H/T to Loopyloo’s: Ride: Eric Holder and Homeschooling: Can the Federal Government Force Your Kids Into the Public School System?
Loopyloo referenced an interest post on this subject. Caffeinated Thoughts also provides a good discussion: Eric Holder: Banning Homeschooling Doesn’t Violate Fundamental Rights. Here is how it begins.
I read an article written by Michael Farris, the founder and chair of HSLDA – the Home School Legal Defense Association. In it he discussed the case made by government lawyers representing Attorney General Eric Holder during the court hearing for the Romeike family. You may remember the Romeike’s sought political asylum in the United States due to Germany’s persecution of homeschooling families. A federal district court judge granted the Romikes asylum here against the wishes of the Federal government. The government appealed that decision to the Board of Immigration appeals and won. HSLDA appealed to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals where the case (Romeike v. Holder) will be heard.
Farris outlined three arguments made by the U.S. Department of Justice lawyers which should be of concern to American homeschooling families: (continued here)
Consider the record of the Obama Administration. These people have little concern for individual rights or freedom. Instead, they have focused on implementing their agenda. Now that they are now in their second term, reelection is no longer a concern for them. We can only expect them to be more reckless.
Once again, the Obama Administration has it backwards. As all Christians know (except “Christian” Obama), the first teachers of the child are the parents. As parents, we can choose to PERMIT the government to teach them — not vice versa.
oarubio – Thanks for your comment.
You said, “as parents, we can choose to PERMIT the government to teach them — not vice versa.” Why would parents want to make that choice? Why do parents allow our government to pressure them to make that choice? The answer? Parents do not consider what it involves.
When we send our children to a public school, we let politicians choose both our child’s teachers and the curriculum. We put politicians, people we supposedly do not trust, in charge of who teaches our children and what they learn. Thus, every day we turn our children over to the care of strangers, people we cannot rightly claim to know. We also cannot claim to know what those teachers teach our children.
What is the one thing parents do know? Government-run schools avoid the Bible. Because government runs our education system, most people have little knowledge of the Bible. We have grown up thinking we know what it contains, but few people these days bother to study the Bible. So few know the Bible, and few have any idea what they have lost. That, unfortunately, includes many people who call themselves Christian.
Yes, it’s sad how “busy parents” have allowed others to be the primary influences on their children. And, as you said, many “Christians” don’t have the foundational knowledge to make key decisions. Too many are unaware that they don’t have to permit someone else to teach their children.
As to having the Bible in public schools, there may be some issues here (but not because of the corrupted “separation of church and state” concept). I’ve learned to appreciate the significant differences in how various Christian groups interpret Scripture and what has been handed down from the apostles and early Church fathers.
I would like to see the return of respect for religion in our schools and a reversal of he whitewashing which revisionists have applied to our nation’s early history. Since the 1920′s there has been a terrible gouging of “history.” Christianity DID shape our country and this must be brought back to the classroom. These virtuous examples must be restored!
Well said.
I believe homeschooling is one of the greatest tools we have to bring up Godly children who are taught the truth about our nation’s history, government”s role in society and the citizens proper role in government.
Is there any wonder why our government is opposed to homeschooling?
Lord bless. Thanks for reblogging on this important subject.
Rob Barkman – Agreed. Raising Godly children certainly seems to be what most homeschooling parents want to do. Thus, it is our government, not homeschooling parents that should frighten and disappoint us.
I suspect any Administration would take the same position. The question for the federal government in asylum cases is whether the complained of foreign action fits within a fairly narrow set of criteria for when asylum status can be granted to immigrants. The criteria are (roughly, I don’t have the statute in front of me) race, religion, nationality, political opinion.) The federal government must consistently apply these criteria in order to prevent the asylum exception from becoming a great leaky hole in our immigration laws. This Administration has been the toughest in decades in immigration law enforcement and they have to maintain that strong stance if they are to have any hope of effecting positive reform in our antiquated immigration programs. There is also an overlay of foreign policy in any immigration decision. that is why the Constitution so clearly gives plenary authority to the federal government to control immigration. Germany is an important ally on many fronts. It is not in the interests of the United States to assail them for persecuting their citizens (which I do not believe they are – most european countries have national public school systems that must meet rigourous standards. Public education is more central to the homogenizing role of the national state than here. I wouldn’t much care for it, but that’s because I grew up in our de-centralized system).
I feel badly for the Romeikes. If they were American citizens, this issue would never arise. But the federal government has to consistently apply the law. Mr. Ferris’s linked piece makes it sound as if this is a war on home schooling. It’s not. This is just a Rule of Law issue.
You said this, and you expect to be taken seriously?
With respect to immigration, what this administration is primarily concerned about is recruiting potential voters for the Democratic Party, and their teacher union allies have may it abundantly clear where they stand.
Pingback: Eric Holder Dismisses Legitimacy of Homeschooling « Strangers and Aliens
Pingback: German Homeschool Case May Impact U.S. Homeschool Freedom « Family Survival Protocol
The last Administration to be as aggessive about arresting illegal employees and border security was the Eisenhower’s. By my reckoning, that adds up to decades. Yes, I expect you to take me seriously on that point. It’s empirically verifiable.
We can leave to one side what the ultimate motivation of either party is on immigration policy for the moment. I wasn’t addressing that. I suspect that Obama’s aggressiveness on this front may have a hidden agenda – to shore up organized labor support for other issues or to build political credibility generally to support new immigration policy. But the fact remains that this Administration has been notably tougher than any of its predecessors in recent memory on the enforcement side.
Taking a narrow view of the amnesty outlet in the Immigration and Naturalization Act is part of that enforcement mentality (to return to the subject of the post). Conservatives would applaud this if the Romeikes were Hondurans, Salvadoreans, or virtually any other refugee group.
You can expect whatever you want, but you sound like a spokesman for the Obama administration, and that’s no compliment. Gosh! You even throw in the usual accusations of racism or whatever.
This was a stunner when I read this. The pincher move by the Obama regime begins to remove any and all freedoms.
Yes, he has been gradually moving this country toward the nonsense we used to rail against the U.S.S.R. for being. I wrote a blog article on “Obamunism” on Dec. 29th. I’m still amazed that he was even elected once.
bunkerville and oarubioTony – I was disappointed to see this too, but not surprised. The Democrats have made it easier to immigrate to this country illegally than legally. Their policies favor poorly educated immigrants, immigrants who are more likely to enjoy government handouts. They would give a whole new meaning to the “land of the free.”
What did the Democrats do to make it “easier to immigrate to this country illegally than legally”? In what way do their policies “favor poorly educated immigrants”? The people they have been chucking out in record numbers are the “poorly educated”, not the Ph.D scientists and engineers.
Immigration policy has been largely the same under Republican and Democratic Administrations. Although Obama has been tougher than his predecessors, there has always been a certain degree of illegal immigration, particularly over the southern border. it is considerably reduced in the past several years, but the sheer inadequacy of the legal immigration system does, as you suggest encourage illegal immigration. I assume by your statement that you favor making legal entry much more feasible and manageable for immigrants.
Just like Obama, you make a bunch of claims that don’t match reality. Next, just like the “good” Conservative you say you are you will be telling us Obamacare is a great idea.
Which “claim”, pray tell, does not match reality.
The health care reforms were a starkly bad idea in that they were inadequate measures to deal with the problem of inadequate health care at unaffordable costs that afflicts the Nation. Why would I say that it was a good idea? And what does that have to do with the Asylum issue that is the subject of the post.
To an outsider, it might appear you’re just down to name-calling. I suggest you join the debate on a substantive level.
You have just made wild assertions that I feel no obligation to take seriously. If you want me to take your wild assertions seriously, then give me a reason why I should bother. The mere fact you call yourself a Conservative is not a reason to take you seriously.
Of course, not. No one deserves to be taken seriously because of a label that he attaches to himself. The labels are virtually meaningless. I’ve never claimed any special status. But you have accused me of making “wild assertions”. I was challenging your assertion, which I believe, based on some knowledge of the field to be counter-factual, that “democrats” made it easier to immigrate [sic] here illegally that legallly, and that Obama’s stepped up enforcement policies favor “poorly educated immigrants”. How do you support those statements. Or are these just “wild assertions” that we should “feel no obligation to take seriously.” by the way, the mere fact that you call yourself a Conservative is not a reason to take you seriously. . . . ” particularly when you are living in some fact-free universe.