![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have permission from the copyright holder. The page just needs a reference to the website.
Hello Anonymous. The organisation which runs the website has assured me that they "have no objection to items on [their] website being reproduced with appropriate acknowledgment."
Am I missing something here ? We're talking about a description of an international convention !
Parmaestro 20:49, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'll help rewrite parts of it later, but I don't have time right now. 68.81.231.127 22:26, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
My understand is that they're holding a referendum on the dublin convention because enough signatures (over 50,000) on a petition were gathered to force one. See http://www.euobserver.com/?sid=9&aid=18772 and http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewItem&itemID=6204 -- Joolz 12:25, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I’ve to Europe from Italy and Italy government took my finger prints So my question is does that gonna be problem when came to Switzerland? Ismet turkmen 00 ( talk) 19:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
This is without doubt the worst quality article I've ever seen on here. The bias inherent in the article is beyond parody. The Dublin Regulation does not prevent asylum seekers' claims from being considered. It's purpose is to identify a single member state responsible for determining a claim and in so doing improve efficiency and ensure MSs take responsibility. As an example of the comedy bias of the article take for example the suggestion that the Regulation means most asylum seekers stay in the countries (eg Greece) at the periphery of the EU. This claim does not stand up to even the most cursory examination: 90% of asylum application are lodged and determined in France, Gremany, Sweden, the UK and other 'northern' members states. The 'southern' states (like Greece) handle hardly any - and even with Dublin on get back a tiny proportion of those who pass through. The pressures on these states are caused by irregular migration flows, not by the Dublin regulation. There's no way to improve the article. The only sensible solution is to delete and start again, this time with at least a pretence of objectivity.
There is no mention when Hungary ratified it. I mention this because recently, Hungary started to cancel some parts of the Dublin treaty, in particular about asyl seekers from Serbia. 2A02:8388:1641:C480:5C4D:1C0E:422A:9794 ( talk) 17:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Could the article be updated. There has been a huge amount of misunderstanding regarding enforcement of Dublin Regulation. Perhaps the two most notable examples are that the regulation on paper deters asylum seekers from travelling onwards from bordering EU member states such as Greece, Italy and Hungary. In reality the unofficial policy in place is to register and let the asylum seekers move onwards towards Northern Europe. Additionally the number of eligible asylum seekers who are returned to the first member state which registered them is around 20% according the the chapter called Dublin Trickery in the book by Marco Funk - at least for Italy for 2013 figures - http://www.amazon.com/Fortress-Europes-Inner-Wall-Dilemmas/dp/1514815621/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1447011427&sr=8-1&keywords=marco+funk+fortress. The reason for the low enforcement of returning Dublin cases is a combination of the administrative burden required to do so and a set period in which a applicant can be returned. A applicant who absconds during a Dublin case request has their request voided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidthebuyer ( talk • contribs) 19:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC) Davidthebuyer ( talk) 20:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
The differing recognition rates amongst EU member states has created what some commentators call 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 http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199652433.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199652433-e-024
A broader view of this is shown in the Economist article:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/09/daily-chart — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidthebuyer ( talk • contribs) 20:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
The differing recognition rates amongst EU member states has created what some commentators call 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 http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199652433.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199652433-e-024
A broader view of this is shown in the Economist article:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/09/daily-chart — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidthebuyer ( talk • contribs) 20:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC) Davidthebuyer ( talk) 20:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Dublin Regulation. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After 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 {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Germany started accepting refugees it was not responsible for under the Dublin Accords. The article says it did so under a 'Sovereignty clause'. What is that? There is no reference in the article. Also, mention should be made of the perception by some that Germany was unilaterally breaking the Accords, and the German response to the accusation. 77.69.34.203 ( talk) 04:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Dublin Regulation. 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}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After 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 {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello, an editor deleted the following WP:RS and labeled it as "offtopic", when the WP:RS itself makes the case: "He would then have to be returned there in accordance with the Dublin III procedure. But since Germany does not return to Greece, Hussein K. could enter." [1]. This quote is regarding the murderer of Maria Ladenburger, who was able to apply for asylum in Germany in 2015 despite having already applied in Greece in 2013. Can we discuss if this is off topic if the WP:RS itself mentions what happens when Dublin III is no longer in force? Thanks! XavierItzm ( talk) 08:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
The purpose of this system is merely to check whether an asylum seeker has already submitted a request in another EU country. He would then have to be returned there in accordance with the Dublin III procedure. But since Germany does not return to Greece, Hussein K. could enter.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the Murder of Maria Ladenburger and the surrounding arguments be mentioned here on the side regarding the Dublin agreement? LucLeTruc ( talk) 12:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Dublin Regulation. 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.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After 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 {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
The current article text includes:
"According to European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) and UNHCR"
"both by ECRE and UNHCR"
"After ECRE, the UNHCR and other non-governmental organisations"
I am almost convinced standard English would have the article "the" in front of the names of these organizations [ECRE, UNHCR]. Can someone confirm this? Redav ( talk) 18:07, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 January 2024 and 15 May 2024. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Michaelasabbag (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Michaelasabbag ( talk) 18:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
The purpose of this system is merely to check whether an asylum seeker has already submitted a request in another EU country. He would then have to be returned there in accordance with the Dublin III procedure. But since Germany does not return to Greece, Hussein K. could enter.
The purpose of this system is merely to check whether an asylum seeker has already submitted a request in another EU country. He would then have to be returned there in accordance with the Dublin III procedure. But since Germany does not return to Greece, Hussein K. could enter.
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have permission from the copyright holder. The page just needs a reference to the website.
Hello Anonymous. The organisation which runs the website has assured me that they "have no objection to items on [their] website being reproduced with appropriate acknowledgment."
Am I missing something here ? We're talking about a description of an international convention !
Parmaestro 20:49, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'll help rewrite parts of it later, but I don't have time right now. 68.81.231.127 22:26, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
My understand is that they're holding a referendum on the dublin convention because enough signatures (over 50,000) on a petition were gathered to force one. See http://www.euobserver.com/?sid=9&aid=18772 and http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewItem&itemID=6204 -- Joolz 12:25, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I’ve to Europe from Italy and Italy government took my finger prints So my question is does that gonna be problem when came to Switzerland? Ismet turkmen 00 ( talk) 19:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
This is without doubt the worst quality article I've ever seen on here. The bias inherent in the article is beyond parody. The Dublin Regulation does not prevent asylum seekers' claims from being considered. It's purpose is to identify a single member state responsible for determining a claim and in so doing improve efficiency and ensure MSs take responsibility. As an example of the comedy bias of the article take for example the suggestion that the Regulation means most asylum seekers stay in the countries (eg Greece) at the periphery of the EU. This claim does not stand up to even the most cursory examination: 90% of asylum application are lodged and determined in France, Gremany, Sweden, the UK and other 'northern' members states. The 'southern' states (like Greece) handle hardly any - and even with Dublin on get back a tiny proportion of those who pass through. The pressures on these states are caused by irregular migration flows, not by the Dublin regulation. There's no way to improve the article. The only sensible solution is to delete and start again, this time with at least a pretence of objectivity.
There is no mention when Hungary ratified it. I mention this because recently, Hungary started to cancel some parts of the Dublin treaty, in particular about asyl seekers from Serbia. 2A02:8388:1641:C480:5C4D:1C0E:422A:9794 ( talk) 17:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Could the article be updated. There has been a huge amount of misunderstanding regarding enforcement of Dublin Regulation. Perhaps the two most notable examples are that the regulation on paper deters asylum seekers from travelling onwards from bordering EU member states such as Greece, Italy and Hungary. In reality the unofficial policy in place is to register and let the asylum seekers move onwards towards Northern Europe. Additionally the number of eligible asylum seekers who are returned to the first member state which registered them is around 20% according the the chapter called Dublin Trickery in the book by Marco Funk - at least for Italy for 2013 figures - http://www.amazon.com/Fortress-Europes-Inner-Wall-Dilemmas/dp/1514815621/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1447011427&sr=8-1&keywords=marco+funk+fortress. The reason for the low enforcement of returning Dublin cases is a combination of the administrative burden required to do so and a set period in which a applicant can be returned. A applicant who absconds during a Dublin case request has their request voided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidthebuyer ( talk • contribs) 19:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC) Davidthebuyer ( talk) 20:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
The differing recognition rates amongst EU member states has created what some commentators call 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 http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199652433.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199652433-e-024
A broader view of this is shown in the Economist article:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/09/daily-chart — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidthebuyer ( talk • contribs) 20:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
The differing recognition rates amongst EU member states has created what some commentators call 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 http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199652433.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199652433-e-024
A broader view of this is shown in the Economist article:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/09/daily-chart — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidthebuyer ( talk • contribs) 20:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC) Davidthebuyer ( talk) 20:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Dublin Regulation. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After 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 {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Germany started accepting refugees it was not responsible for under the Dublin Accords. The article says it did so under a 'Sovereignty clause'. What is that? There is no reference in the article. Also, mention should be made of the perception by some that Germany was unilaterally breaking the Accords, and the German response to the accusation. 77.69.34.203 ( talk) 04:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Dublin Regulation. 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}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After 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 {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello, an editor deleted the following WP:RS and labeled it as "offtopic", when the WP:RS itself makes the case: "He would then have to be returned there in accordance with the Dublin III procedure. But since Germany does not return to Greece, Hussein K. could enter." [1]. This quote is regarding the murderer of Maria Ladenburger, who was able to apply for asylum in Germany in 2015 despite having already applied in Greece in 2013. Can we discuss if this is off topic if the WP:RS itself mentions what happens when Dublin III is no longer in force? Thanks! XavierItzm ( talk) 08:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
The purpose of this system is merely to check whether an asylum seeker has already submitted a request in another EU country. He would then have to be returned there in accordance with the Dublin III procedure. But since Germany does not return to Greece, Hussein K. could enter.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the Murder of Maria Ladenburger and the surrounding arguments be mentioned here on the side regarding the Dublin agreement? LucLeTruc ( talk) 12:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Dublin Regulation. 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.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After 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 {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
The current article text includes:
"According to European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) and UNHCR"
"both by ECRE and UNHCR"
"After ECRE, the UNHCR and other non-governmental organisations"
I am almost convinced standard English would have the article "the" in front of the names of these organizations [ECRE, UNHCR]. Can someone confirm this? Redav ( talk) 18:07, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 January 2024 and 15 May 2024. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Michaelasabbag (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Michaelasabbag ( talk) 18:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
The purpose of this system is merely to check whether an asylum seeker has already submitted a request in another EU country. He would then have to be returned there in accordance with the Dublin III procedure. But since Germany does not return to Greece, Hussein K. could enter.
The purpose of this system is merely to check whether an asylum seeker has already submitted a request in another EU country. He would then have to be returned there in accordance with the Dublin III procedure. But since Germany does not return to Greece, Hussein K. could enter.