Talk:Dublin Regulation

message: I have permission from the copyright holder.  The page just needs a reference to the website.
*Hi, Parmaestro. Are they releasing it under the GFDL or into the public domain so others can reuse it as well? Who did you contact? When? Please see Wikipedia:Copyrights for the policy and procedures. 68.81.231.127 09:49, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Parmaestro. Text included in the Wikipedia either needs to licensed under the GFDL, released into the public domain, or qualify under fair use. A vague, informal statement doesn't meet that criteria, and even if permission is given, that must be specifically documented. See Wikipedia:Copyrights for details. A more enduring problem is that promotional material doesn't belong in the Wikipedia (though it can be an excellent source of facts for an article you write yourself). The Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; our articles need to have a neutral point of view, and must be based on publically available sources. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. The stub you wrote on the /temp page is a good start. BTW, I have a static IP so I'm actually less anonymous than registered users. :) 68.81.231.127 21:55, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
thread_title: Switzerland

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hungary 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Updates needed please 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Update needed on criticism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Update needed on criticism 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Dublin Regulation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140222012517/http://ceciliawikstrom.eu/en/politik/migration-och-asyl/dublinforordningen/ to http://ceciliawikstrom.eu/en/politik/migration-och-asyl/dublinforordningen/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  What Sovereignity Clause?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101112181343/http://commissioner.cws.coe.int/tiki-view_blog_post.php?postId=80 to http://commissioner.cws.coe.int/tiki-view_blog_post.php?postId=80
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928170557/http://www.ecre.org/component/content/article/41-protection-in-europe/10-dublin-regulation.html to http://www.ecre.org/component/content/article/41-protection-in-europe/10-dublin-regulation.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120322103120/http://www.ecre.org/component/content/article/134.html to http://www.ecre.org/component/content/article/134.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151223104718/http://www.ecre.org/component/downloads/downloads/112.html to http://www.ecre.org/component/downloads/downloads/112.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090324073823/http://www.ecre.org/resources/press_releases/1065 to http://www.ecre.org/resources/Press_releases/1065
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050319010056/http://www.irishrefugeecouncil.ie/factsheets/dublinconvention4.html to http://www.irishrefugeecouncil.ie/factsheets/dublinconvention4.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: I tend to agree with you, but it is not straight forward as I would not use "the" such as NATO. -- Q Chris (talk) 13:46, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article "the" in front of "ECRE" and "UNHCR"? 

message: — Assignment last updated by Michaelasabbag (talk) 18:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Legal Europe