they should be sent back to Germany.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

This whole thing irks me to no end. This family broke the law. They are special snowflakes who don't care that they broke the law. And I am so tired of hearing about how this law-breaking family's consequences for breaking the law mean that 'Murica's right to homeschool will be at risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it seems strange that they went the asylum route.

Germany is just, well, Germany. They not only require every vehicle to have a GPS, they have also banned

females from narrating the GPS because the German men can't stand taking orders from females.

Or so I've heard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone up thread said, most legal immigrants in this country come in on student or work visas. Those are not hard to get. I had a co-worker who was told his work visa was not going to be renewed by the company. He had a work visa with another company in 3 weeks time. If you have an in-demand skill, finding someone to sponsor a work visa is not hard.

I do think our immigration system is broken, but making it easier to immigrate here is not the answer. The U.S. cannot absorb every person that wants to move here. There's only so many resources. So, yes, judgement calls need to be made. Some people will not be allowed to come.

As for this family, I do not think they qualify for asylum. If they truly wanted to move here, one of the adults in the family should have looked for employment with a company that would sponsor a work visa. That would have been the fastest and surest way to get and stay here. The fact that they tried to claim asylum instead of taking the easier and safer route was done simply for publicity purposes. They can cry "persecution" and make themselves seem the martyrs for Christ. I hate to stereotype, but nearly every highly religious person I've ever met goes out of their way to claim they are persecuted for their beliefs. It's like a contest to see who can suffer more for their religion. From being wished "Happy Holidays" by the kid at Target to not getting the right to tell everyone else what they can and can't watch on tv, they all try to out do one another in the persecution claims department. This family is just one more in that group of "woe is me, I'm persecuted because I have to do something I don't want to do". So, yeah, I have no sympathy for them at all and think they should be sent back to Germany.

You are saying work visas in the US are not hard to get? Seriously? You have to have a particular skill and you have to have a sponsor who can prove you are irreplaceable or unique. You also have to meet particular quotas. Your friend was an exception, not the rule. My husband is from another country and so are all 5 of his employees and I work at a nonprofit with a lot of refugee and immigrant clients. It is not easy to get and keep those visas.

What this family is doing is NOT legal because they came here on a travel visa, which requires that you swear not attempt to immigrate. It ticks me off royally because it is a completely wrong for them receive asylum for this "persecution" when we do not allow in victims of famine, poverty, rape, war and other awful circumstance without compelling cause. I totally agree with your last point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just read the Whiner lady's blog about this and she compared not being allowed to homeschool to force feeding Jewish children pork. :roll:

They are all curiously obsessed with comparing everything to a kosher diet. Some Catholic Fundies I know were shrieking on FB and IRL for months that making Catholic institutions' insurance plans pay for contraception would be the same as eating ham in the presence of a Jewish person. I worked for a Jewish Federation for ten months and no one cared what I ate. Those that kept Kosher were only concerned about what they ate. And--this really blows Fundy minds--not all of them kept Kosher anyway.

As for this topic...I lived in a small town that passed a draconian anti-immigrant ordnance a few years ago by popular vote. The supporters all insisted vehemently that it had nothing to do with race. I have a bad feeling many of them would be (or are) in full support of this family of illegal immigrants. The hypocrisy is painful. :angry-banghead:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are saying work visas in the US are not hard to get? Seriously? You have to have a particular skill and you have to have a sponsor who can prove you are irreplaceable or unique. You also have to meet particular quotas. Your friend was an exception, not the rule. My husband is from another country and so are all 5 of his employees and I work at a nonprofit with a lot of refugee and immigrant clients. It is not easy to get and keep those visas.

What this family is doing is NOT legal because they came here on a travel visa, which requires that you swear not attempt to immigrate. It ticks me off royally because it is a completely wrong for them receive asylum for this "persecution" when we do not allow in victims of famine, poverty, rape, war and other awful circumstance without compelling cause. I totally agree with your last point.

ITA and I hate them gaming the system for their fake persecution. Just curious, do you think the Bush Administration would have had a different stance on this family? His Attorney Generals were of a totally different philosophy. I guess it would have depended on which one was AG at the time. Al G. would have done whatever W said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ITA and I hate them gaming the system for their fake persecution. Just curious, do you think the Bush Administration would have had a different stance on this family? His Attorney Generals were of a totally different philosophy. I guess it would have depended on which one was AG at the time. Al G. would have done whatever W said.

More likely what Cheney and Rove determined was politically expedient. I think yes, especially if it was a critical midterm election year. They would cite the Pilgrims and how they fled from religious persecution to the shores of the now-US, yadayadayada.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can totally see the Bush Administration AG's backing this family, but I don't know enough about their particular immigration policies to speculate. This is being set up as some kind of attack on homeschooling and fundie values. What else is new, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

two points -

1. but look at all the poor people that don't get admitted!11!

There is NO obligation on a state to admit people who are determined to be refugees, states can only cannot refoule (return/force them to leave) those who have that status. That's it. That's the whole of the RCC.

The number of refugees that a country formalises the migration status of has no bearing (at all) on how many other migrants can be admitted (unless the state has made provisions that it does. if so, they usually relate to onshore/offshore processing numbers) That this family would be admitted isn't keeping anyone else out.

if you want victims of poverty, famine, rape, war and other awful circumstances to be allowed to migrate, then you want to totally revamp the US migration system. Some particular people may get in under complimentary protection (where there is a threat of significant harm), but they'll still not be refugees (though they'll have the same protections afforded to them). Examples of situations where complimentary protection would kick in :

arbitrary deprivation of his or her life

the death penalty

torture

cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment

degrading treatment or punishment.

But be clear: The refugee system is NOT meant to deal with "bad situations" generally. That's not its purpose. And be ready for it - hundreds of thousands to millions of people are likely to be displaced under the "awful circumstance" of climate change over the next 50 years. It'll be really interesting to see how this changes international migration laws generally. there is no movement, at all, to extend protections to climate displaced people.

I totally understand the desire to admit people on humane grounds, but the US (or most western countries) at not, in anyway, geared to admitting people from less than "ideal" backgrounds.

And for what it's worth - the stories of "my professional family members had no problems getting a greencard!!11!" are nothing more than anecdotes. And not very helpful ones at that. Admittance to the US is damn near impossible unless you're a) an in-demand professional; b) a filthy rich investor or c) you are married or related to an American citizen. The vast bulk of people in this world do not fit into any of those categories.

2.

Re: the 'not legal'.

You have it back the front. This family are not "illegal immigrants". They are asylum seekers. They have a full legal right to remain in the US while their application is processed. How they entered is irrelevant. Once the claim for asylum is made, their presence is entirely legal. It would be *illegal* (under the refugee convention) for the US NOT to allow their asylum claim once they made it to the US. (see above).

You may only apply for asylum if you are arriving in or already physically present in the United States. To apply for asylum in the United States, you may ask for asylum at a port-of-entry (airport, seaport, or border crossing), or, if you are already in the United States, you may file Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal, at the appropriate Service Center. You may apply for asylum regardless of your immigration status, whether you are here legally or illegally.

The Immigration board in the US has held that an asylum seeker who lies to obtain a visa in order to escape her country is not ineligible for asylum once she gets to the United States, though the misrepresentation may be considered an adverse factor depending on the circumstances. [Matter of Pula, 19 I&N Dec. 467 (BIA 1987)].

Why? Because the law recognises that people have to do "less than ideal things" in "less than ideal circumstances".

The majority of asylum claimants in the US come from China - you can bet that every single last one of them lied on their visa applications. We'd be up in arms people who were liable for asylum were penalised for fibbing in order to be admitted into our countries. It's the only way they can actually make a claim for refugee status in the US. The other option is going to a camp and presenting yourself, then sitting around and waiting and hoping you're one of the minuscule % of people that are moved each year from camps into third countries.

IF this family is found to have a valid claim (IF) I trust you'd be willing to extend the same protections to them as well. As the EUCtHR found against them, they'd have to leave Europe to secure protection. I'm glad people don't personally think the family should be eligible for asylum - I'm sure you'd be shocked (shocked!) to see who gets in and who is kept out under the protection provisions of immigration and migration acts. Ones personal opinion of wether something = persecution of not isn't that useful a yardstick. Persecution has a particular meaning. "Social group" has a particular meaning. (rather like murder has a particular meaning under law, that's different from manslaughter etc.. you might think someone should fall under one category or another but thinking it isn't the same as it being so)

Anyway. Sorry :) I'm not rooting for the family, it just bugstheshitottame when people get refugee law wrong. I come from a country asylum seekers pose the biggest immigration debate we have going (sky dog protect us from the federal electioneering over the next few months - it's going to be ugly as); as misinformation abounds. the refugee debate is not the place for Save the Poor Huddled Masses!11! arguments. It's missing the forrest for the tress. And it's a big damn forest that urgently needs tending.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it seems strange that they went the asylum route.

Germany is just, well, Germany. They not only require every vehicle to have a GPS, they have also banned

females from narrating the GPS because the German men can't stand taking orders from females.

Or so I've heard.

Every GPS thing I've seen in the last several years gives you both male and female options, and a choice of accents....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every GPS thing I've seen in the last several years gives you both male and female options, and a choice of accents....

I' m glad I heard wrong. Of course the person who told me this was my 81 year old mom. I knew I shouldn't have trusted her.

She probably just made it up. Is it accurate that cars there are required to have GPS? One of my FB friends living in Germany told me that. I assumed he knew of what he spoke since he just bought a beautiful new BMW in Germany. Or is everyone just lying to me?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The majority of asylum claimants in the US come from China .

Maybe this is too much of a generality, but why do they seek asylum? Is it political repression and religious persecution or both or other things entirely? And also, why do they come to the United States? Why not Europe or Australia? If you have time to answer, I'd like to know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I' m glad I heard wrong. Of course the person who told me this was my 81 year old mom. I knew I shouldn't have trusted her.

She probably just made it up. Is it accurate that cars there are required to have GPS? One of my FB friends living in Germany told me that. I assumed he knew of what he spoke since he just bought a beautiful new BMW in Germany. Or is everyone just lying to me?

Oh, I was wondering about that, because I hadn't heard anything. And my German dad would have a minor fit if he was forced to deal with even more technology. But the bolded bit might shed some light. There was an issue not too long ago with the inbuilt GPS systems in BMWs. They only did female voices, customers complained, and there was a recall. If it's compulsory now to have a GPS, it's probably one of those things where new cars are supposed to have one built in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.