[Iv]

“If the German government thinks that the Hong Kong judiciary is independent, they would not grant me refugee status,”

I just want to point out that refugee status is given on a case by case basis. Even with an independent judiciary, if your laws oppress some people, refugee status can be obtained. Europe has accepted refugees from USA during McCarty's era.

Accepting a refugee from another nation does have diplomatic meaning but is does not automatically mean that they will dismiss each other judgements automatically.

[Tomte]

And, preposterously, America has given political asylum to German home-schoolers a few years ago.

[duxup]

Is that bad?

Someone wants to educate their children at home, in Germany that's not ok. In the US it is, so in the US they get some level of asylum.

These folks aren't some terrorists, they're not hurting anyone... seems like a situation where there are two different approaches, not some serious crime.

It also is a case by case basis so who knows if it holds up in court for long.

Edit: Looks like they lost the asylum part of their bid:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/home-schooling-german-family-allow...

[Tomte]

I have no problems with America welcoming those people.

Without branding Germany a regime persecuting innocent people.

The asylum process basically means just that. Let them immigrate "normally", and everything is fine.

[duxup]

>The asylum process basically means just that.

I think it depends on what you mean by "process" everyone gets some hearings and etc, that is the process.

That doesn't mean they've been accepted or IMO anything about Germany. You have to have a "process" even if the person feels that they're being persecuted because they don't like chocolate ice cream, a process doesn't mean anything about Germany.

Googling shows that a family went through the process... and lost the asylum bid.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/home-schooling-german-family-allow...

[Tomte]

Let me clarify: I'm not against the process, but against the decision to grant asylum.

Yes, it was reversed. Eventually.

[wbl]

Repatriation is irreversible in asylum cases. It makes sense to grant temporary reprieve quickly pending a more durable process. We weren't so generous the last time people fled Germany and the result was disasterous.

[mieseratte]

> And, preposterously, America has given political asylum to German home-schoolers a few years ago.

Why preposterously?

[FabHK]

Because it is preposterous to consider the German "Schulpflicht" (ie, the obligation that children visit a public^W school) religious or political persecution.

You can teach your children whatever weird shit you want. What you cannot do (in Germany) is take them out of school, where they will also be taught what everyone else is taught, including sex-ed, history, comparative religion, etc.

EDIT: correction, it's not an obligation to visit a public school, it's an obligation to visit a permissible school (there are private ones, but homeschooling does not constitute a permissible school).

[mieseratte]

In America we seem to have the opposite view. The government doesn’t get to make that call.

I could see how one could reasonably view this as some sort of political or religious refugee, depending on context. They are, at the end of the day, facing punishment for a practice a typical American would find acceptable if not a little strange.

[Tomte]

At that point you have expanded the meaning of "persecution" to nonsense.

Sure, we could accept Americans as "politically persecuted", because highways in America have speed limits. But we choose not to.

At some point you need to accept that not every difference in laws is persecution. That not every difference in law means that the other one is doing something wrong.

Alas, the US Supreme Court feels similarly when its conservative wing always dismisses all analogies and examples abroad as obviously uninteresting. I think "our SCOTUS" gets this balance right, or at least more right, when it differentiates between "would not constitutional in Germany, but is a valid viewpoint" and "would not be constitutional, and is so far beyond the pale that there cannot be an accomodation".

An extradition case starring an American from some years ago is a prime example for this differentiation, in my opinion (anyone interested in reading a summary?).

[deogeo]

Forcibly separating children from their parents, even if only for a few hours a day, should not be taken lightly - and I say this as someone who supports mandatory public schooling, even to the exclusion of private schools.

[michaelt]

Perhaps I wouldn't go so far as to call it preposterous, but it would seem to imply a very broad interpretation of what you can be granted asylum for.

Germany ranks highly in measures like the World Index of Moral Freedom, the Freedom in the World rankings, and the Freedom of the Press report. If Germany's citizens are entitled to asylum, is there any country whose citizens aren't?

[cyborgsnowflake]

"Freedom of the Press" yet they jail people for posting wrongthink online.

[pergadad]

Hard to understand why the wish to homeschool your child would fulfil any of the criteria of 'refugee', which primarily is about bring persecuted and having your life threatened. That is rather unlikely in Germany...

[johannes1234321]

Taking kids out of schools for homeschooling (in a German context) is typically done for "religious" reasons, where parents claim their religion forbids specific content (sexual education, evolution etc.) so parents claim religious prosecution as reason.

[chungleong]

Recently a Norwegian woman was granted asylum by the Polish government. She claimed Norwegian child services were going to take her child because she suffers from chronic fatigue syndrome.

[luckylion]

If you're referencing the Romeikes, they were ultimately denied political asylum, but have, as far as I know, not been deported.

[Iv]

Also I think all the people expelled for hate speech in EU could gain asylum in US. It does not mean that US thinks EU courts are not independent.

[matt4077]

Who is "expelled" for hate speech? Where to?

In any case, there's a difference between political prosecution and some minor international differences of what's legal and what's not. If it were that easy to get asylum, people would probably prefer it to participating in the Green Card Lottery or H1B Visa process.

Freedom of speech also isn't the only category of "political" crimes. Many Germans consider the (partial) lack of speed limits as a defining characteristic of freedom, yet Americans can't get asylum at 60mph just because of it. On a more serious note, there are a great many political freedoms that some if not all European countries are better at guaranteeing than the US. Elections are administered fair and it's generally easy to vote even in poor neighbourhoods; No death penalty; Public defenders that actually have time to defend you, etc. Heck, the racial disparities in the US criminal justice system border on wilful prosecution of a minority.

[silvester23]

> Also I think all the people expelled for hate speech in EU could gain asylum in US.

Who was expelled from the EU for hate speech?

[sampo]

> Who was expelled from the EU for hate speech?

At least Denmark and Austria have been planning to deport radical imams, especially when they have preached about killing Jews. Not sure about actual cases, though.

https://www.thelocal.dk/20160303/denmark-eyes-deportation-of...

https://www.vox.com/2018/6/8/17442240/austria-closing-mosque...

[sampo]

Ok, found at least one actual case of deporting:

https://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2019/01/262482/denmark-depo...

https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Mansour#Udsendelse_af_Danm...

[VanPossum]

Which shows that the initial statement "all the people expelled for hate speech in EU could gain asylum in US" is false: expelling foreigners for breaking hte law is not persecution in itself, and of course pro-ISIS advocates would not be illegible for asylum in the US.

I suspect the GP had EU far right dudes in mind, but most such 'hate speech' is often basically "slander and/or harassment that happens to be also racist" and typically ends up with a fine: hardly 'persecution'. And even if we go from "all the people" to just "a handful of ideologues": why would the US say no to ISIS but yes to Nazis?

[Iv]

I was mostly thinking of this guy:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/france-to-expel-pro-wife-bea...

[krageon]

Nobody, there is nothing to see here.

[wongarsu]

I guess you could make a case that Germany prosecutes Neo-Nazis, preventing them from forming parties that overtly follow their ideology, outlawing their symbols and restricting their freedom of speech. But that still doesn't come close to rounding them up and imprisoning them on ideology alone. They are not expelled, but they could flee from prosecution and seek asylum.