Attention Glenn Beck – Please Hire Me!

It seems that Glenn Beck is hiring immigration lawyers, and I want in.  First, some background:

I’ve written before (here and here) about the Romeike family, a German Evangelical homeschooling family. They were granted political asylum in the United States after the German government tried to force them to send their children to public school. DHS appealed the ruling, and the Board of Immigration Appeals reversed the Immigration Judge’s decision. The case is currently before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.  Oral argument is scheduled for later this month.

The Romeikes have a tough case. They have to demonstrate that they face persecution in Germany. They face fines and possible jail time, and they might even lose custody of their children. Such punishments are harsh, but I doubt a court would find that they rise to the level of persecution (though maybe the loss of the children would qualify).

This would be me if I worked for Glenn Beck (except I am not black) (and I normally do not wear a tie).
This would be me if I worked for Glenn Beck (except I am not black) (and I normally do not wear a tie).

Further, and this may be the most controversial aspect of the case, the Department of Justice is supposedly taking the position that the Romeikes do not have a “right to home school anywhere.”  At least this is how the Home School Legal Defense Association characterizes the DOJ’s position. Frankly, I am a bit skeptical that this is actually DOJ’s position (their brief is not public, so I have not seen it), given that they can probably win their case without stirring up this type of controversy (see previous paragraph). But I suppose if DOJ wanted to make all possible arguments against asylum, this would be one.

So how does Glenn Beck tie into all this?

Earlier this week, Mr. Beck discussed the Romeike family on his show:

“They [Romeikes] did it the right way,” said Beck. “They had their visas. They came here and asked for political asylum. Because if they return to Germany the state will take their children unless they dump them into the system that [goes against their Evangelical values].”

Beck said that the idea of deporting the Romeikes flies in the face of everything that the U.S. stands for. “There is nothing more un-American than this.”

Mr. Beck compared the family with our country’s earliest settlers, who were seeking religious liberty.

The Romeike’s have become a bit of a cause célèbre among American homeschoolers and religious conservatives. A petition to the White House supporting them has received over 100,000 signatures, and–this is the part that caught my attention–Glenn Beck has pledged $50,000 to pay for their legal fees.

As a side note, I do these cases for far less than $50,000 (for affirmative asylum cases, I charge $2,400, which makes me think I need to raise my rates). Mr. Beck, if you feel inclined to help out others seeking asylum based on religious persecution (and I represent many, including people from Iran, Iraq, China, Afghanistan, and Eritrea), please give me a call.

So is it hypocritical for conservatives who normally oppose immigration to support the Romeikes? Writing for Salon, Sally Kohn theorizes that Mr. Beck and his fellow conservatives are supporting the Romeikes because they are white. While I am no fan of Glenn Beck, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one (though it seems reasonable to ask why he isn’t funding asylum seekers from countries like Iran and Eritrea, which harshly punish–and kill–religious dissidents). So what’s going on here?

My guess is that Mr. Beck is confusing American values–such as allowing parents to home school their children–with asylum law, which protects people from persecution on account of religion. Just because we in the U.S. enjoy a particular right–like the right to school our children at home–does not mean that an alien can get asylum when his country refuses to allow him the same right. We have a right to abortion in the U.S. and a right to own a gun, but I doubt an alien who was denied one of these rights in another country would qualify for asylum in the U.S.

Also, I wonder whether Mr. Beck has thought about the dreaded “slippery slope” argument. Would he support this family if they were members of a Christian Identity (i.e., Neo-Nazi) Church? What if they were (gasp!) Muslims?

The Romeikes, like any other asylum seeker, need to show that they face persecution, as that term has been defined by case law. Otherwise, they simply do not qualify for asylum. I wish the Romeikes well in their case. But if it doesn’t work out for them, and if Glenn Beck wants to fund some other worthy asylum seekers who are fleeing religious persecution, I have a few cases he might be interested in…

I corrected an error in an earlier version of this post (see comments).

Related Post

4 comments

  1. Or Obama wants them gone because they are white and Christian. Not candidates for registration as Demoncrats.

    Reply
  2. I admit I was confused by your original post because it was unclear whether you were referring to relocation or resettlement. Relocation to another part of the EU wouldn’t fly, because the countries are still independent sovereign entities and asylum law has to treat them as such. The other alternative interpretation, as you mention in your reply, would be firm resettlement, but that wouldn’t fly either since that still requires a two part test – an offer of permanent residence and an entry into the country making the offer. I don’t know all the facts, but I doubt that the family was ever in another EU country with an opportunity to take up residence – would have to look Matter of A-G-G- over very carefully. Your answer above, “I treated the entire EU as one country for purposes of firm resettlement” seems to have the two concepts confused. One would apply to the question of whether there is well-founded fear under 8 CFR 208.13(b)(2)(ii) and the other would be applied as a mandatory bar to a grant of asylum after it was found there was WFF and eligibility under the refugee definition. Two different concepts that you seem to have confused.

    Reply
  3. the family members are citizens of Germany, and thus they are able to relocate within the European Union. For this reason, to qualify for asylum, they would need to demonstrate that there is nowhere in the EU that they can live safely.

    I’m curious, is there specific US law to this effect? The Convention only excludes people who are actually nationals of another country, or who have already taken residence in a country where they have the rights and privileges of nationals.

    Reply
    • Uh oh. You are right – I have overstated the “firm resettlement” argument by making an assumption I should not have made – that the family’s residence in German is the same as residence in any other EU country. In other words, I treated the entire EU as one country for purposes of firm resettlement. I do not know of any case law on that point, and I should not have made that assumption (though without any case law to guide us, I am not sure how a court would rule on that point). I still think that the family has an uphill battle based on the persecution argument and possibly on discretionary grounds (since they could have moved within the EU), but they could probably avoid a denial based on firm resettlement. My bad. Oh, and by the way, thanks for correcting me. Now Glenn Beck will never hire me…

      Reply

Write a comment