27 illegal immigrants and convicted sex offenders were apprehended by U.S. Border Patrol agents in February. 15 illegal immigrants who are members of violent street gangs were also taken into custody that month. The arrests happened in the Rio Grande Valley area.
Two additional men, one convicted for murder and another convicted for voluntary man slaughter, were also arrested in the area that month.
11 of the arrested gang members belong to the Los Angeles-based Mara Salvatrucha gang, better known as MS-13. The four others men were members of the 18th Street gang.
Disturbingly, the majority of the illegal immigrants arrested for sexual crimes committed such assaults against children. Various charges against the individuals include felony child sexual contact, lewd acts with a child, sexual exploitation of a child, and sexual assault of a child.
An increasing number of individuals accused of sex crimes including children have been apprehended near the United States/Mexican border.
As Breitbart Texas reported earlier this week, 46-year-old Francisco Javier Sanchez, a man facing multiple child molestation charges, was arrested on Sunday. Officers caught Sanchez, an El Salvadoran man who is a permanent resident in Georgia, attempting to leave the U.S. The officers’ database showed an arrest warrant for Sanchez for bail jumping in Georgia. After the warrant was confirmed, it was revealed that it had stemmed from charges of child molestation and sexual battery of a child in 2012. Sanchez was accused of raping his ex-girlfriend’s two teenage daughters.
Acting Chief Patrol Agent Raul Ortiz said, “Border Patrol agents protect this nation from all threats. Those threats are not always posed by terrorists or drug smugglers; sometimes they take the form of sex offenders and gang members. Agents are ensuring the safety of our children and the security of our communities by keeping these dangerous criminals off our streets.”
The Constitution does not condone or forbid homosexuality
A recent survey conducted by ABC News and the Washington Post reveals the woeful ignorance of Americans when it comes to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The poll also shows many Americans believe the government has the right to use violence to force business owners to service gays, even if a business owner opposes providing service on religious grounds or, for that matter, any other grounds.
“Most oppose a right to refuse service to gays, including on religious grounds. And, by a closer margin, more also accept than reject gay marriage as a constitutional right,” ABC News reports.
“81 percent say businesses should not be allowed to refuse service to gays and lesbians; 65 percent say so even if the business says homosexuality violates its owners’ religious beliefs. That refers to controversial legislation approved by the Arizona legislature but vetoed by its governor last week.”
The Constitution does not condone or forbid homosexuality. In fact, it does not discuss issues concerned with morality. Therefore all court rulings on gay rights, gay marriage or any other matter concerning sexuality are unconstitutional and illegal.
“The Bill of Rights was written to address political freedom for the people and to set limits of power for a federal government,” writes C. Howard Diaz. “I cannot stress enough that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are political documents, not a moral ones.”
Proponents of gay rights cite the 14th Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause. Section 5 of the amendment gives Congress “the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article,” including, the courts have determined, marriage rights (specifically in Loving v. Virginia).
Some argue, however, that the 14th Amendment betrays the rest of the Constitution, specifically the 10th Amendment, because it forces the states to follow rules mandated by the federal government. Many see the amendment as a shameless power grab by Republicans following passage of the 13th Amendment outlawing slavery in the 1860s.
Beginning with the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the federal government systematically attacked property rights in America. The law “gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country,” Ron Paul said when he voted against a bill (H.Res. 676) hailing the 40th anniversary of the landmark legislation.
“The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society,” Paul said from the floor of the House.
The above cited poll reveals a disturbing trend — millions of Americans believe government has the right at gunpoint to tell other Americans how to live their lives and what they can or cannot do with their private property.
Liz Wahl’s on-air resignation from RT brings up the question: What are U.S. mainstream media journalists whitewashing?
RT news anchor Liz Wahl resigned on air yesterday, saying, “I cannot be part of a network that whitewashes the actions of Putin. I am proud to be an American and believe in disseminating the truth and that is why after this newscast I’m resigning.” (SOURCE)
RT is, of course, entirely funded by the Russian government. I have been a guest on the network a few times but stopped over six months ago for essentially the same reasons Liz Wahl cited in her own resignation: RT has an editorial slant designed to protect the interests of Russia, not the United States of America.
And yet, at the same time, most of the U.S. media isn’t interested in protecting the United States of America, either. Instead, nearly all the media giants exist solely to protect the interests of powerful corporations: weapons manufacturers, GMO seed companies, vaccine manufacturers, pharmaceutical factories, corporatized agriculture and junk food giants.
U.S. journalists are whitewashing all the important issues in America
In reality, nearly every mainstream media journalist is whitewashing far more than Liz Wahl ever did. Sure, Putin is in the middle of a military power grab in Ukraine, but American corporations are poisoning the American people every single day through toxic foods, toxic medicines, toxic agriculture and toxic information.
Personally, I applaud Liz Wahl for what she did while at the same time condemning mainstream journalists for not doing the same. Every time you watch Anderson Cooper, Wolf Blitzer or Christiane Amanpour report from a “war zone,” you are in fact watching media-prostitute-apologists who are whitewashing the for-profit war industry.
Every time you see a “health correspondent” promote flu shots on CNN or MSNBC (if anybody even watches that junk tabloid channel anymore), you are in fact watching a real-life prostitute-journalist whitewash the truth about vaccines and disease epidemics. (They will never tell you, for example, that flu shots still contain mercury, a potent neurotoxin that damages the brains of children and adults.)
Every time you witness a large newspaper such as the New York Times shamelessly promote the interests of biotech companies like Monsanto, you are in fact watching a major publisher whitewash potentially devastating issues like genetic pollution and the loss of agricultural diversity for America.
Truth be told, the vast majority of mainstream media organizations in the United States are engaged in little else besides whitewashing in order to protect the financial interests of the powerful corporations that literally own the media.
Telling the truth is simply not allowed in the mainstream media
A person who genuinely seeks the truth can never work for the mainstream media, almost by definition. Truthful journalism is never allowed in the media unless it either doesn’t matter or it just happens to coincide with the interests of powerful corporations. Those interests usually involve profits but sometimes also center around social engineering or long-term cultural programming such as making people believe ADHD is a real disease and children are not cognitively complete unless they are taking psychiatric drugs.
Media programming of the masses was especially evident in the days following the tragic events of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, after which the media fomented such outrageous fear, paranoia and anger that the American people willfully surrendered their freedoms so that Congress could pass the Patriot Act and create the Department of Homeland Security. Those actions later led to the NSA spying on all Americans: recording their phone calls, webcam videos, mobile device texts and financial transactions, all without warrants and completely outside of law.
Has any U.S. journalist ever resigned on air, saying they were tired of being part of a network that whitewashed these crucial issues and lied to the American people?
Of course not. Such actions are not written on the teleprompter, and the mainstream media routinely hires news anchors who are incapable of thinking for themselves.
Only total morons need teleprompters to report the news
I’ve done hundreds of hours of televised news production, hosting several popular shows and broadcasts, and I have never used a teleprompter in my entire life. That’s why the mainstream media has no interest in someone like me. They only want people who will stick to the script and not say what they truly believe.
That’s why Fox News fired Judge Napolitano, by the way. He’s too smart for the network. It’s also why MSNBC has now brought in teenie-bopper Ronan Farrow, a bumbling news anchor who’s so young that he can’t possibly have any significant life experience from which to say anything useful at all. Watching Farrow try to act like a news anchor reminds me of Justin Timberlake trying to act. Period.
It’s all just so pathetic and yet so obviously a grand corporate whitewash. It also makes me wonder whether we’ll ever see a U.S. journalist have the courage to do what Liz Wahl just did and admit, on air, that the network they’ve been stumping for is really in the business of controlling people, not informing them.
Anyone who believes anything produced by the mainstream media probably needs to have their head examined. I call those people “Non-Player Characters” (NPCs), by the way, and they are part of the reason why America now finds itself in such rapid decline. NPCs can’t think, but they are allowed to vote. And that’s exactly the way the political system wants it. The dumber the population, the easier it is to keep everybody on script… just like the airheads hosting CNN.
New law would link gun registry with criminal database
Authorities in Maryland are set to target 110,000 citizens with gun confiscation under a new law that would link the state’s gun registry with its criminal database, with new troopers set to be hired to enforce door to door visits of illegal gun owners.
Maryland State Police complain that there is no way for them to identify gun owners who have been convicted of felonies, meaning they can’t check if weapons have been relinquished in accordance with state law.
New legislation being considered by the Maryland House of Delegates would allow police to run checks of the state’s gun registry against its criminal database at least twice a year at a cost of $300,000 dollars to create the new system.
“State Police estimate that if they linked the databases, they would find 10 percent of registered gun owners — about 110,000 people — would be disqualified. They estimate a rate of 1 percent each year thereafter,” reports the Associated Press, adding that “seven new full-time troopers to investigate findings from the new database,” would be hired, “with a cost of more than $1 million a year for salaries and equipment.”
In other words, more armed police would be needed to conduct dangerous door to door gun confiscations of the thousands of people that would be snagged under the new law.
“This smacks of a police state mentality,” said Maryland resident Ronald Smith in written testimony before a hearing on Tuesday.
While the law is ostensibly aimed at disarming criminals, we have seen a steady expansion of reasons that are being applied to bar Americans from owning firearms. The law also creates a chilling effect on the second amendment by implying that gun owners are all guilty until proven innocent.
Last year we reported on how US Navy Veteran David A Schmecker had his guns confiscated by police after a forced “psychiatric evaluation” despite him having no criminal or psychiatric history.
In August 2012, we reported on how a veteran in Ohio had his guns taken because he was adjudged to be mentally incompetent, despite the fact that his previous VA psychiatric evaluations were all clear, he was not on medication, and he had no criminal record.
In February 2012, David Sarti, one of the stars of National Geographic’s Doomsday Preppers show, visited his doctor complaining of chest pains, only to have the doctor later commit him to a psychiatric ward and alert authorities, before Sarti was declared “mentally defective” and put on an FBI list that stripped him of his second amendment rights.
Maryland’s preparations for gun confiscation arrive on the back of a similar showdown in Connecticut, where a vast majority of residents refused to register their assault rifles and high capacity magazines in accordance with a new law that took effect on January 1. Gun groups are now challenging authorities to either proceed with mass gun confiscation or repeal the law in full.
In a surprising blow to President Obama, seven Democratic Senators turned against his controversial nominee Justice Department nominee, Debo Adegbile, helping defeat him on a bare-majority vote, 47-52.
Adegbile, nominated to be the DOJ’s Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, had earned the ire of law enforcement officials for the way because of his defense of cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal, essentially portraying the slain police officer as a racist.
He also encountered controversy because he dismissed the merits of a range of contitutional and civil rights important to conservatives.
For example, Adegbile argued that the Second Amendment does not give ordinary Americans the right right to own a gun. He also argued that churches have no religious liberty protections against the federal government ordering a church to reinstate a to a teaching ministry position someone the church had fired for violating church teaching. (The Supreme Court rejected this argument by a 9-0 vote, holding in its 2012 Hosanna-Tabor case that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission could not order a Lutheran church to take back a defrocked minister because the EEOC’s order violated the First Amendment.)
On the flip-side, Adegbile does push for recognition of various controversial civil rights that have never been recognized by the Supreme Court. For example, Adegbile has argued a business can be required to hire convicted felons, because refusing to do so violates the felon’s civil rights.
The vote is important because it’s one of the first major nomination fights since Majority Leader Harry Reid invoked the nuclear option, removing the possibility of filibusters that require 60 votes to move a nomination. Sen. Lindsay Graham has warned that Americans should expect President Obama to nominate individuals who are much further to the left, since the president need only get 51 votes to confirm them.
Reid changed his vote against Adegbile after initially voting for him, which was likely done for procedural reasons.
“The First Amendment was intended to secure something more than an exercise in futility.”—Justice John Paul Stevens, dissenting in Minnesota Board for Community Colleges v. Knight (1984)
Living in a representative republic means that each person has the right to take a stand for what they think is right, whether that means marching outside the halls of government, wearing clothing with provocative statements, or simply holding up a sign. That’s what the First Amendment is supposed to be about.
Unfortunately, as I show in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, through a series of carefully crafted legislative steps and politically expedient court rulings, government officials have managed to disembowel this fundamental freedom, rendering it with little more meaning than the right to file a lawsuit against government officials. In fact, if the court rulings handed down in the last week of February 2014 are anything to go by, the First Amendment has, for all intents and purposes, become an exercise in futility.
On February 26, the U.S. Supreme Court in a 9-0 ruling, held that anti-nuclear activist John Denis Apel could be prosecuted for staging a protest on a public road at an Air Force base, free speech claims notwithstanding, because the public road is technically government property.
Insisting that it’s not safe to display an American flag in an American public school, on February 27, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that school officials were justified when they ordered three students at a California public high school to cover up their patriotic apparel emblazoned with American flags or be sent home on the Mexican holiday Cinco de Mayo, allegedly out of a concern that it might offend Hispanic students.
On February 28, a federal court dismissed Marine veteran Brandon Raub’s case. Despite the fact that Raub was interrogated by Secret Service agents, handcuffed, arrested, subjected to a kangaroo court, and locked up in a mental facility for posting song lyrics and statements on Facebook critical of the government—a clear violation of his free speech rights—the court ruled that Raub’s concerns about the government were far-fetched and merited such treatment.
There you have it: three rulings in three days, from three different levels of the American judicial system, and all of them aimed at suppressing free speech. Yet what most people fail to understand is that these cases are not merely about the citizenry’s right to freely express themselves. Rather, these cases speak to the citizenry’s right to express their concerns about their government to their government, in a time, place and manner best suited to ensuring that those concerns are heard.
The First Amendment gives every American the right to “petition his government for a redress of grievances.” This amounts to so much more than filing a lawsuit against the government. It works hand in hand with free speech to ensure, as Adam Newton and Ronald K.L. Collins report for the Five Freedoms Project, “that our leaders hear, even if they don’t listen to, the electorate. Though public officials may be indifferent, contrary, or silent participants in democratic discourse, at least the First Amendment commands their audience.”
The challenge we face today, however, is that government officials have succeeded in insulating themselves from their constituents, making it increasingly difficult for average Americans to make themselves seen or heard by those who most need to hear what “we the people” have to say. Indeed, while lobbyists mill in and out of the White House and the homes and offices of Congressmen, the American people are kept at a distance through free speech zones, electronic town hall meetings, and security barriers. And those who dare to breach the gap—even through silent forms of protest—are arrested for making their voices heard.
This right to speak freely, assemble, protest and petition one’s government officials for a redress of grievances is front and center right now, with the U.S. Supreme Court set to decide five free speech cases this term, the first of which, U.S. v. Apel, was just handed down. The case was based upon claims brought by John Denis Apel, an anti-war activist who holds monthly protests at Vandenburg Air Force Base near Lompoc, California. While the Court did not uphold his conviction for trespassing on military property, they doubled down on the notion that the public is subject to the whims of military commanders in matters relating to use military property, even when it intersects with public property. The Court refused to rule on Apel’s First Amendment claims.
The Supreme Court is also set to decide McCullen v. Coakley, which will determine whether or not a Massachusetts law which restricts protests on public sidewalks near the entrances, exits, and driveways of abortion clinics in the state is constitutional. The facts of the case indicate that the law does not abide by a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction, and places an undue burden on protestors. However, it’s unclear which way the Court will rule, especially with their refusal to clarify matters in Apel.
Free speech can certainly not be considered “free” when expressive activities across the nation are being increasingly limited, restricted to so-called free speech zones, or altogether blocked, including in front of the Supreme Court’s own plaza. If citizens cannot stand out in the open on a public road and voice their disapproval of their government, its representatives and its policies, without fearing prosecution, then the First Amendment with all its robust protections for free speech, assembly and the right to petition one’s government for a redress of grievances is little more than window-dressing on a store window—pretty to look at but serving little real purpose.
The case of Harold Hodge is a particularly telling illustration of the way in which the political elite in America have sheltered themselves from all correspondence and criticism.
On a snowy morning in January 2011, Harold Hodge quietly and peacefully stood in the plaza area near the steps leading to the United States Supreme Court Building, wearing a 3’ X 2’ sign around his neck that proclaimed: “The U.S. Gov. Allows Police To Illegally Murder And Brutalize African Americans And Hispanic People.” There weren’t many passersby, and he wasn’t blocking anyone’s way. However, after a few minutes, a police officer informed Hodge that he was violating a federal law that makes it unlawful to display any flag, banner or device designed to bring into public notice a party, organization, or movement while on the grounds of the U.S. Supreme Court and issued him three warnings to leave the plaza. Hodge refused, was handcuffed, placed under arrest, moved to a holding cell, and then was transported to U.S. Capitol Police Headquarters where he was booked and given a citation.
According to the federal law Hodge is accused of violating, “It is unlawful to parade, stand, or move in processions or assemblages in the Supreme Court Building or grounds, or to display in the Building and grounds a flag, banner, or device designed or adapted to bring into public notice a party, organization, or movement.” The penalty for violating this law is a fine of up to $5,000 and/or up to 60 days in jail.
With the help of The Rutherford Institute, in January 2012, Hodge challenged the constitutionality of the statute barring silent expressive activity in front of the Supreme Court. A year later, in a strongly worded opinion, District Court Judge Beryl L. Howell struck down the federal law, declaring that the “the absolute prohibition on expressive activity [on the Supreme Court plaza] in the statute is unreasonable, substantially overbroad, and irreconcilable with the First Amendment.”
Incredibly, one day later, the marshal for the Supreme Court—with the approval of Chief Justice John Roberts—issued even more strident regulations outlawing expressive activity on the grounds of the high court, including the plaza. Hodge’s case, along with a companion case challenging the new regulations on behalf of a broad coalition of protesters, is now making its way through the appeals process. Ironically, it will be the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court who will eventually be asked to decide the constitutionality of their own statute, yet they have already made their views on the subject quite clear.
This desire to insulate government officials from those exercising their First Amendment rights stems from an elitist mindset which views “we the people” as different, set apart somehow, from the citizens they have been appointed to serve and represent. It is nothing new. In fact, the law under which Harold Hodge was prosecuted was enacted by Congress in 1949. In the decades since, interactions with politicians have become increasingly manufactured and distant. Press conferences, ticketed luncheons, televised speeches and one-sided town hall meetings held over the phone now largely take the place of face-to-face interaction with constituents.
Additionally, there has been an increased use of so-called “free speech zones,” designated areas for expressive activity used to corral and block protestors at political events from interacting with public officials. Both the Democratic and Republican parties have used these “free speech zones,” some located within chain-link cages, at various conventions to mute any and all criticism of their policies.
Clearly, the government has no interest in hearing what “we the people” have to say. Yet if Americans are not able to peacefully assemble for expressive activity outside of the halls of government or on public roads on which government officials must pass, the First Amendment has lost all meaning. If we cannot stand silently outside of the Supreme Court or the Capitol or the White House, our ability to hold the government accountable for its actions is threatened, and so are the rights and liberties that we cherish as Americans. And if we cannot proclaim our feelings about the government, no matter how controversial, on our clothing, or to passersby, or to the users of the world wide web, then the First Amendment really has become an exercise in futility.
George Orwell, always relevant to our present age, warned against this intolerance for free speech in 1945. As he noted:
The point is that the relative freedom which we enjoy depends of public opinion. The law is no protection. Governments make laws, but whether they are carried out, and how the police behave, depends on the general temper in the country. If large numbers of people are interested in freedom of speech, there will be freedom of speech, even if the law forbids it; if public opinion is sluggish, inconvenient minorities will be persecuted, even if laws exist to protect them… The notion that certain opinions cannot safely be allowed a hearing is growing. It is given currency by intellectuals who confuse the issue by not distinguishing between democratic opposition and open rebellion, and it is reflected in our growing indifference to tyranny and injustice abroad. And even those who declare themselves to be in favour of freedom of opinion generally drop their claim when it is their own adversaries who are being prosecuted.
Eric “Gun Runner” Holder’s Department of Justice is preparing to announce new regulations designed to expand the national background check system for gun sales.
White House records reveal the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has completed its review of the DOJ rule, one of 23 executive actions ordered by President Obama more than a year ago.
The final rule sets out three changes to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS):
- Grant tribal police access to NICS
- Authorize law enforcement agencies to use the system to run full background checks before returning guns that have been seized or confiscated during the course of investigations.
- To expand consolidated, electronic storage of information on gun purchases that have been denied via the NICS system, according to a rulemaking notice issued in January.
All of this is being done without approval from Congress. President Obama is expected to rubber stamp these proposed regulations without any additional debate or oversight. The real question is: “How far will they expand the system?” What will they be storing in NICS and how long will they be storing it? In the past, there have been strict guidelines to prevent abuse. This Executive Order, and the new DOJ recommendations seem to be aimed towards changing these guidelines.
Besides blowing off congress to give illegal immigrants backdoor amnesty, the Obama administration is also letting businesses that hire undocumented workers off the hook by drastically reducing fines and enforcement, a new federal audit reveals.
It was only a year ago that the president vowed to come down hard those who hire illegal aliens as a fundamental part of creating an immigration system for the 21st century: “It means cracking down more forcefully on businesses that knowingly hire undocumented workers…most businesses want to do the right thing… So we need to implement a national system that allows businesses to quickly and accurately verify someone’s employment status. And if they still knowingly hire undocumented workers, then we need to ramp up the penalties,” Obama said in 2013.
The reality appears to be much different, though this particular audit, conducted by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Inspector General, considers a three-year period right before the president’s statement. He was already in the White House, however. From 2009 to 2012, the administration slashed by 40% the amount of fines collected from employers caught with illegal aliens on the their payroll. This represents a chunk of change for the government—from $52.7 million to $31.2 million—but, more importantly, it sends a dangerous message to businesses that profit from the cheap labor provided by those living in the country illegally.
The DHS Inspector General states it quite clearly in a recently issued report: “Homeland Security Investigations’ inconsistent implementation of the administrative inspection process, plus the reduction of fines, may have hindered its mission to prevent or deter employers from violating immigration laws.” The DHS watchdog estimates that approximately 8 million illegal immigrants are in the U.S. workforce and many present fraudulent identity-related documents or use another person’s identity to gain employment.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is charged with cracking down on businesses that hire illegal aliens. During the three-year period analyzed in the probe, ICE got $531 million from congress to fulfill this “worksite enforcement” mission. Instead, the agency selectively enforces the employment law in different regions with some field offices doling out a lot more warnings and far less fines than others.
Making matters worse the umbrella agency, DHS, doesn’t provide sufficient oversight to ensure that its field offices are conducting worksite enforcement inspections consistently, according to the agency watchdog. For instance, investigators reveal that two field offices simply developed and implemented their own system by issuing more warnings than fines, contrary to established ICE guidelines. DHS took no action, the report says, pointing out that “without adequate oversight and monitoring” the agency can’t possibly determine if worksite enforcement is effective in preventing and deterring employers from violating immigration laws.
As an example, the inspector general offers ICE’s Los Angeles field office which has flouted federal policy by creating its own private system of worksite enforcement. During the three-year period considered by the watchdog the office conducted 147 investigations, with 7% resulting in fines and 55% in warnings. Even in instances where more than half of a business’s federal employee verification forms (known as I-9) had “substantive errors” the federal agents in L.A. only issued warnings instead of fines. One business mentioned in the report had its fine slashed an astounding 78%, from $4.9 million to a little over $1 million.
This certainly proves that the Obama administration lied to the American people in 2009 when it announced that DHS would focus on employers who hire unauthorized workers rather than large-scale enforcement actions that almost exclusively targeted illegal aliens under the George W. Bush administration. “Too many employers game the system by hiring undocumented workers,” according to President Obama’s immigration initiative for the 21st century. It doesn’t appear that he plans to do anything about it.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has verbally informed the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) that the Romeike family, German homeschoolers who sought legal asylum in the United States, has been granted indefinite deferred action status, which means that the order for their removal from the United States will not be acted upon.
As Breitbart News reported Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court had denied the Romeike family’s petition for certiorari, or review. According to a press release Tuesday by HSLDA, however, news of the Supreme Court’s denial sparked “an immediate and unprecedented reaction.” Fox News informed HSLDA that it recorded one million page views of the story about the Romeike family within 24 hours – an all-time high.
“We are happy to have indefinite status even though we won’t be able to get American citizenship any time soon,” said Uwe Romeike. “As long as we can live at peace here, we are happy. We have always been ready to go wherever the Lord would lead us – and I know my citizenship isn’t really on earth.”
“This has always been about our children,” Romeike continued. “I wouldn’t have minded staying in Germany if the mistreatment targeted only me – but our whole family was targeted when German authorities would not tolerate our decision to teach our children. That is what brought us here.”
HSLDA Director of International Affairs Michael Donnelly observed that the only reason the Romeike family had to come to America was because of Germany’s repressive policy towards homeschoolers.
“Germany’s persecution of homeschooling parents continues and is one reason, I suspect, that DHS was willing to grant the family indefinite status,” Donnelly said in the press statement. “How could our country send this loving, peaceful family back to be crushed by outrageous fines, criminal prosecution, and the loss of their children?”
In November, the Supreme Court had ordered the Department of Justice to respond to HSLDA’s petition on behalf of the Romeikes. Prior to the high court’s order, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals had denied asylum to the family after the Obama administration appealed an earlier decision by a U.S. immigration judge who had granted the Romeikes political asylum.
Before fleeing to the U.S. in 2008, the Romeike parents had been threatened with thousands of dollars in fines and possible jail time in Germany because they chose to homeschool their children. Germany’s highest court has asserted that its ban on homeschooling is designed to ensure that religious homeschoolers do not become a “parallel society.”
“HSLDA is determined to continue working in support of beleaguered homeschooling families in Germany and other countries,” said Donnelly. “The right of parents to decide how their children should be educated is a fundamental human right. The United States got it right in this case, and we call on Germany to change its policy so that parents in Germany can homeschool their children in peace.”
“Our entire family is deeply grateful for all the support of our friends and fellow homeschoolers and especially HSLDA,” said Romeike. “I thank God for his hand of blessing and protection over our family. We thank the American government for allowing us to stay here and to peacefully homeschool our children – it’s all we ever wanted.”