Homeschooling: German Family Gets Political Asylum in U.S.

[BurtWorm]

This is a great precedent, isn't it?: categorizing another country's public education system as political oppression.

:eyes:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100302/us_time/09171196809900




By TRISTANA MOORE Tristana Moore – Tue Mar 2, 7:05 am ET
Update Appended: March 1, 2010


The Romeikes are not your typical asylum seekers. They did not come to the U.S. to flee war or despotism in their native land. No, these music teachers left Germany because they didn't like what their children were learning in public school - and because homeschooling is illegal there.


"It's our fundamental right to decide how we want to teach our children," says Uwe Romeike, an Evangelical Christian and a concert pianist who sold his treasured Steinway to help pay for the move.

...


So why did he seek asylum in the U.S. rather than relocate to nearby Austria or another European country that allows homeschooling? Romeike's wife Hannelore tells TIME the family was contacted by the Virginia-based Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), which suggested they go to the U.S. and settle in Morristown, Tenn. The nonprofit organization, which defends the rights of the U.S. homeschooling community - with its estimated 2 million children, or about 4% of the total school-age population - is expanding its overseas outreach. And on Jan. 26, the HSLDA helped the Romeikes become the first people granted asylum in the U.S. because they were persecuted for homeschooling.

The ruling is tricky politically for Washington and its allies in Europe, where several countries - including Spain and the Netherlands - allow homeschooling only under exceptional circumstances, such as when a child is extremely ill. That helps explain why in late February, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement formally appealed the Romeike ruling, which was issued by an immigration judge in Memphis, Tenn. His unprecedented decision has raised concerns that the already heavily backlogged immigration courts will be flooded with asylum petitions from homeschoolers in countries typically regarded as having nonrepressive governments.


"It's very unusual for people from Western countries to be granted asylum in the U.S.," says David Piver, an immigration attorney with offices in a Philadelphia suburb and Flagstaff, Ariz. In 2008, the most recent year for which data are available, only five Germans received asylum in the U.S. (The Justice Department declined to comment on specific cases.) Piver, who is not involved in the Romeike case, predicted the U.S. government would appeal the decision "so as not to offend a close ally."


Successful asylum petitions typically involve applicants whose situations are more dire, such as women who were forced to undergo abortions or genital mutilation and men whose lives were threatened because they are homosexuals or political dissidents. But Piver believes the Memphis judge was right to grant the Romeikes asylum, since the law covers social groups with "a well-founded fear of persecution" in their home country.

In Germany, mandatory school attendance dates back to 1717, when it was introduced in Prussia, and the policy has traditionally been viewed as a social good. "This law protects children," says Josef Kraus, president of the German Teachers' Association. The European Court of Human Rights agrees with him. In 2006, the court threw out a homeschooling family's case when it deemed Germany's compulsory-schooling law as compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, an international treaty drafted in 1950. Given this backdrop, it's little wonder the Romeikes came up against a wall of opposition when they tried to talk to their school principal about the merits of homeschooling.

One of the Romeikes' concerns was about their kids getting bullied. But their main objection involved what was being taught in the classroom. "The curriculum goes against our Christian values," Uwe says. "German schools use textbooks that force inappropriate subject matter onto young children and tell stories with characters that promote profanity and disrespect."

...

[Hell Hath No Fury]

1. So a crazy ass "christian" --

can get political asylum here, but a woman who is in danger of having her clit sliced off or being forced into marriage or killed because she brought "dishonor" on her family can't.

Uh huh.

Gottcha.

[rantormusing]

12. It's not always about you

I think there's a forum for that stuff already.

[Cerridwen]

13. Why yes there is. It's called General Discussion.

Sometimes posters here point out the double standards built into our many systems.

Oooo, and guess what? It's not always about you and what you want either.

Welcome to DU.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

42. What you said!

:hug: :hi:

[MicaelS]

2. Previous thread

http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4245496

[Better Today]

3. Well, the beginnings of this country are rooted in religious extremists

trying to find a place for themselves, or was it England that was just trying to get rid of them, little of both... yeah, this doesn't surprise me a bit.

[csziggy]

58. Whacked out Protestants were thrown out of a number of countries

Many of my ancestors were among them, too. German Protestants escaping persecution to England and America, English sect members finding refuge in the Netherlands and America, French Huguenots to America, and so on. In one family I was just reading about how a woman was sentenced to be lashed for making a religious nuisance of herself - she was an English Quaker!

At least some of my ancestors had redeeming value - one family had to leave the colony where they were since the father defended a woman accused of witchcraft. Another man, scandalized his small upper state New York community by naming his some Erasmus Darwin in 1830 - long before Erasmus's grandson was known for his theory of evolution.

[kctim]

4. Mandatory school attendance?

I thought Hitler was defeated?

[BurtWorm]

5. Mandatory education is a Nazi ideal?

How come we have truant officers in the US?

PS: Is educating children some kind of human rights abuse in your book?

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. Some people can't resist Godwin's Law (nt)

[ProgressiveProfessor]

15. Not a Godwin...the German law dates from the Nazi era

so the term is relevant

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. "In Germany, mandatory school attendance dates back to 1717"

That's in the OP. Yes, it's an instance of Godwin's Law.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

It was rewritten and structured under the Nazi era

The OP is incomplete

[BurtWorm]

20. And it hasn't been rewritten and restructured since?

:popcorn:

[ProgressiveProfessor]

24. Not to my knwledge, which is why it is referred to as a Nazi era law (No Godwin Here)

Enforcement has been spotty and it has been claimed that its current purpose is assimilation of "new residents" into Germany society, history, and traditions. Considering the problems in France and elsewhere, the Germans may have a point.

[muriel_volestrangler]

37. Are German cars refered to as Nazi cars, because Volkswagen was started by the Nazis?

Are German roads called Nazi roads, because the Nazis started the building of autobahns?

It's a pisspoor excuse for an argument if you say "Hitler did this", when it's something the country (or its predecessor) has been doing for over 200 years, and it happens that one of the laws involved came from Hitler. It's also a kneejerk reaction - if Germany is mentioned, then reach for the stereotype.

[fishwax]

73. I think the system was restructured when Germany was broken up after WWII

Can you clarify what you mean by calling it a Nazi Era law that hasn't been restructured? (Or perhaps point to somewhere I could read more?)

As I understand it, the Nazis didn't really change the education laws/system from the Weimar Republic, other than to make Nazi propaganda a central component of it. Of course, I could be wrong. I'd still be pretty skeptical that education reforms from the Nazi era would survive unchanged through the breakup of Germany, the implementation of a new constitution, and reunification.

[olegramps]

38. You think Hitler was running Germany in the 1700's? You grasp of history a little lame.

[kctim]

7. How come?

To keep the brats in school. NOT to determine what qualifies as school.

And the abuse statement is idiotic at best. Of course it is not. Dictating to parents who, what, where and when their child is educated, could be though.

[BurtWorm]

9. That we give parents priority say over their children's education is more arbitrary than we realize.

Americans take it to be sacrosanct. Yet there's no good reason to suppose parents are any better equipped to know what's best for their children than the state is just because they're *parents*. If you doubt that, go visit a Family Court or a foster home. It's more for convenience that we give automatic guardianship to parents. But this, unfortunately, results in consigning some children to abuse and neglect.

In the case of many of these home-schooled children, the result is to consign them to an education that denies the reality of evolution because it's inconvenient to their parents' belief system.

[kctim]

10. I don't totally disagree

Because there is also no good reason to suppose that the state is better equipped than ALL parents to know what is best for ALL children. Does trusting parents with the responsibility of raising there own kids as they see fit lead to some cases of abuse and neglect? Of course, but I have no doubt the number isn't any higher than those who suffer abuse and neglect at the hands of the state in public schools.

And to be honest, what difference does it really make if a few homeschoolers don't teach evolution? Is knowing all about evolution really going to matter when searching for a job or even after landing a job? No. Does it have anything to do with learning how to read and write? Do math? No. Does not knowing about evolution affect others around you? No. Should you, or the state, even really care about the belief system of others? No.
If it wasn't for the money, most people wouldn't care one way or another about homeschoolers.

[BurtWorm]

19. Why should some children be marked for imposed ignorance

just because of the accident of being born to parents who believe in imposing ignorance on them?

The main question this story provokes: Should the US be accepting as "political refugees" parents who refuse to have their children socialized in an ally's public education system?

[kctim]

40. Marked?

Other than differing opinions on religion, can we really say the majority of homeschooled children get any less of an education than those who attend public school? Not if we are talking about an actual education that prepares them for their future.

Should the US accept "refugees" under such circumstances? Probably not. We should respect our allies right to run their own country as they wish, even on matters when they do not respect the individual rights of their own people.
The US should require them to follow the normal immigration procedure.

[BurtWorm]

50. Let's be clear that we're talking about parents who homeschool their children for religious reasons

Some, I know, homeschool for reasons of concern for their children's education qua education, not because they disapprove of the social context of public education. If I used the word homeschooling too narrowly, then I apologize.

Yes, I do believe a child who is taught by his or her parents that the earth is 6000 years old because the bible says so and who is not taught accurately about biology and geology since Darwin and Lyell is marked as a freak by his or her parents. I believe it's wrong on some level to do that to a child. You're essentially conditioning him or her to believe a lie and to fear the truth. I would go so far as to say this is immoral, if morality is defined as a standard that enhances sociability. And I would hope the US government considers carefully the wisdom of bestowing special status on parents like these when there are so many seeking refuge in the US.

[WolverineDG]

14. The state is a horrible parent

Children are abused/neglected & killed in foster care as well. Anyone who thinks the state will do a better job than most parents needs to get their head examined.


dg

[BurtWorm]

18. The state can't raise children into adults as efficiently as most parents, that's for sure.

But the state is better at looking out for the welfare of some children than their parents. Not all children. Not most children. But some children are better off in the state's care than they are in their parents'.

This doesn't change the fact that that good parenting is utterly arbitrary. Most parents are probably good enough, otherwise we wouldn't have lasted as long as we have. But bad parenting is widespread. And in some cases the parents who do the most damage are those who assert their rights to raise hteir children as they see fit--the ones who can never see the arbitrariness of good parenting because they assume their children are property and aren't just borrowed.

[WolverineDG]

21. Well, not all "bad parenting" is abuse

and parents DO have the right to raise their kids as they see fit, including religious instruction (or none) & whether or not to home school.

"Most parents are probably good enough"---do you know just how authoritarian you sound? Who determines what is good enough & what isn't? There are those on DU who want kids thrown into CPS jail because their parents make them go to church, or home school them or make them wear "modest" attire. It's frightening to see people who yell & scream for the government to respect THEIR rights to turn around & want to strip those rights from parents who don't believe exactly as they do.

dg

[BurtWorm]

26. THey have the right because it's given to them, not because it's inherent.

I'm not arguing that we change the system. I'm only arguing that we realize what the system actually is. I think it's too much of a temptation for most people to not be strictly sentimental about parents and families. The plain truth is that these German parents are given the benefit of the doubt that they know what's best for their children, not because they **really do know** what's best for them. In my opinion, they clearly don't know that it's better for everyone concerned if their children knew the truth about the origin of species rather than have them learn falsehoods as if they were truths. But I acknoweldge that it's just easier all around if we yield our interest in the health and welfare of our neighbors' children to their parents. But we should be fully aware that we do this based on nothing other than our deeply ingrained habit of believing children are a parents' property.

[WolverineDG]

27. Parental rights have been recognized for much longer than the US has been around

Sorry, but you are sounding too authoritarian for me, wanting to substitute how you want children raised (by state-imposed rules & sanctions) as opposed to their parents, who are legally & financially responsible for them until they are 18. I've seen DUers advocate really stupid things, like wanting a 3 year old's consent before getting religious instruction. GMAFB.

The intrusion into private lives that you appear to want runs counter to the freedoms we're supposed to have in this country. You can't demand the right to raise your children as you see fit, then turn around & deny that right to others.

dg

[BurtWorm]

30. I haven't said a word about anything but what the rights of parents are based on.

They're not based on sentiment. They're based on convenience. I'm not pretending to know a better way, I'm just critiquing the system as it is. I don't take it at face value. I see the serious problems with the system as is. I don't argue--and haven't argued in this thread--that the state should be in control of raising children. As I said, it's simply not efficient enough a system.

However, the state--and the people of a nation--do have an interest in how children not one's own are raised. It's pretty to think all parents are competent enough to raise people who will, in turn, be good parents. But we know that's not totally the case. We know dysfunction is rampant among American families. Don't we? Or do you think rampant dysfunctionality is a myth? Even given the amount of dynfunctionality in American families, I don't know of many people who would trade this system for another, like one where extended families or "villages"--let alone the state--raise children. It might be helpful though for people to realize the arbitrary nature of families. It might be good for more people to question the wisdom of allowing parents to teach their children to be ignorant, to teach them that knowledge of the truth is evil. One day, those ignorant children will become our neighbors.

Don't we have an interest in educating our community's children? I'm just asking the question, not arguing that communities or states have greater interest in children than parents. (I do question that parents are the only ones with an interest in how their children are raised.)

[olegramps]

39. Since you believe that parents rights are sacrosanct:

1. Should the state have the right to demand that children even be educated? Hell no! Its not the states business.
2. Should the state have any thing to say about how you discipline your child? Hell no! Parents have a right to beat their kids as the see fit.
3. Should the state demand that private teachers and schools meet certain standards? Hell no! Just the state sticking it nose in.
4. Should the state have any say in setting the standards for home schooling? Hell no! If a parent wants to teach the kid that the earth is flat and was magically created 6,145 years ago at 8:00 A.M. it their right.

If indeed parents rights supersede the state perhaps we should abandon public education and leave it totally up to the parents. I think that would be a dandy idea that would significantly lower my taxes and I will gladly leave it up to the parents to exercise their divine righs. Especially the irresponsible ones that have more kids than they could ever afford to educate if they had to pay for it. Thius seems to be the Obama plan. Charter schools for all. Only this time around I would like the parents, who rights are being infringed on, to pay for it.

[WolverineDG]

41. Ah yet another "if you don't think as I do, you're for abusing children" response

Sorry, but in this country, parents & children have rights that must be respected. You can do that AND protect children from abuse.

dg

[BurtWorm]

60. The family we're talking about is a German family being given political aylum

for breaking German laws. THe US is going out of its way (at least at the district court level) to give rights to these Germans. Is this a good thing when the US denies asylum to so many other foreign-born families--including ones who have been living in the US for years?

[olegramps]

64. I suppose that you don't believe teaching a child that earth is flat is a form of abuse?

[AlphaCentauri]

45. there is an epidemic of dysfunctional families

the government couldn't be worst that

[raccoon]

62. Newsflash: There always has been, it's just that it used to be people didn't talk about it.

Short decades ago, there was the meme of the parents were ALWAYS right. Most people knew a family where the father beat the mother, or the parents beat the kids, or neglected them. Most of the time, nothing was done about it.

[liberalhistorian]

34. I think what he's referring to is the fact that

homeschooling is not permitted in Germany and the only school students can attend is the public school. Now, I'm sorry, but banning homeschooling is ludicrous. People should have the right to homeschool if they choose to do so. And it's not just for religious reasons in this country. Many nonreligious and/or progressive families homeschool as well, I even know a few of them. Governments should not have the right to refuse to allow parents to homeschool if they wish to do so.

[BurtWorm]

36. The question is not if homeschooling should be banned.

The question is, should it be the policy of the United States government to treat Germans who want to homeschool their children as political refugees?

[tango-tee]

35. What on earth are you talking about?

Unless your post was an attempt at sarcasm, all I can say is WTF?

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. So they admit it was a publicity stunt for the American homeschoolers

They could have moved to a German-speaking EU country, but they needed the extra media coverage of claiming asylum in the US to feed their massive egos, even if such disruption is bad for theor children. What arseholes.

[rantormusing]

11. It wasn't the education system that was oppressive

It was the fines, threatened jail time, and the possibility of being called abusive parents and have their children taken away.

I never went to public school, and i don't really have a problem with their existence. There are public schools that totally outperform the private school i went to, but if a parent wants to home-school or send them to a private/religious school than that's ok in my book. To threaten them with onerous fines and legal dramas is pretty oppressive, congratulations to the family, and i hope they enjoy their stay.

[JVS]

33. Germany does have some private schooling, but they're really anal about this kind of thing.

[Confusious]

17. Just what we need, more psycho christians

Don't we have enough already?

[aungsungsuchi2]

23. not all christians are psychos...

....

[Confusious]

29. No, but enough are to be a pain in ass.

And drive us backwards instead of forward.

If you read the article, he qualifies as pyscho christian.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

43. But just about all fundie home schoolers are.

Nuff said.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

44. Computer fart --

double post

[Raineyb]

28. I know. Don't we have enough fundy jackasses in this country?

Do we really need to import more?

Meanwhile people who are in danger of being killed if returned home are in fact returned home. Lovely.

[Confusious]

31. Well, you know

A christian who gets looked at the wrong way is more oppressed then a child in a genocidal sectarian war.

:sarcasm:

[aungsungsuchi2]

22. studies show that private schools do not perform better...

than public schools academically. i don't know about homeschooling.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

25. I would like to see some backup for that...real world experience tells a different story

Higher graduation rates, higher college acceptance rates etc are the norm for private schools, just like the one Obama went to (Punahou) and is sending his kids to (Sidwell Friends).

My own pet theory is that those willing to pay extra for education for their children are also supportive of the education process, work with their children outside of school etc. Effectively they are skimming the good parents out of the public schools. YMMV.

[Jakes Progress]

47. Actually, my real world experience

tells exactly that story. The truth lies in the power of averages. A few private schools excel for just the reasons you give. Add to that the fact that most of these elite schools have parents and grand parents with higher education. These are formidable factors in predicting educational success. What evens things out are the thousands of very poor private schools where education is stunted by religious or philosophical myopia. Put them together and you have an average.

Of course the private school industry tends to amplify and advertise only the results of the few "rich kids" schools. They skew the studies and mess with the results. This is even more true in the case of home schooling. For every MIT student that was home schooled their are literally thousands of educationally stunted children dropped back off in the public schools some where between grades 6 and 10. Public school teachers are well aware of this group. We usually got them enrolled sometime in the middle of the fall semester. Parents start to see that the charming little 6 year old that they couldn't bear to expose to all those common folk in the public schools are nowhere near able to compete with the kids that don't get to go outside and play until after three o'clock.

My work for many years let me see the workings of public, private, charter, and home schooling systems. I have consulted with, trained, and worked with teachers of all of those. There are good, bad, great, and abysmal examples in each category. Lumping them together is a sure sign that the reality of the complexity of learning has escaped the lumper.

Trashing or lauding one group in its entirety is just a signal that someone doesn't understand. The one group that I would praise is the public school teacher. There are some exceptional talents there. And there are some dreadful failures. But as a group in the field of education, they do the most with the least support and understanding. I've had my hand in firing bad teachers. It isn't done in a blanket fashion. I've also helped to turn around ten times as many. Putting all teachers in a category is like saying that Ted Kennedy and Joe Lieberman are just alike. The people who want to fire all teachers or damn all schools are the kind of people who would make bad teachers. Bad teachers lump all their students into one category, teach each of theme the same, and think the results should be the same.

If Arne Duncan were smart, cared, and had spent a couple of years in a public school classroom he wouldn't be advocating the stuff he is pushing.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

48. It was different in Hawaii, even in the 60s and 70s

Lots of smaller private schools in addition to the big name ones like Punahou. It was gospel among the parents that is you cared for your kids, you got them into a private school, it almost doesn't matter which one. Most had some sort of religious affiliation but it was pretty minor and nothing fundie.

Recently (last couple of years?) a U of H prof wrote a book about this. It was quite controversial. Many legislators there who are loud and strong supporters of the public schools and unions in public were sending their kids to private school.

[Jakes Progress]

49. There has always been a snob appeal

involved and a fear factor. In the south, my experience was with Louisiana, parents didn't want children in public schools because they didn't want them going to schools with black children. It was so bad in Louisiana that the public schools were definitely affected. If all the rich and influential people have their kids in private schools, they have little desire to fund or support public schools. As they vote down taxes and cut salaries and staff, the schools suffer which makes even more want to avoid the schools. It is a shameful circle.

Better was a time like the early to mid century. I used to office in a school that had been in place since the twenties and had been added to over the years. The newer sections were utilitarian and spare. The two wings from the forties were gorgeous. Decorative tile work, carved moldings, detailed murals. This was from a time when the populace just assumed that their children deserved the best, that it was only fitting that children be given every chance.

We are a meaner society now. Parents see nothing wrong with taking care of their own while letting other children suffer, of skimping on our obligations to create a learned populace. I had a friend who faked her way into a religions training class on education in the 80's. The parents there were told to disrupt and harass schools, bring things to a standstill with protest and tax cutting. The goal was to get more children into private schools. They said their research showed that would be a tipping point, a point where enough people were avoiding the public schools that they would start to demand public funding for the private schools in order to recap their tax funds.

How much better to put the money into decent programs and sufficient rooms and resources so that all children have a chance. Cutting and running is a cowardly way to react to this problem. Plus. it will only do more harm than good.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

51. In Hawaii, then or now,its not snob appeall. The widely held belief is that even the most modest

private schools are better and safer than the public schools. Its also not a racial thing.

[Jakes Progress]

52. Hence my comment about a meaner society.

As long as you can convince people that those common people are dangerous and a drag on your precious, it will let you screw them over and feel good about it.

In the real world, parents flocking to private schools is a neocon dream, one that bill bennet helped build under reagan. Starve the government is their goal. Starve the schools and they win. Playing into their hands is a fools game. You will wake up in twenty years to find no public schools and your child's education in the hands of Exxon and Walmart. Private schools are corporatism going after their money with our children's lives.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

53. The bulk of Hzawaii private school students are "commopn people"

Children of union members, government workers and the like. That is the real world in Hawaii

[Jakes Progress]

55. A paradise for reaganites and other neocons?

Then they have their dream world on the islands. Do you wish to spread bill bennet's dream to other states?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

65. Like I said earlier, its not a political statement or thing over there, never has

Most of the private schools have a strong liberal bent to them

[Jakes Progress]

67. Read more on the subject.

It's not a matter of political intent, but sociological impact. All the best intentions in the world won't exculpate a society that doesn't step up to its responsibilities. In a civilized nation, one of those responsibilities is to provide an education for all children. It wouldn't be difficult to believe that HI schools suffer if people choose to ignore their duties and concentrate on their own selfish needs. By putting, as you say, most children in private schools, the public schools are neglected and ignored, robbed of tax funds, support, and even of involved and concerned parents. Those parents put their concerns and support in other places.

This was what happened in Louisiana schools. It started as white flight, but grew into the eventuality that even black parents sought private schools because the public schools had been starved of tax funds and support (the neocon plan) by the number of more influential tax payers who chose not to support the public schools. Hence, there are calls for tax exemptions for private school tuition and for funding the private schools with tax money. I would bet that this is a hot topic in HI also. This was the plan. Starve the schools. Tax money for private schools. Corporate schools getting tax money. Privatization of education. Elimination of public schooling.

It's not a hard line to follow, especially when it seems to be working so well.

[blueamy66]

63. I went to Catholic school

and my parents worked their butts off to send me there.

Snob appeal? Yeah, I was real cool getting off the bus everyday.

[Jakes Progress]

74. Once again

a single personal experience trumps millions of contrary examples. You miss the issue on so many points that the futility of refutation overwhelms.

Enjoy your life.

[blueamy66]

75. I do enjoy my life.

What, I'm not allowed to relate my personal experiences?

And, for what it's worth, my Catholic HS was founded by Mexican immigrants and 3/4 of the kids going there were poor and their parents scrimped and saved and "worked off" the tuition for their kids.

Why so rude?

[Jakes Progress]

76. That's what I wished for.

I knew that you would not be willing to examine this issue from a perspective other than your own experience. Of course you can relate your own personal experience. It's just that in this case it is one small example of something that really has nothing to do with the topic. The topic is how the country is moving towards a position of providing tax dollars for private schools. It is a goal of the extreme right wing.

I think people should have the option of paying for private schools. You seem to be happy that your parents did. The problem is that when enough people do this, the public schools suffer as support and eventually funds are taken away. You don't say why your parents found it necessary to "work their butts off" to pay for what the state was supposed to supply for free. Were the schools not good enough? If so, do you think that when you and your educationally focused parents left it was a good thing for the students whose parents didn't send them to private school? Did your parents participate and support the private school you attended? If so, did they also contribute their time and talent with the public school?

I'm sorry if you felt deprived or put down because you attended a Catholic school (as your prior post seemed to indicate), but by escaping a school your parents did not approve of, you left a thousand behind. Most of the students that I have worked with in private Catholic schools do think they are privileged and are really glad they are there.

Had your parents and the other kids whose parents scrimped to remove their kids from the schools and give them what they thought of as an advantage over other children actually worked with the public schools, campaigned for board members and public servants who would do something about improving the schools supported by tax payers, they may have been able to benefit more than just their own children. If people stopped following the test scores, voting down taxes for schools, and spent as much time learning what should happen in schools as they do football or American Idol, then schools wouldn't need to be turned over to the corporate structure.

Now if you went because your parents were afraid that common folk and the secular state would taint your soul, that is another problem and actually more germane to the OP.

As for being rude. You were the one who jumped in to my thread to tell me for no particular reason why you didn't feel like a snob. Rude was ignoring all the paragraphs and points in my thread and commenting only on the title and only to tell us how it didn't apply to you. Which was not the point of my reply or of the thread. And hear again, you only seem to judge a thread by how it affects your feelings.

So I just suggested that you enjoy your life. You found that rude. You didn't really want to hear about the problem of millions of children, only to say how well your life was working out. Okay. So enjoy it. I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings, but you had your say and now I've had mine.

[blueamy66]

78. Wow.

Yes, I am thrilled that my parents paid my way thru Catholic school. It meant alot to me and it meant alot to them. They both attended back east and I was their legacy. Both parents came from working class families who scrimped and saved and went without so that they could have Catholic educations.

Fuck all if I know anything about public schools. I never attended one and don't have kids to attend one. And I could not care less about them now. If I had a kid I might....naw, I'd send them to Catholic school.

My parents left a thousand behind? Maybe people should think before they bring a thousand into this world, ya know?

My parents afraid of common folk? BWAHAHAHAHAAA! My Dad served in the Korean War and worked 2 jobs for most of his life and my Mom worked for the phone company. My, you can jump to conclusions quickly.

Here's the deal....don't ever think to know anyone on a message board, k? I am not a snob, nor were my parents. If you are going to propose that families of private school educated children are privileged, I am going to call you on it.

Oh, and did you catch the part about the school being founded by poor Mexican immigrants, or did you gloss over that?

Jesus, posting on a message board is such a chore.

[Jakes Progress]

81. Thank you for illuminating my point.

So you don't mind posting on a thread about public schools though you say you don't know "fuck all" about them, that you never attended one.

And of course you aren't a snob but you say you wouldn't send your kid to one even though you just said you know nothing about them. That's some pretty snobbish behavior. So maybe your parents didn't mind the common folk. It appears that you do though.

But of course none of that matters since you don't really care about the subject of education or public schools, you know, the subject of the thread. As you say, you "could not care less about them". All you cared about in your myopic little rant was that you thought someone was calling you a snob. You didn't get the point of the post, apparently read no further than the headline.

Don't tell me not to draw conclusions about people from what they write on a message board. You have revealed a lot about yourself in prior posts, but here you really put yourself on display. So I'll tell you what the deal is. It is not making every post just about you. It is not thinking the whole world and all of its problems should be filtered through your own meagre experiences.

(Oh, and I'm sorry that that vaunted Catholic education didn't work out for you. If you had used "alot" once, it might have been a typo, but twice is just uninformed.)

[JVS]

32. I don't think allowing home-schooling would harm Germany.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

46. Given their past --

I can see why the government would want every German child to have a full, accurate historical education of their country. Allowing homeschooling there could lead to some German children being taught nothing but pro-Aryan propaganda with no historical counterpoint.

[vadawg]

57. seems it was the public schools who were the ones teaching all the pro aryan stuff

last time germany had an issue with the fascists, a lot of people simply dont want whatever shade of government having the control of what their children learn..

[demodonkey]

54. Wait until they get hit with the USA health insurance bills.....

...hope they don't have any pre-existing conditions!

[Fumesucker]

56. Good point..

I wonder where music teachers are going to make the kind of money it takes to have good individual insurance here in the USA?

I can't imagine that these freedom loving folks are going to work for a large organization or government where they might get subsidized insurance..

[upi402]

59. Immigration law favors Religious Missionaries (Christians)

True story.

[BurtWorm]

61. You mean if an undocumented alien tells an INS agent that he or she is here on a mission for Jesus

they might be granted asylum? Amazing!

[upi402]

68. Well... a specific example here of just one form;

USCIS Form N-470


6. Solely because of my capacity as a clergyman or clergywoman, missionary, nun, or sister of a denomination or mission having a bona fide organization in the United States - Check Box F if you are to serve in such capacity for a qualifying mission or organization.

F. Solely because of your capacity as a clergyman or clergywoman, missionary, brother, nun or sister of a denomination or mission, having a bona fide organization in the United States.

9. Solely in the capacity of a regularly ordained clergyman or clergywoman, missionary, brother, nun or sister; and


3. The nature of the business conducted by the employing organization, church, religious denomination or interdenominational mission organization;

[BurtWorm]

69. That wouldn't seem to cover a lay family of Germans who want to homeschool their children.

That seems to refer to "professionals" in the church--people paid, contracted or commissioned by a church to do work for it. But I'm not an immigration lawyer, so I could be wrong.

[upi402]

70. OP said non-Christian education = oppression by our immigration

and your claim to value argument seemed to be that it was a bad precedent. I agree with you 100%.

I posted that there are instances of preference given to religiosity in immigration law. I provided an example after you expressed surprise, but I didn't search much. To search for a specific example that may be more specific to your case mentioned in your OP, you might try here;

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=db029c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD&vgnextchannel=db029c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD

It was BushCo who put INS under Homeland Security, of course.

[BurtWorm]

71. I'm just wondering if this is the kind of shit the family's lawyers will pull

referring to rules and regs like the one you pointed to. I would hope Holder's DOJ would not do what they seem to prefer to do, which is take a conservative approach to rolling back Bush era rule-making. Whatever rule the family is appealing to that got them in ought to be looked at, at the very least, and hopefully chucked out the window!

[Kievan Rus]

66. Like we should listen to Germans on what a 'social good' is

My goodness, I can't stand "It Takes a Village" types. No wonder I voted for Obama over Clinton in the Democratic primaries.

[BurtWorm]

72. Huh?

:dunce:

What are you saying? You're saying we should let this family in over the thousands of other families seeking refuge in the US?

[earth mom]

77. There's nothing wrong with Homeschooling EXCEPT that fundies are giving it a bad name. nt

[KatyMan]

79. I'm going to get into trouble

but I don't think your average parent (mainly meaning me) is smart enough to teach a kid what they need to know to advance as person in our society. Yes, it takes a village.

[readmoreoften]

80. Meanwhile, gay people facing persecution can't get here, likewise people's same-sex spouses.

But apparently this country needs more crazy, ignorant religious freaks.