Yesterday the United States Supreme Court issued an order that may be unprecedented by requiring the Obama Administration to explain why it opposes political asylum for Uwe and Hannelore Romeike, who fled Germany after they were sentenced to prison in 2006 for violating a law Adolph Hitler imposed in 1939 against homeschooling their children.
The Romeikes have appealed an adverse lower court ruling sought by Attorney General Eric Holder after they were the first homeschoolers granted asylum for religious persecution in the United States in 2010. The action of President Barack Obama in seeking to reverse the initial granting of asylum status is also thought to be unprecedented.
So what does Barack Hussein Obama have against homeschoolers already granted asylum, when he seeks out illegal aliens that clearly do not meet the relevant criteria for asylum who sneak across America’s Mexican border? Could it be because the universe of Christian homeschoolers, and especially those of German-American descent, are usually not dependent upon government welfare and vote disproportionately Republican? And that illegal immigrants regularly vote fraudulently for Democrats in states with no photo/voter ID laws?
In order to be granted asylum, and thus eventual legal permanent U.S. residency status with a path to citizenship, one must meet the following “refugee” criteria:
A refugee is a person who is outside his or her country of origin or habitual residence because they have suffered (or fear) persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or because they are a member of a persecuted ‘social group’ or because they are fleeing a war.
The Uwe and Hannelore Romeike case would be one of first impression in U.S. federal courts as to whether imprisonment for refusing to enroll children in a foreign nation’s schools, while being threatened with imprisonment for homeschooling them, is “religious persecution” under our law. And it is true that America must be careful not to define such rights too broadly, lest half the world rush to our shores and assert that right.
But for an Obama Administration that granted amnesty to millions of young illegals via executive fiat, after even Democrats refused to pass the Dream Act out of Congress, to REVERSE an initial government decision to grant asylum to the Romeikes and their five children raises questions of motive that go beyond a rule of law that this administration has shown nothing but contempt for.
And the Romeikes aren’t the only example:
Precetaj, who was born in Albania in 1972, fled to the U.S. in 2000 to escape an abusive fiancé and a criminal atmosphere, testifying that she was unable to go outside for fear of being kidnapped and sold into prostitution. She entered the U.S. illegally via Canada at the Port Huron border with friends. Upon arrival, she turned herself into authorities and sought asylum.
While living in the U.S. illegally, she got married and raised a family. She worked at various restaurants in the kitchen. And teachers praised her as a good mother who had a positive influence on her children’s performance in school. But despite her appeal for asylum, an immigration judge denied her request, concluding her testimony about fearing prostitution and crime lacked credibility. And even if it was credible, the judge held, she wasn’t entitled to asylum because “young, attractive women are not a social group for asylum.” In 2008, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision.
Precetaj, meanwhile, was under supervision by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Having lost her asylum case, she was placed on a tether and ordered to report once a month to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement office on Mt. Elliott in Detroit. She knew deportation was ordered. She just didn’t know when. On Monday, she got the news.
Young, attractive women not a “social group for asylum”? Are those sold into slavery not attractive? We don’t deport those that illegally cross the southern border even if they are convicted of driving under the influence? But we can’t grant the request of one that yearns to breathe free from sex slavery?
Meanwhile, the Obama Administration regularly transmogrifies the definition of “refugee” for preferred immigrants:
U.S. Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) asked the Department of Homeland Security Wednesday to investigate what he says may be fraudulent cases of asylum requests from Mexican nationals fleeing a drug war that has claimed 70,000 lives since 2006.
Hoping to raise pressure on the Obama administration to address the issue, Goodlatte speculated that Mexican asylum applicants are “being coached” on how to apply for asylum, following reports by an ABC affiliate and Fox News earlier this month.
“I am concerned that credible fear claims are being exploited by illegal immigrants in order to enter and remain in the United States,” Goodlatte wrote in the letter. A finding of “credible fear,” a legal designation referring to immigrants who have a reason to fear returning to their home country, is the first step to initiate an asylum claim.
Goodlatte points out that the overwhelming majority of Mexican nationals claiming asylum do not ultimately receive it, using statistics culled from unspecified press accounts. He implies that the applications overwhelmingly get rejected because they are illegitimate.
One wonders what, if anything, President Obama will do concerning his Kenyan-born uncle, Onyango Obama, when he appears before an immigration judge in the near future.
DeVine Law is professionally familiar with how difficult it is to deport anyone that hasn’t murdered another on U.S. soil but is beyond being shocked at the actions of a Chief Executive that regularly refuses to accurately quote the Declaration of Independence, Pledge of Allegiance and Gettysburg Address where they refer to a “Creator” or a nation “Under God”.