Entries categorized as ‘Immigration’
It is illegal to home-school your children in Germany. Even so, German parents Uwe and Hannelore Romeike believe home-schooling will give their children a better education than sending them to a school. So they pulled their children out of school, hoping the law would not be enforced.
They were wrong. The New York Times lists what they were threatened with:
[F]ines eventually totaling over $11,000, threats that they would lose custody of their children and, one morning, a visit by the police, who took the children to school in a police van. Those were among the fines and potential penalties that Judge Burman said rose to the level of persecution.
Facing the facts, the family decided to pack up their belongings and move to Morristown, Tennessee.
A Memphis judge recently granted the family asylum so they could remain in the U.S., and so they can educate their children the way they see fit.
The Romeikes’ troubles are not over, however. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is appealing their grant of asylum. It is unclear why the agency would do such a thing. Neither Mr. nor Mrs. Romeike pose a threat to national security. They are not criminals. They are not a drain on the economy; Mr. Romeike earns an honest living as a piano teacher.
American parents don’t have much in the way of educational choice. But it does appears they do have more than German parents do. Immigration and Customs Enforcement should stand up for the Romeikes’ rights.
(Hat tip: Megan McLaughlin)
Categories: Immigration · Regulation of the Day · education
Tagged: asylum, educational choice, Germany, Hannelore Romeike, homeschoolers, homeschooling, icf, Immigration, immigration and customs enforcemnet, ins, new york times, romeike, romeike family, school choice, Uwe Romeike
Gene Healy’s latest column begins: “This Thursday, Barack Obama will swing by Oslo to pick up the Nobel Peace Prize — just over a week after he announced that he’d escalate the war in Afghanistan. Awkward.”
Categories: Immigration
Tagged: afghanistan, barack obama, nobel peace prize, obama, oslo, peace prize, president barack obama, president obama
The Boston Globe’s Jeff Jacoby wrote a wonderful column yesterday that highlights the inconsistent stance of many conservatives when it comes to immigration:
If Republicans really believe, as Baker says, that “it doesn’t make any sense’’ to allow illegal immigrants to enjoy the same benefits as other state residents, why stop with in-state tuition? Why not bar them from driving on state highways? From camping in state parks? From using libraries?
Of course illegal immigration is a problem. But it can only be solved by overhauling our dysfunctional immigration laws, not by demonizing or scapegoating illegal immigrants. Those immigrants didn’t come here in order to be lawbreakers; they broke a law in order to come here. That’s a distinction with a crucial difference – one that sensible and principled conservatives should be able to understand.
A point of my own to add: many conservatives say they have no problem with immigration itself. Just illegal immigration. Often, this isn’t actually true. Here’s a thought experiment: suppose the definition of legality were changed overnight. Suppose the twelve million men, women, and children currently here illegally are now, suddenly, legal.
People who really are only against illegal immigration will now welcome these new citizens to America with open arms. After all, they’re legal now.
But many conservative immigration opponents don’t think that way, even though they use that reasonable-sounding legality argument. They oppose legalization. They tar it as “amnesty.”
That means some factor other than legality plays into their opinion. They shouldn’t be using it as an argument. Maybe they believe that the U.S. is overpopulated (it isn’t). A belief that immigrants consume more public services than they pay for in taxes (in the long run, they don’t). Whatever. Let the intellectual battle over immigration move to those fronts, then. The legality argument is just a smokescreen. It is the triumph of semantics over substance.
Immigration is either good or bad for America. This is true whether or not the laws in the books reflect that. That is the substance of the matter. I happen to think immigration is an almost unmitigated blessing. And I will defend that view with logic and data. Not an appeal to a dysfunctional legal code rooted in obsolete Progressive-era thought.
Categories: Immigration · International
Tagged: conservative, illegal immigration, Immigration, jeff jacoby, legal immigration
Immigration is not always the clearest of issues. Just watch the talking heads on the tv. Both sides have the maddening tendency to claim the same argument as their own — “I am for legal immigration, and against illegal immigration.”
Sounds reasonable enough. That’s probably why so many people say it in the first place. But where does that kind of thinking take us?
The quota on H1-B visas for highly skilled workers is currently 65,000 per year. Remember the pro-legal, anti-illegal argument. That requires being for 65,000 visas, and against 65,001 visas. Think about that for a minute. Isn’t that weird? 0.0015% is the difference between saying yes and no.
It gets stranger. Congress constantly changes the definition of “legal immigration.” Restrictions are tightened in one bill. Loosened in the next. Do people then change their mind every time Congress passes new immigration legislation?
This is not a rigorous line of thought. That’s why I don’t think very many people actually think that way, even if they say they do. Most people have some optimum immigration level they’d like to see. This is where the real immigration debate lies.
My preference is on the high side. For a lot of reasons, I favor letting in more immigrants. Morally and economically, in my heart and my head, that is what I believe to be right.
Others would prefer to have fewer immigrants. They have their own reasons, just as sincerely held.
Being for legal immigration and against illegal immigration may sound sane and pragmatic. Really, it is neither. It reduces a debate over the well-being of millions to semantics.
Combatants in the immigration debate should base their opinions on what they feel is just. Not on whatever happens to be legal this year.
Categories: Argumentation · Immigration · International · Media · Philosophy
The Mayan calendar comes to an end in 2012. Thousands of people in the Netherlands, of all places, think this means that the world will also end.
One believer thinks this can be a good thing: “I don’t like it here anymore. Take immigration, for example. They keep letting people in.”
Sounds like Lou Dobbs has an international following.
Categories: General Foolishness · Immigration
Rep. Anthony Weiner is introducing legislation to make it easier for foreign fashion models to get visas and come to the U.S.
I’m all for it. But why only models? There are millions of other would-be immigrants who deserve a fair shot at coming here, too.
Categories: Immigration
“The House voted Tuesday to improve the visa approval process for foreign artists, addressing a problem that has resulted in some orchestras and groups not engaging those from abroad,” writes the AP.
This is an excellent start. Immigrants are a blessing for America’s economy and culture.
But why only artists? There are millions of people who want to move to America. Most of them are not artists. Why isn’t Congress moving to let them in, too?
Categories: Immigration · International
The U.S. government is scuttling plans for jaguar conservation efforts. One activist says the reason is the plans interfere with the proposed U.S.-Mexico border fence.
Does this mean that jaguars are emigrating illegally? Are they taking jobs away from mountain lions? I can’t wait for Tom Tancredo to weigh in on this one.
Categories: Immigration · International
Just sent the following letter to the Save the Old Dominion group. If they respond, I’ll post it here.
December 19, 2007
Save the Old Dominion
c/o Help Save Manassas
PO BOX 4191
Manassas , VA 20108
info@savetheolddominion.org
Sir or Madam:
I read with great interest an article on your coalition’s support of House Bill 55, which would require Virginia ’s state government to provide services in English only. It would also establish English as the official language of Virginia . This is an important part of your coalition’s larger mission to reduce our state’s illegal immigrant population.
Clearly, it is to one’s economic and social advantage to speak English in America. And I agree with you that current immigration law has significant problems. Immigrants should be here lawfully.
But it is not our place to tell other people what language they shall speak. Likewise, it is a shame that current immigration law makes some people criminals for the heinous crime of choosing to live in America . More restrictive policies would only make matters worse.
People should be free to live where they please, and to speak as they please. I resent to my marrow that you would presume to make those decisions for other people.
Sincerely,
Ryan Young
Arlington , VA
Categories: Correspondence · Immigration · International
