Talk:Right of asylum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Human rights (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Politics (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


I think that the section on Asylum in France seems quite biased, with no supporting evidence for the rather extreme claim that asylum has been "practically abandoned." Besides being one-sided, this might also make it less likely that some potential asylum-seekers will apply, if they think the system is impossible because of a misleading article.

I think this page should have details on the claims added, or be rendered more neutral. --Seanose 18:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

safe countries[edit]

Regarding the "safe countries" in the France section, from this link, "It's important to point out that asylum applications submitted by nationals of safe countries of origin will neither be systematically rejected, nor considered inadmissible, since the guarantee of a detailed examination of each case will in fact be respected in accordance with our constitutional principles."

Whether it's propaganda or not, I don't know.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

United Kingdom[edit]

there should be more information added about modern asylum in the uk, the page linked does not provide that much relevant information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

Gender-neutral language[edit]

In accordance with NPOV policy, this article needs to be modified to use gender-neutral pronouns. Owen 20:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

left wing extremist in usa[edit]

can a left wing extremist american apply for asylum anywhere in the world. since usa is a right wing country, a left wing extremist may feel threatened by the right wing mainstream. for example, the left winger may disagree strongly with capitalism and religion, the two core beliefs of the u.s. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 03:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC).

Some Americans have tried to claim asylum in, for example, Canada, but I'm not sure how successful they've been. It would be hard for an American to prove that they had a well-founded fear of persecution because of their political beliefs. Cordless Larry 17:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
That's ridiculous (above comment) (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC). Many Americans have been persecuted for their political beliefs in the past fifty years. Communists. Black panthers and supporters. Martin Luther King (and the entire civil rights movement) was viciously persecuted by the FBI; that's on-record. Women's rights activists were persecuted. Anti-war activists were persecuted.
In the modern day, notably post 9/11 many persons have been persecuted, but with the exception of what shows-up on "Democracy Now" (for example) the issue is mostly ignored, certainly by mainstream media. But many groups are targeted: Animal rights activists. Anti-war activists. People are being "listed" all the time in the United States. It's just that usually the situation doesn't get so out-of-hand that they feel a need to emigrate and file asylum. The cases are rare. But they happen. (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

University Asylum concept absent[edit]

In Greece there is a certain law concerning the Asylum provided by greek universities to anyone that seeks it. According to this law, no police officer can enter the university while being on duty without the permition of the university's dean. Therefore, no alleged criminal can be arrested or procecuted while being within the university walls. This right is quite often abused by anarchist groups in Athens and other cities of Greece where anarchists would play some sort of hide-and-seek with the police officers by only getting out of the walls to throw molotovs and rocks, and then go back inside when the police forces would attempt to approach them. This law was probably an outcome of the November 17th episodes and therefore has a significant emotional importance to many people resulting to its difficulty to be changed or abolished. I feel that this division of the Asylum concept is pretty important and should be mentioned, but I don't think I have the necessary writting skills to do so myself. There are some websites that mention the law and the problems that arise from its use (and abuse): , , Stelimili 16:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Blurb I'm not sure how to merge in[edit]

The following blurb is the entirety of an article I've redirected to this page:

In the Asylum Case (Columbia v Peru) 1950 ICJ Rep 266, the Court recognised that Art. 38 of the statute of the ICJ encompassed local custom as well as general custom, in much the same way as it encompasses bilateral and multilateral treaties.[1]

Not sure what to do with it, but you see why I didn't think it should continue standing as a single article. Suggestions? RayAYang (talk) 00:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


  1. ^ Dixon, Martin. International Law, ed. 6, 2007. Oxford University Press Inc., New York.

Logical Absurdity of Asylum[edit]

Greenspan wrote in his autobiography, "The Age of Turbulence," the following, "sometimes when an issue is complex, it is a useful exercise to take it to an extreme."

It we were to accept that a class of people are entitled to Asylum (legitimacy of illegal immigration) on the basis that a nation is illegally discriminating against that person, then you must conclude that Asylum should be offered to all people discriminated against.

comment: Asylum is not migration.

Often such an evacuation is impossible due to the sheer size of transportation, and also due to the lack of local infrastructure and threat of local cultural erosion.

Thus a limited number of people can be practically offered Asylum. To whom should it be offered? Those who enter the country illegally thus already demonstrating a hardened will to break the laws of the country they seek to enter? Surely the most deserving are those who obey the laws to the best of their ability, perhaps those that attempt to apply through legal means.

comment: Most asylum cases have to apply in-country, and there is a time-period for doing that. Greenspan needs to read-up a bit.

Surely it is better, if it is accepted that a nation is doing wrong, to fix that nation. It is a moral hazard to intervene in isolated cases; either fix it all, or leave it all.

comment: Invasion as a solution to asylum-seeking. There's a good idea

There is an extreme hazard whereby individuals from one nation of violence illegally enter a country of peace - what motivation do any such individuals have to respect the peace of the illegally entered nation? Whilst it may be true their lives were in danger in one nation, it is absurd to think they will not put local lives in danger.

Asylum is a lovely intention; but it is devastating to peaceful cultures and immoral to the truly needy left behind.

comment: This makes no sense.

Intervention in a nation partaking in illegal acts is the only viable method of providing that necessary to improve lives as a whole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

What an idiot. Greenspan was never known for his emotional depth-perception. So it's moral hazard to intervene in individual cases, is it? Please. What an idiot. I can't believe this guy was in charge of U.S. monetary policy for so long, with this kind of reasoning and lack of research-based material for decision making. (talk) 20:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Listing whereabouts of refugees[edit]

Is not a good idea. (talk) 16:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for assistance[edit]

I've just posted a new wiki page entitled Refugee roulette and would be grateful for feedback from more experienced editors interested in this topic. Thank you! JRN 02:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect presumptions vis-a-vis asylum[edit]

This is nonsense. Granting of asylum to a person does not in any sense imply that the government from which the person fled was "illegally persecuting" the person. There are no citations for this, because the supposition is based on conjecture, not published material.

Beyond this, there is a wealth of literature about terrorism exceptions to asylum - which could be referenced. This kind of discussion is unreferenced and unsourced and doesn't belong on the page.

By the way, the above passage reflects the US Federal perspective of asylum. i.e. "Asylum is fine in our country, because we are perfect, but if anyone grants our citizens asylum, they are offending us mortally, because we are perfect". Where anyone gets the presumption that granting asylum means country is "illegally persecuting" the asylum-seeker is an interesting question. This sounds very much like "projection", i.e. whoever wrote this is hystrionically overly concerned about the United States being held to accoung. (talk) 06:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Removed section on extradition treaties[edit]

This is nonsense. Asylum seekers are preponderantly *not* criminals. Extradition is not a key facet of asylum-seeking.

    • Some[who?] believe that the development in the 20th century of bilateral extradition treaties has endangered the right of asylum, although international law considers that a sovereign state has no obligation to surrender an alleged criminal to a foreign state, as one principle of sovereignty is that every state has legal authority over the people within its borders.[citation needed] Indeed, a state granting the right of sanctuary to an asylee will summarily and categorically reject a request of the country they fled from to extradite them, regardless of any extradition treaty.[citation needed] This is due to the fact that to be granted sanctuary by a state indicates that the state granting sanctuary regards the asylee as being illegally persecuted by the nation they fled from.

egyptians, greeks and hebrews?[edit]

The Egyptians, Greeks, and Hebrews recognized a religious "right of asylum," protecting criminals (or those accused of crime) from legal action to some extent. Anyone got a source for this? Or some more information? Unchartered (talk) 08:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Right of asylum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


A figure of asylum seekers per 100 000 population would be even more interesting than the one with absolute numbers. I'm not pro-change, but rather pro-addition. Ibmua (talk) 22:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 9 February 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 17:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Right of asylumAsylum – This is the primary meaning of asylum, now a disambig. I propose that the disambig is moved to Asylum (disambiguation) and this article is noved to asylum. The "Right of" is not necessary. Note that subarticles are in the format "asylum in", not "right of asylum" in: Asylum in the United States, Asylum in the European Union, etc. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose – 'Asylum' is simply too ambiguous. There is no reason to move from the present title, which is WP:PRECISE. No evidence has been provided to support the notion that this sense of the word 'asylum' is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Even if mental asylums are a thing of the past in most of the developed world, one cannot deny that they are a topic of historical significance. RGloucester 17:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Should we rename "Refugees in Foo" and "Asylum in Foo" articles to "Refugees and asylum in Foo"?[edit]

Please see discussion here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 22:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)