Trace Bates 3

[noseybutt]

8 minutes ago, Hasunah2 said:

It would also mean that they have to accept Christian homeschoolers who are not the right kind of Christian homeschoolers. 

Good point. This has been the Achilles heel for HSLDA. They hold themselves out as representing Christian homeschoolers…except they really only represent a slice of that community.

[rebeccawriter01]

2 hours ago, llucie said:

Isnt his whole thing being a champion of homeschooling. Seems like he should be interested in their case.

The homeschooling issue is moot on this one. The Romeikes got to stay longer and finish homeschooling their German born children. This case now is about them staying for being made to leave. Kelly can cry and carry on all she wants. The two school age children were born here and are not being asked to leave. So homeschool has no stake in it now. 

Webster isn't interested in asylum cases or immigration reform other than continuing to build the wall (one of his prouder achievements). He supported one bill that would end all immigration for 3-5 years while a conservative solution would be worked out. His constituents are anti-immigration and are conspiracy believers that "gang members from Mexico" are being settled into Florida neighborhoods by Biden. His constituents aren't going to see the difference and will question him (not vote) that he supported some immigrants who are being deported from another state.

The bill that the congresswoman wrote is DOA. We've got another possible shut down looming. The committee it was sent to only cares about Hunter Biden. Nobody is likely to risk their reputations and careers on it. With immigration someone like Taliban Dan is going to sidestep it all the way to re-election. He doesn't want to be on the record supporting it even if they are Christian Homeschoolers. More than likely his team has already prepared talking points to explain how busy he is but that he is praying for that family and for God's will. 

 

59 minutes ago, noseybutt said:

This.

The complexity here is fascinating.

Per immigration law, US allows for asylum based on persecution according to any of the following: race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.

The Romeike's could not apply based on religion since Christians are not persecuted in Germany. Instead they alleged that their persecution was because of their "membership in a particular social group"--with that group being "Christian homeschoolers."

The thing is, defining who belongs to a "particular social group" and which groups should qualify has been a super thorny issue for the immigration courts. LGTBQ people often qualify. Battered women sometimes qualify. Someone who runs afoul of the cartels may or may not.

In other words, any politician who agrees to expand the "particular social group" definition to include Christian homeschoolers is, in effect, putting themselves in a position where they will pressured to accept other obviously endangered "particular social groups" that they don't want to accept.

The irony is delicious.

There is also the stone cold reality that Christian homeschoolers, while a vocal group, are not sufficiently large enough in numbers to win elections. And there is often tension within mega-churches and other faith communities between those who homeschool as part of their faith and those who do not. 

So the original judge on the asylum case did call it persecution. However, the Justice Department and Immigration disagreed. It's a matter of nuance. Originally they said they were being persecuted as Christians doing what the Bible told them to do, etc.

The appeals board said that no it wasn't persecution of a religion. The government in Germany requires all children to get an education. There are many reasons a family might want to homeschool, but other than health of the child, all are banned from doing so. Because the German government provided a blanket law where everyone was treated the same, it was deemed not to be an event that would warrant asylum. 

[noseybutt]

Here is the 6th circuit ruling from 2013, if anyone is interested: https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/13a0137p-06.pdf

[CarrotCake]

Do we know how the Romeikes got into fundementalism? I am always intrigued how fundies arise in Western Europe.

[käsekuchen]

Someone on reddit posted the initial decision that granted them asylum and was later overturned. I came back to read it but  only found it on a secondary site. I found it super interesting that Uwe Romeike earned 12,000 €/month when they left in 2008. Sadly, I can't find the median pre-tax income for that year, but even today that's a very high income.

Also, how does the collection of facts work in asylum cases like this? Some of the facts of the case he mentions in regards to the legal situation in Germany are wrong. And is it normal for decisions in the US to be written in that tone of voice and general style?

[Smash!]

3 hours ago, käsekuchen said:

Someone on reddit posted the initial decision that granted them asylum and was later overturned. I came back to read it but  only found it on a secondary site. I found it super interesting that Uwe Romeike earned 12,000 €/month when they left in 2008. Sadly, I can't find the median pre-tax income for that year, but even today that's a very high income.

Since it’s Germany I assume this is after tax and health care insurance. Mr Romeike had to have a very good job to earn this much. I‘m even more confused why they chose the Asylum route instead of for example a transfer to the US via his company. Maybe he even would‘ve qualified for a work visa.

[käsekuchen]

1 hour ago, Smash! said:

Since it’s Germany I assume this is after tax and health care insurance. Mr Romeike had to have a very good job to earn this much. I‘m even more confused why they chose the Asylum route instead of for example a transfer to the US via his company. Maybe he even would‘ve qualified for a work visa.

I think you're right, I just didn't want to assume an even higher income since it isn't stated outright. But it would make more sense to use net income in that context, since the judge is arguing the 7.000 Euro fine is too high for them to pay on that income. To put that into context, from what I found online, the median net income in 2008 was around 1.800 €/month.

I'm wondering what work he did in Germany - I always thought he was a piano teacher, here, too (and Die Zeit says in a 2008 article he's a gelernter Musiklehrer (so he holds a degree in teaching music)) - but that seems quite unrealistic knowing his income.

[JermajestyDuggar]

The family will be interviewed by Glen Beck. 🤢🤮😷

[gobucks]

What was that ig post about mean mommy bloggers and fake news????

[JDuggs]

24 minutes ago, gobucks said:

What was that ig post about mean mommy bloggers and fake news????

Without a Crystal Ball

[BeccaGrim]

19 minutes ago, JDuggs said:

Without a Crystal Ball

What did she post?

 

[noseybutt]

12 hours ago, käsekuchen said:

Someone on reddit posted the initial decision that granted them asylum and was later overturned. I came back to read it but  only found it on a secondary site. I found it super interesting that Uwe Romeike earned 12,000 €/month when they left in 2008. Sadly, I can't find the median pre-tax income for that year, but even today that's a very high income.

Also, how does the collection of facts work in asylum cases like this? Some of the facts of the case he mentions in regards to the legal situation in Germany are wrong. And is it normal for decisions in the US to be written in that tone of voice and general style?

Thanks for the link!

To answer your questions, generally in an asylum case it is up to the applicant to produce all evidence and experts.

It's up to the government (ICE) attorneys to refute.

In my experience, ICE rarely bothers to counter experts with their own experts. It's just not efficient.

So if you have a compelling expert and no counter-expert, yes, very inaccurate portrayals of the country of origin can happen.

I rarely see written opinions in that depth. My guess is that the judge wrote a lengthy opinion because he is including homeschoolers as a "particular social group" and he had to know that would be controversial. IOW, he was expecting an appeal. 

That's pure speculation on my part. My understanding is that Judge Burman is fairly well respected--but also as subject to pressure and whims as anyone else. In the US, immigration judges are appointed by the Attorney General (and the Attorney General is in turn appointed by the President). Burman is a Janet Reno (Bill Clinton) appointee, so probably a Democrat.

 

[JDuggs]

Lydia posted that Ryker was on a 2.5 hour feeding schedule and it was tough, but she had a lot of help from family. Typical stuff about a newborn. WACB turned it into Lydia being unprepared for motherhood.

Spoiler

 

[front hugs > duggs]

Not me thinking I'd stick up for Lydia or Trace, but WACB seems nuts here to me. Granted I haven't been a parent before, I feel like it's okay to express how exhausting it is to feed a newborn, let alone an underweight newborn, on that feeding schedule. I don't believe expressing that tiredness/hardness is at all indicating she wasn't going to do it, or her baby wasn't worth it, or CPS should be called because she's clearly unfit to parent by saying how tiring it is. Like, what!?

[SassyPants]

Is any first time mother prepared for the 24/7 tiredness of life with a newborn? I’d say no.

And how do they know that the baby is dropping his O2, are they monitoring him beyond looking for changes in color? They must have a monitor to state that, right? Didn’t he go right home from the hospital? I doubt he has a monitor or we would have heard about it by now. Poor baby Ryker and family, getting deported with a critically ill child on life support at home.

Clearly these folks are stressed by big life changes all happening at once. Welcome to adulthood in the real world.

My suggestion- They should lean into faith and family. Maybe KJ could come over and do some night feedings so the new parents can get some sleep. Maybe Gil could help them with some wise, scriptural words.

Edited September 29, 2023 by SassyPants

[noseybutt]

@käsekuchen

One of the complicating factors of US immigration is that we have jus soli, meaning anyone born on US soil is automatically granted citizenship. This complicates family-based immigration because it's fairly common for families to be mixed-status with one or more (often minor) children citizens with no direct path to PR or citizenship for the other family members.

IME this is a real struggle for immigration judges. It doesn't make sense, for example, for a child to have citizenship but no parent with status. It renders the citizenship worthless for many years. (Or, more realistically, puts the family in limbo for many years.)

I do think immigration judges have more sympathy for asylum cases when the entire family presents together. It's cleaner and prevents the mixed-status problems. 

US also differs significantly from EU in terms of how immigration laws are enforced. Basically it is easier to live as an undocumented person in the US than in  Europe. I don't have current data at hand, but my recollection is like 3-4% of the US population is undocumented, while it's like 1% in Europe.  We just don't have as many central points of registry for healthcare, education, jobs, etc. and thus it's possible to fly under the radar.

US also a high tolerance for "deferred action," which IMO is terrible, horrible, no good policy. Deferred action is a formal acknowledgement the person has no status but they will also not be deported either. It's awful policy because people build a life here, often shifting their language and culture and education. Eventually it makes less and less sense to deport them, especially if they are functioning members of society. That's the whole frustration with DACA---these are young people who primarily have known no other life than the US and are culturally American. IMO we would be far better off giving those young people a direct path to citizenship. 

But our Congress is at a bitter stand-still and bipartisan immigration reform is low down on the list of priorities.

[gobucks]

Isn't 2.5-3 hours typical feeding schedule for all newborns? It is exhausting! No one came over and let me sleep all night though. We didn't live by family when ours were little. 

[JermajestyDuggar]

9 minutes ago, gobucks said:

Isn't 2.5-3 hours typical feeding schedule for all newborns? It is exhausting! No one came over and let me sleep all night though. We didn't live by family when ours were little. 

My kids never made it 3 hours in between feedings. My second son nursed on demand. Which seemed like it was constant. That kid was attached to my boob all the time the first 4 months of his life. 

[Coconut Flan]

All of mine ate at least every two hours at first.  Feeding and diapering was all I did for awhile.  I'm not sure why they were surprised at 2.5 hours, but some people just do not prepare themselves for parenthood.  Was Kelly useless yet again?

[CanadianMamam]

So I think that they were likely on forced feedings the first week. I had a preemie and for the first month after we brought her home we had to feed every 3 hours on the clock. This was from start to start, so it didn’t matter how long the feed took, we still had to go at the 3 hour mark (so sometimes that was only 2 hours of sleep). It was physically exhausting, far worse than my other two children I was so relieved when we could stop. 
 

I believe that was what Trace and Lydia was doing at first and then they were the given the go ahead to feed on demand. Which yes can be often but it can also mean longer stretches. My oldest did 6 hour stretches from 10 days old. My middle did not, but even though it seemed he was constantly on my boob it was not as physically exhausting as my daughter’s feeding schedule. 

Edited September 30, 2023 by CanadianMamam

[GuineaPigCourtship]

Nothing anyone could have said would have prepared me for the actual reality of being a new mom.  Logic had nothing on living it.  I hope they're getting some rest, it's pretty rough getting adjusted... but this doesn't change the reality of the immigration stuff.  They did CHOOSE to have a child at this time knowing what they'd be facing, so that part is on them.

[Keys]

My babe was breastfed and we were instructed by our doctor and lactation consultant to feed her on demand. No schedules. That meant she was on my boob every 1-2 hours day and night for the first several weeks. Maybe even till she was a couple months old, tbh. It’s all a big blur of sleep deprivation existence for me now, lol. 2.5 hours seems very far apart compared to what my experience was. We were lucky if she slept for 2hr at a time at night. But if they’re formula feeding then a schedule is more common because babes can be over fed with formula. 

[GreenBeans]

29 minutes ago, GuineaPigCourtship said:

Nothing anyone could have said would have prepared me for the actual reality of being a new mom.  Logic had nothing on living it.  I hope they're getting some rest, it's pretty rough getting adjusted... but this doesn't change the reality of the immigration stuff.  They did CHOOSE to have a child at this time knowing what they'd be facing, so that part is on them.

True.

And also, other new parents/moms have other things going they don’t. It’s not like Lydia needs to go back to a job. I went back to my job as a lawyer 8 weeks after birth (8 weeks is mandatory parental leave for women after birth, can’t be shortened when you’re employed). I was exclusively pumping because breastfeeding did not work, entirely sleep deprived… it was EXHAUSTING! And then all this good advice “just sleep whenever he sleeps” - yeah, well, I was pumping or working at those times, that only works for moms with no job and an easily nursing baby.

Yes, they chose to have a baby despite knowing about this immigration mess (possibly even thinking it would make it easier for Lydia to become a US citizen). But even without this worry, it’s still be extremely exhausting and stressful to be a new parent, and there’s no shame in acknowledging that. It’s normal to feel awful, exhausted and sleep deprived, and it doesn’t make you a bad or unprepared parent. I think it was over a year before I got a good night’s sleep again. You just don’t know how it feels and can’t really imagine until you’ve experienced it, no matter how well you’re prepared.

Edited September 30, 2023 by GreenBeans

[Kiki03910]

14 hours ago, JermajestyDuggar said:

The family will be interviewed by Glen Beck. 🤢🤮😷

I wonder if they know he's a Mormon.

/evil laugh

[raayx01]

17 minutes ago, Kiki03910 said:

I wonder if they know he's a Mormon.

/evil laugh

They were interview by him years ago, when they first got there.