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...
Without branding Germany a regime persecuting innocent people.
The asylum process basically means just that. Let them immigrate "normally", and everything is fine.
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...
Yes, it was reversed. Eventually.
Why preposterously?
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).
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.
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?).
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?
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.
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...
https://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2019/01/262482/denmark-depo...
https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Mansour#Udsendelse_af_Danm...
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?
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/france-to-expel-pro-wife-bea...