Talk:Asylum shopping

Active discussions

Channel Tunnel sectionEdit

The section of the article on the Channel Tunnel strays off topic. Not all of the people who tried to enter the UK via the tunnel were asylum seekers, so it's not clear that the term "asylum shopping" applies to them. I wonder if it would actually be better to merge the more relevant parts of the article into the right of asylum article? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


Even the page title is POV, as are claims about which asylum claims are 'legitimate. Haldraper (talk) 18:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

POV or not, as far as Dublin Convention goes, the POV is that of His Majesty King of Belgium, Her Majesty the Queen of Denmark, et al. Furthermore, the term asylum shopping has been used widely by established institutions including but not limited to the House of Lords, European Commissioners, Federal Court of Canada (example) and the press, and is consistent with other terms like jurisdiction shopping. So, in this case, no Newspeak, please. As far as the article goes, I agree that the case study of the Channel Tunnel is not in line with Wikipedia article guidelines (WP:NOTCASE). --vuo (talk) 18:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I've removed the channel tunnel section in light of these comments and my own previous comment above. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Since it's been a year and no other complaint has been given, I'll remove the tag. I can't see any inherent lack of neutrality in the article. The issue is of course controversial, but this doesn't mean an article about it has to be. --vuo (talk) 22:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a lack of neutrality, such as where asylum seekers are described as 'violently resisting' and 'seeking more generous benefits' - neither of which claim is actually supported by the citation in the article. I attempted to edit this to more fully reflect what is happening, but the edit was reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

That just requires better sourcing. Like any social benefits system, asylum also has its abusers. --vuo (talk) 08:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
The NYT article cited does not support the claims of 'violently resisting' but rather mentions police being violent: "police forced them to submit, even beating them." I attempted to edit this to better reflect the sourced information, but the edit was changed (to one that lacks neutrality).Deoxidation (talk) 23:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
The contested wording was changed by an uninvolved user, and I feel the current version adequately conveys the content of the source.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Update neededEdit

Please see the talk section under Dublin Regulation. Also please see the Oxford Handbooks understanding of varying levels of recognition within the EU. Each EU member state interprets the Asylum laws in their own way and consequently this interpretation leads to an "asylum lottery".

"(p. 281) Discordant views on different elements of the refugee definition give rise to varying rates of refugee recognition among states, with asylum seekers subjecting their futures to what has been described as an ‘asylum lottery’.21 In relation to Afghan asylum seekers, for example, refugee recognition rates in 2011 among eight European countries ranged from 3 per cent in the Netherlands to 33 per cent in Austria. When other forms of protection such as complementary protection, subsidiary protection, and humanitarian status are included in this equation, the gap is even more drastic, ranging from 11 per cent in Greece to 73 per cent in Sweden.22 This is despite the ongoing development of a Common European Asylum System, which was set in place to ensure that any person seeking protection in Europe would be treated in the same way irrespective of where they apply. Despite some positive progress towards this goal, a 2010 evaluation of the implementation of the European Qualification Directive found that ‘the objective of creating a level playing field with respect to the qualification and status of beneficiaries of international protection and to the content of the protection granted has not been fully achieved during the first phase of harmonization.’23" from

Also please see, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidthebuyer (talkcontribs) 20:24, 8 November 2015 (UTC) Davidthebuyer (talk) 20:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Asylum shopping. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Return to "Asylum shopping" page.