Talk:Right of asylum

---

bias

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

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 202.61.134.116 (talk • contribs) .

United Kingdom

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 82.18.24.181 (talk • contribs) .

Gender-neutral language

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

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 86.139.244.236 (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)194.230.155.7 (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.194.230.155.7 (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

University Asylum concept absent

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): http://www.greekembassy.nl/press/article7831.html , http://athens.indymedia.org/front.php3?lang=el&article_id=607421 , http://www.hri.org/news/greek/ana/2007/07-01-20.ana.html#06 Stelimili 16:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Blurb I'm not sure how to merge in

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.

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)

Logical Absurdity of Asylum

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 121.44.140.87 (talk) 10:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Listing whereabouts of refugees

Is not a good idea. 70.179.127.14 (talk) 16:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for assistance

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

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.

• A corollary of this principle is that the granting of asylum is tantamount to accusing (or at least strongly implying that) the nation an asylee fled from is illegally persecuting the asylee, and thus the granting of asylum by one state to a citizen or citizens of a particular state may be considered an unfriendly deed by the country the asylee(s) fled from, and retaliation, through the exercise of the right of reciprocity or the right of reprisal may occur. For example, the Government of Cuba has granted asylum to a number of persons that the Federal Government of the United States considers domestic terrorists or criminals. This has caused outrage in the United States, and resulted in the Federal Government of the United States listing Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism. Similar grievances exist on the Cuban side, with the United States having granted asylum to a number of individuals which the Government of Cuba considers criminals, traitors, or terrorists, possibly as an exercise of the right of reciprocity, or the right of reprisal; however, the Government of Cuba apparently has not added the United States to its list of state sponsors of terrorism

Removed section on extradition treaties

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

• • Some 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. 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. 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.