Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Asylum

Asylum is the form of international protection granted by a state to individuals who have fled their country of nationality or habitual residence due to a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, as codified in the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol.^[1] This framework establishes the core obligation of non-refoulement, barring the return of such persons to places where they would face serious threats to life or freedom.^[1] Originating from ancient traditions of sanctuary in civilizations such as the Greeks and Hebrews, the modern legal institution emerged in response to the displacement crises following World War II, with the Convention providing the foundational definition of a refugee and outlining rights to safety, non-discrimination, and access to courts in host states.^[2] The system has facilitated the sheltering of millions fleeing conflict, authoritarian regimes, and targeted violence, including high-profile cases of political dissidents granted refuge during the Cold War and more recent outflows from war-torn regions like Syria and Afghanistan.^[3] However, surging application volumes—reaching 3.1 million individual asylum claims globally in 2023—have overwhelmed processing capacities, creating backlogs exceeding years in major host countries such as the United States and members of the European Union.^[4] Recognition rates, often hovering below 50% in substantive decisions, reflect rigorous credibility assessments that frequently identify claims lacking evidence of qualifying persecution, with empirical patterns indicating that economic hardship or general instability drives many applications rather than individualized threats.^[5] Controversies center on systemic vulnerabilities to abuse, including fabricated narratives of persecution to secure entry and work rights, as evidenced by U.S. congressional investigations into patterns of fraudulent applications and no-shows at hearings, which undermine trust in the process.^[6] Initial fiscal strains are substantial, with host governments bearing costs for housing, legal proceedings, and integration services—estimated at billions annually in nations like the UK—though longitudinal analyses show that granted refugees and asylees can yield net positive contributions through taxes and labor after 10–15 years of residency.^[7]^[8] These dynamics highlight tensions between humanitarian imperatives and the causal pressures of mass irregular migration, where blurred lines between refugees and economic opportunists challenge state sovereignty and resource allocation.^[9]

Legal Asylum

Definition and Core Principles

Asylum constitutes the discretionary protection afforded by a sovereign state to a non-national who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of persecution on grounds of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.^[1] This framework derives principally from the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which defines a refugee in Article 1(A)(2) as an individual meeting the aforementioned criteria and situated outside their country of nationality.^[10] Unlike mandatory refugee status determination under certain international mandates, asylum grant remains subject to national discretion, reflecting states' sovereign authority to assess claims and allocate resources, though bound by treaty obligations where ratified.^[11] The cornerstone principle of asylum law is non-refoulement, codified in Article 33 of the 1951 Convention, which forbids the expulsion or return of a refugee to territories where their life or freedom would be threatened on account of the protected grounds.^[1] This absolute prohibition—applicable even absent formal refugee recognition—extends to indirect refoulement, such as through chain deportations, and overrides domestic immigration controls when persecution risks are substantiated.^[12] Non-refoulement operates independently of an applicant's mode of entry or criminal history, except in narrowly defined exceptions for national security threats or serious non-political crimes committed prior to admission.^[1] Additional core principles include individualized assessment of claims, placing the burden of proof on the applicant to demonstrate a well-founded fear through credible evidence, rather than generalized country conditions alone.^[13] Protection is targeted and nexus-specific, requiring a causal link between the feared persecution and one of the five enumerated grounds, excluding economic disadvantage or indiscriminate violence absent personalization.^[1] Asylum thus prioritizes genuine victims of targeted harm over mass displacement, with states retaining rights to impose lawful restrictions on residence, employment, and movement consistent with public order.^[10]

Historical Evolution

The practice of granting asylum originated in ancient civilizations, predating Christianity, with temples in Greece and Rome serving as sanctuaries that protected fugitives from immediate legal retribution, provided they adhered to rituals such as confessing crimes and remaining within sacred precincts.^[14] This religious-based protection extended into the Middle Ages through Christian churches, where accused individuals—typically of non-capital offenses—could claim sanctuary for up to 40 days, confess, and abjure the realm to avoid execution, though exclusions applied for grave crimes like sacrilege.^[14] Such arrangements emphasized temporal refuge tied to divine authority rather than enduring legal status or protection from political persecution, marking a distinction from contemporary asylum norms. By the early 20th century, amid mass displacements from World War I and the Russian Revolution, international efforts shifted toward formalized protections for specific refugee groups. In 1921, the League of Nations appointed Fridtjof Nansen as High Commissioner for Russian Refugees, introducing the "Nansen passport"—a travel document recognized by over 50 governments—to address statelessness and enable mobility for approximately 450,000 Russian and Armenian exiles.^[15] Subsequent League arrangements in 1922, 1926, and 1933 extended limited rights, such as employment and welfare access, to other displaced populations like Assyrians, but these remained ad hoc, category-specific, and ratified by few states, lacking a comprehensive persecution-based framework.^[15] The modern legal architecture of asylum crystallized post-World War II, driven by the displacement of over 40 million Europeans. The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, adopted on July 28, 1951, in Geneva, defined a refugee as an individual outside their country with a well-founded fear of persecution on grounds of race, religion, nationality, social group membership, or political opinion, and codified non-refoulement—prohibiting return to territories threatening life or freedom.^[1] Initially confined to pre-January 1, 1951, events in Europe and ratified by 145 states over time, its scope expanded via the 1967 Protocol, adopted October 4, 1967, which removed temporal and geographic limits, enabling global application.^[1] Regional instruments followed, such as the 1969 OAU Convention, broadening definitions to include those fleeing generalized violence or public disorder.^[15] National implementations adapted these principles variably; in the United States, the 1980 Refugee Act reconciled domestic law with the Convention by creating affirmative and defensive asylum processes, capping annual refugee admissions at flexible levels set by the president (e.g., 125,000 in fiscal year 2024), and providing paths to permanent residency after one year.^[16] This evolution reflects a causal progression from discretionary, faith-linked sanctuary to obligatory, state-centric obligations rooted in human rights, though enforcement remains constrained by sovereignty and verification challenges.^[15]

International Legal Frameworks

The cornerstone of international legal frameworks for asylum is the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, adopted on July 28, 1951, by the United Nations Conference of Plenipotentiaries in Geneva and entered into force on April 22, 1954.^[1] This treaty defines a refugee as any person who, owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside their country of nationality and unable or unwilling to avail themselves of its protection, or a stateless person similarly situated.^[10] It outlines core obligations for contracting states, including the principle of non-refoulement under Article 33, which prohibits the expulsion or return of a refugee to territories where their life or freedom would be threatened on account of the same grounds.^[1] Initially limited in scope to events occurring before January 1, 1951, and primarily Europe-focused, the Convention has been ratified by 146 states as of 2023, forming the basis for distinguishing asylum-eligible individuals from economic migrants or others lacking a credible persecution fear.^[17] ^[18] The 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, adopted on January 31, 1967, and entering into force on October 4, 1967, removed the temporal and geographical restrictions of the 1951 Convention, extending its protections universally without a cutoff date or regional limit.^[19] Ratified by 147 states, the Protocol obliges parties to apply Articles 2 through 34 of the 1951 Convention to all refugees as defined therein, reinforcing non-refoulement as a customary norm binding even on non-signatories.^[20] This framework emphasizes states' duties to provide legal status, access to courts, non-discrimination, and basic welfare, but does not mandate resettlement or impose burdens beyond preventing return to persecution risks, allowing states discretion in asylum granting amid varying national implementations.^[21] Non-refoulement, codified in Article 33(1) of the 1951 Convention, extends to risks of torture or inhuman treatment under complementary instruments like the 1984 Convention Against Torture, prohibiting indirect returns via "chain refoulement" through unsafe third countries.^[22] ^[12] Regional instruments supplement these global standards without superseding them. The 1969 OAU Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa, adopted September 10, 1969, in Addis Ababa and effective June 20, 1974, broadens the refugee definition to include those compelled to flee due to external aggression, occupation, foreign domination, or events seriously disturbing public order, ratified by 46 African Union states.^[23] Similarly, the 1984 Cartagena Declaration on Refugees, a non-binding instrument adopted November 22, 1984, by Latin American states, expands protection to persons fleeing generalized violence, foreign aggression, internal conflicts, or massive human rights violations, influencing national laws in over 15 countries despite lacking treaty status.^[24] These frameworks underscore asylum's focus on individualized persecution risks rather than collective flows, with empirical adherence varying due to enforcement challenges and state sovereignty, as evidenced by persistent refoulement incidents despite legal prohibitions.^[25]

National Policies and Variations

National asylum policies diverge substantially despite shared commitments to the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, which establish non-refoulement but leave implementation to sovereign discretion. Variations arise in entry access, adjudication criteria, processing timelines, recognition rates, and enforcement mechanisms, influenced by factors such as border geography, domestic capacity, security assessments, and deterrence strategies against irregular migration. Countries with land or sea borders proximate to origin regions often adopt expedited border procedures or externalization tactics, while others emphasize inland claims or resettlement quotas. Empirical data from 2024-2025 reveal recognition rates ranging from under 10% in stringent systems to over 50% in more permissive ones, with backlogs and rejection appeals straining resources globally.^[26]^[27] In the United States, asylum is pursued via affirmative applications to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) for those present lawfully or defensive claims in immigration court during removal proceedings; the system grapples with a backlog surpassing 2 million cases as of 2024, exacerbated by record border encounters exceeding 2.4 million annually in prior years. Recent measures under Proclamation 10888, effective in 2025, suspend asylum eligibility for irregular southern border crossers absent exceptional circumstances, aiming to curb unauthorized entries while expanding limited lawful pathways like parole for vetted nationalities.^[26]^[28]^[26] Australia enforces one of the strictest regimes through Operation Sovereign Borders, launched in September 2013, mandating turnbacks of unauthorized maritime arrivals and transfer to offshore processing facilities in Nauru or Papua New Guinea for status determination; no successful resettlement to Australia has occurred for boat arrivals since, with 2024 transfers totaling over 100 individuals to Nauru amid ongoing detentions. Legislation passed in November 2024 further broadens ministerial powers to designate exclusion zones and expedite deportations, prioritizing deterrence over onshore claims to prevent deaths at sea and system overload.^[29]^[30]^[31] Canada permits asylum claims at any port of entry, inland via the Immigration and Refugee Board, or through humanitarian resettlement programs under the 2001 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, processing 174,000 claims in 2024 with acceptance rates averaging 60-70% for Convention refugees or those in need of protection. Safe third country agreements, such as with the U.S., bar repeat claims at shared borders, but inland filings remain accessible, reflecting a policy balancing humanitarian intake—capped at 76,000 refugees for 2025—with labor market needs via economic migration streams.^[32]^[33]^[34] European policies show intra-regional disparities under the Common European Asylum System, with Germany and Spain handling the bulk of 2024 applications (over 9,900 and leading volumes monthly, respectively), contrasted by lower inflows to stricter states like Denmark, which in 2025 granted asylum at historically low levels via temporary protections and third-country processing proposals, including a 2021 law enabling Rwanda-like external assessments. Denmark's approach, emphasizing integration hurdles and repatriation incentives, yielded rejection rates exceeding 80% for non-European claimants, while opting out of full EU Pact on Migration and Asylum to retain control.^[27]^[35]^[36] The United Kingdom, independent of EU frameworks post-Brexit, processes claims through the Home Office with 2024 volumes placing it fifth in Europe; following the 2024 termination of the Rwanda deportation partnership—which aimed to relocate irregular arrivals for offshore adjudication but faced legal blocks—the 2025 Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill introduces enhanced removal offenses, electronic monitoring, and expedited returns to deter Channel crossings, prioritizing national security over expansive humanitarian grants.^[37]^[38]^[39] These policy divergences underscore causal trade-offs: lenient access correlates with higher volumes and integration strains, as seen in Canada's elevated claims, whereas externalization in Australia and Denmark minimizes onshore burdens but invites international scrutiny over detention conditions.^[36]^[31]

Application and Verification Processes

The application for asylum initiates the Refugee Status Determination (RSD) process, through which governments or UNHCR assess eligibility under the 1951 Refugee Convention criteria of a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.^[40] Applicants submit claims to competent national authorities, typically at borders, ports of entry, or interior offices, providing initial details of identity, travel route, and persecution fears; in non-signatory states or where national systems are absent, UNHCR handles registration and preliminary screening.^[41] This stage includes biometric data collection for identity verification and security checks against databases like INTERPOL, though inconsistencies in procedures and technological limitations can hinder effective initial vetting.^[42] A detailed personal interview follows registration, serving as the primary mechanism for fact-finding, where applicants recount their personal history, events leading to flight, and anticipated risks upon return.^[41] Interpreters ensure accurate communication, and multiple sessions may resolve ambiguities, with examiners probing for specifics to evaluate subjective fear against objective country conditions.^[43] The process emphasizes individual assessment, though expedited or group determinations occur in mass influx scenarios. Verification relies heavily on credibility evaluation of the applicant's testimony, given the frequent absence of corroborating documents from unstable origins.^[41] Criteria include internal consistency of statements, external alignment with verifiable country-of-origin information from sources like UNHCR reports, and plausibility based on known patterns of persecution; examiners apply the benefit of the doubt where evidence is incomplete but the account appears genuine, while inconsistencies, vagueness, or implausibility may undermine claims.^[41] Supplementary methods encompass security screenings, witness corroboration when feasible, and cross-checks via international databases, yet empirical challenges persist: limited access to origin data, reliance on self-reported narratives, and inconsistent fraud detection—such as spotting rehearsed stories or false identities—contribute to verification gaps, with studies indicating difficulties in distinguishing valid claims from fraudulent ones amid high volumes.^[44]^[42] Upon completion, decisions grant or deny status, with positive outcomes conferring refugee protections like non-refoulement; negative rulings trigger appeal rights, often to independent bodies, ensuring procedural fairness under international standards.^[41] Processing times vary, influenced by caseloads and resources, but delays in verification can exacerbate backlogs, as seen in systems handling surges without proportional enhancements in investigative capacity.^[45]

Statistical Trends and Empirical Outcomes

Global asylum applications and refugee status determinations have surged in recent decades, driven by conflicts in regions such as Syria, Afghanistan, and Ukraine. According to UNHCR data, the number of forcibly displaced persons reached 123.2 million by the end of 2024, including 6.9 million refugees and 8.4 million asylum-seekers pending decisions.^[46] This represents a 10% increase from 2023 levels, with resettlement of only 188,800 refugees in 2024 despite submissions for over 200,000 cases.^[4] Trends indicate persistent backlogs, with over 3.4 million asylum-seekers registered by end-2024, complicating timely resolutions.^[47] In the European Union, asylum applications peaked amid the 2022-2023 influxes but declined sharply in 2025. EU+ countries recorded 399,000 applications in the first half of 2025, a 23% decrease from the same period in 2024, attributed to stricter border policies and stabilized conflicts in key origin countries.^[48] Monthly figures fell to 64,000 in May 2025, continuing a downward trajectory from late 2024 highs.^[27] First-time applications in Q2 2025 totaled 155,980, down 15.8% from Q1, with recognition rates varying by nationality—e.g., high for Syrians (over 90%) but low for Georgians (under 5%).^[49] In the United States, defensive asylum grants by immigration judges rose to 32,050 in fiscal year 2023, a 42% increase from 2022, amid surging border encounters.^[50] However, overall grant rates have declined, reaching 35.8% in October 2024, down from peaks above 50% earlier in the decade, reflecting heightened scrutiny and completed cases totaling 10,933 in March 2025 alone, with 76% denials or closures.^[51]^[52] Affirmative asylum processing shows similar trends, with grant rates dropping to around 28% by FY2020 and remaining low into 2025.^[53] Empirical outcomes for granted asylum-seekers reveal mixed integration results, often marked by elevated crime correlations post-arrival. Large-scale studies in Germany from 2015-2016 inflows found refugee presence increased overall crime by 2-4.75% annually, equating to 75,000-150,000 additional incidents, primarily theft and property crimes.^[54]^[55] In Greece, a 1% rise in refugee share on islands correlated with 1.7-2.5% higher crime rates, driven by property offenses, knife attacks, and sexual assaults among refugee perpetrators.^[56] Delayed effects were evident elsewhere: no immediate crime spike upon arrival, but increases one year later in host communities.^[57] These patterns hold after controlling for socioeconomic factors, contrasting claims of null effects from broader immigrant aggregates.^[58] Employment integration data, while varying by host policy, frequently shows prolonged welfare reliance, with EU reviews indicating below-average labor market entry for recent cohorts due to skill mismatches and language barriers.^[59] Fraud indicators include low investigation rates relative to claims volume; U.S. data from 2013-2018 revealed only seven probes into over 76,000 grants despite abscondia rates exceeding 80% in some court categories.^[60] Official reports highlight verification challenges, with 88% of U.S. immigration judges citing fraud detection as moderately to very difficult.^[61] These trends underscore systemic strains, with pending cases ballooning and outcomes favoring rejection in tightened regimes.

Controversies and Systemic Challenges

Prevalence of Fraud and False Claims

A significant challenge in asylum systems worldwide is the submission of fraudulent or unsubstantiated claims, where applicants misrepresent persecution risks, identities, or documentation to gain protected status. Quantifying the exact prevalence is inherently difficult, as undetected fraud evades measurement, but government audits, rejection rates exceeding 50% in multiple jurisdictions, and targeted investigations provide empirical indicators of systemic abuse. For instance, a 2014 U.S. Department of Homeland Security fraud assessment of 239 randomly selected asylum cases identified 29 (12%) as fraudulent, involving fabricated evidence or coached testimonies.^[62] Similarly, U.S. immigration court data through October 2024 show asylum grant rates declining to 35.8%, reflecting adjudicators' frequent findings of insufficient credible evidence or inconsistencies suggestive of fabrication.^[51] In Europe, asylum recognition rates further underscore credibility issues, with the EU average for initial applications at 37% in September 2022, implying a majority of claims fail verification for lacking genuine persecution grounds.^[63] In the UK, initial grant rates peaked at 76% in 2022 but dropped below 50% by mid-2025 amid record application volumes, often due to discrepancies in applicant narratives or supporting documents. These patterns align with reports of organized fraud, such as smuggling networks coaching applicants on standard persecution scripts or supplying forged passports and affidavits, as documented in U.S. prosecutions of international conspiracies involving asylum fraud from 2020 to 2025.^[64] Prosecuted cases reveal tactics like marriage fraud, fake death certificates, and coordinated false family claims, with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services operations in 2025 exposing large-scale schemes blending asylum with other immigration benefits.^[65] Credibility assessments by adjudicators frequently cite challenges in verifying foreign documents or testimonies, with 88% of U.S. immigration judges in a 2008 Government Accountability Office survey rating fraud verification as moderately or very difficult.^[66] While some advocacy sources dispute high fraud narratives, empirical data from official audits and low grant rates contradict claims of negligible abuse, particularly given incentives like work authorization and family reunification that attract economic migrants disguising non-persecutory motives as asylum-eligible fears.^[67]^[68] Detection efforts, though resource-intensive, have led to permanent bars on reapplication for proven fraud, yet backlogs and limited inter-agency data sharing hinder comprehensive prevalence estimates. In the U.S., a 2025 Department of Homeland Security Inspector General review found 47% of sampled immigration files missing fraud indicators, suggesting under-detection.^[69] Overall, these indicators point to fraud comprising a nontrivial portion of claims—potentially 10-40% based on sampled detections and rejections—eroding system integrity without robust biometric and cross-border verification enhancements. The processing and support of asylum seekers impose substantial economic burdens on host countries, primarily through expenditures on accommodation, welfare benefits, healthcare, and administrative processing. In the United Kingdom, the financial cost of operating the asylum system reached £5.4 billion in the fiscal year 2023/24, largely due to increased reliance on hotel accommodations and backlog processing.^[37] In the European Union, the initial fiscal costs of the post-2015 migration surge equated to approximately 0.2% of GDP across the bloc, rising as high as 1% of GDP in heavily affected member states like Germany and Sweden, driven by direct spending on reception centers and integration programs.^[70] These outlays often exceed contributions from asylum seekers in the short term, as employment rates among recent arrivals remain low—below 50% in many EU countries after five years—due to skill mismatches, language barriers, and legal restrictions on work.^[71] In the United States, federal expenditures on refugees and asylees totaled an estimated $457.2 billion over a 15-year period ending in 2023, though offset by $581 billion in tax revenues, yielding a net federal benefit of $37.5 billion; however, state and local governments faced a net fiscal cost of approximately $180 billion, reflecting concentrated burdens on public services like education and Medicaid in high-arrival areas.^[8] ^[72] Cities such as New York incurred over $2.3 billion in asylum seeker-related spending in fiscal year 2024 alone, including shelter and food provisions, exacerbating local budget strains amid housing shortages.^[73] These costs are amplified by systemic fraud in claims, which diverts resources without yielding long-term economic gains, as low-skilled inflows from non-persecution motives rarely achieve fiscal neutrality.^[74] Socially, mass asylum inflows strain community resources and erode cohesion, manifesting in overcrowded schools, prolonged welfare dependency, and cultural frictions that foster parallel societies. In Sweden, the influx since 2015 has correlated with heightened social tensions, including increased reports of segregation in urban areas where asylum seeker concentrations exceed 20% of the population, leading to reduced interpersonal trust and native emigration from affected neighborhoods.^[75] Germany's hosting of over 1 million asylum seekers in 2015-2016 overwhelmed integration efforts, resulting in persistent high welfare usage—over 60% of recipients from this cohort remain dependent after eight years—and public perceptions of declining social harmony, as evidenced by rising support for restrictionist policies.^[76] These dynamics undermine voluntary solidarity, with surveys indicating that exposure to rapid demographic shifts correlates with diminished generalized trust in diverse communities.^[77] Security costs arise from elevated risks of crime and terrorism linked to inadequate vetting and cultural incompatibilities among asylum populations. In Germany, non-German suspects, including many recent asylum arrivals, accounted for 41% of recorded crimes in 2023 despite comprising about 15% of the population, with disproportionate involvement in violent offenses like sexual assaults and thefts.^[78] Sweden's official statistics show a surge in lethal gun violence since 2013, tied to gang activities disproportionately involving migrants from asylum-source countries, with foreign-born individuals overrepresented by a factor of three in homicide convictions.^[75] On terrorism, Europe experienced multiple jihadist attacks by asylum seekers or failed claimants between 2015 and 2017, including the 2016 Berlin truck ramming by Tunisian asylum seeker Anis Amri (12 killed) and the 2016 Würzburg axe attack by Afghan minors, highlighting vetting gaps in high-volume systems that approved claims from high-risk regions without robust identity verification.^[79] These incidents, often involving irregular entrants posing as refugees, have prompted enhanced border controls but underscore ongoing causal links between unchecked asylum flows and public safety threats.^[80]

Debates on Sovereignty and Reform

Debates surrounding asylum policy center on the inherent conflict between national sovereignty—the right of states to regulate borders and prioritize domestic interests—and international commitments, particularly the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, which mandate non-refoulement but lack mechanisms for managing mass influxes or distinguishing genuine refugees from economic migrants. Proponents of stronger sovereignty argue that unchecked asylum claims undermine state control, as evidenced by the European Union's 2015-2016 migrant crisis, where over 1 million arrivals strained resources and public trust, prompting assertions that the Convention's territorial focus ignores modern irregular migration patterns driven by economic incentives rather than persecution.^[81]^[82] Critics of expansive asylum, including policymakers at the U.S. State Department's September 2025 UN General Assembly event, contend that the system is "outdated and broken," enabling forum-shopping where claimants bypass safer countries to reach preferred destinations, thus eroding sovereign capacity to enforce laws and protect citizens from associated fiscal and security burdens.^[83] Reform advocates emphasize recalibrating asylum to affirm sovereignty without abrogating core protections, such as through safe third-country agreements that require claims in the first safe nation encountered, a principle tested in U.S. proposals like the 2024 Border Act (S.4361), which aimed to expedite border processing and hire additional asylum officers to reduce backlogs exceeding 1.5 million cases by fiscal year 2024 end.^[84]^[85] In Australia, 2024 legislation empowered the government to pay third countries for accepting noncitizens, including refugees, as a sovereignty-preserving measure to deter boat arrivals and offshore process claims, building on policies that reduced unauthorized maritime entries from over 20,000 in 2012-2013 to near zero by 2024.^[31] The European Union's 2024 Pact on Migration and Asylum similarly prioritizes border sovereignty by mandating faster screenings, expanded detention, and shared responsibility quotas, designating seven nations as "safe" in April 2025 to accelerate deportations and claims processing amid a 2024 surge of 1.1 million applications.^[71]^[86] These reforms reflect empirical recognition that asylum grant rates often fall below 30% in high-volume contexts, indicating widespread misuse for non-persecutory migration, yet face opposition from human rights groups like Amnesty International, which claim they violate Convention principles—though such critiques overlook state evidence of systemic overload and low validity in claims.^[87] Opposing views, often advanced by international agencies and advocacy organizations, prioritize humanitarian universality, arguing that sovereignty claims mask xenophobia and that reforming the Convention risks unraveling post-World War II norms protecting the vulnerable; however, these positions frequently downplay causal factors like weak origin-country enforcement and pull factors from generous welfare systems, as seen in U.S. asylum where credible fear interviews approve over 70% of initial screenings despite ultimate low grant rates.^[88]^[89] Sovereignty defenders, including conservative think tanks, counter that true reform entails ending border asylum as an entry mechanism while preserving it for legal visa holders, aligning with first-asylum principles to distribute burdens more equitably across the 140+ Convention signatories, many of which host 85% of global refugees in low-income nations.^[90] This debate intensified in 2025, with U.S. proposals to "reframe" global asylum sparking warnings from UNHCR leadership against undermining non-refoulement, yet underscoring sovereign rights to territorial control as foundational to state legitimacy.^[91] Empirical data from reform implementations, such as Australia's model, demonstrate reduced irregular flows without collapsing protections, suggesting viable paths forward that balance realism with obligation.^[81]

Historical Precedents

Religious Sanctuary Practices

In ancient Greek and Roman societies, temples served as asylums where fugitives, including runaway slaves, debtors, and criminals, could seek temporary protection from pursuers, rooted in the sacred inviolability of religious sites.^[14] This practice extended into early Christianity by the fourth century, formalizing churches as refuges for those fleeing persecution, violence, or execution, though protection was not absolute and often limited to non-capital offenses or accidental acts.^[92] Biblical Judaism established six cities of refuge—Kedesh in Galilee, Shechem in Mount Ephraim, Hebron in Judah, Bezer in the Reubenite territory, Ramoth in Gilead, and Golan in Bashan—designated under Mosaic law to shelter individuals guilty of unintentional manslaughter from the blood avenger, a kin seeking retributive justice.^[93] These cities, allocated among the Levites as outlined in Numbers 35:6-34 and Joshua 20:7-8, required the fugitive to remain until the high priest's death, emphasizing atonement and prevention of vigilante excess rather than blanket immunity for deliberate crimes.^[94] Intentional murderers were ineligible, underscoring a distinction between accidental harm and malice that influenced later sanctuary norms.^[95] Medieval Christian Europe expanded sanctuary rights, particularly in England from the sixth century onward, allowing fugitives to claim refuge in churches for up to 40 days, during which they could confess crimes and either stand trial or abjure the realm—fleeing to exile under pain of death if caught outside sacred bounds.^[14] The practice, justified by the holiness of ecclesiastical spaces rather than direct biblical precedent like Hebrew cities of refuge, shielded accused persons from immediate arrest but permitted secular authorities to eventually intervene, as seen in cases where prolonged stays led to forcible removal or negotiation.^[96] By the 16th century, reforms like Henry VIII's 1539 legislation curtailed these privileges, reflecting tensions between religious autonomy and state sovereignty, yet the tradition persisted in continental Europe until the French Revolution abolished it in 1789.^[97] These religious mechanisms prefigured modern asylum by prioritizing sacred spaces for temporary reprieve from lethal pursuit, but they were narrowly applied to mitigate rash vengeance or afford procedural mercy, not to grant permanent immunity or address political exile, and often excluded violent or repeat offenders.^[98] Empirical records indicate sanctuary claims declined over time due to abuses, such as fugitives using churches as bases for further crime, prompting legal restrictions that balanced compassion with public order.^[14]

Early Institutions for Mental Afflictions

The Priory of St Mary of Bethlehem was established in 1247 in Bishopsgate, London, by Simon Fitzmary, an alderman and sheriff, initially as a charitable institution under the Order of St Mary of Bethlehem to shelter and heal poor pilgrims and the sick, funded by ecclesiastical and royal patronage.^[99] ^[100] By the late 14th century, the priory had begun admitting individuals with mental afflictions, evolving into England's first dedicated asylum for the insane, with records indicating that by 1377 it housed "lunatics" alongside other paupers, reflecting medieval views of madness as a form of spiritual or demonic affliction requiring isolation rather than medical intervention.^[101] ^[100] Conditions were custodial and harsh, with patients often restrained in chains within small cells, subjected to minimal care, and occasionally displayed to visitors for a small fee, which generated revenue but perpetuated stigma and spectacle.^[99] ^[102] Following the Dissolution of the Monasteries in 1547, King Henry VIII transferred control of Bethlem to the City of London, formalizing its role as a public asylum under secular governance, though treatment remained punitive, with overcrowding reaching dozens of patients by the 16th century and little emphasis on cure until Enlightenment reforms centuries later.^[103] ^[100] This model influenced subsequent European institutions, such as the 1409 asylum in Valencia, Spain, established by royal decree for confining the mentally disordered, and early 15th-century hospices in Florence, Italy, which segregated the insane from general poor relief systems.^[100] Prior to these medieval developments, care for mental afflictions in antiquity lacked formalized institutions, relying instead on family oversight, exorcisms, or temple-based incubation in places like Greek Asclepieia, where supplicants sought divine healing through rituals rather than confinement.^[104] Early asylums thus marked a shift toward institutional segregation, driven by urban growth, fears of public disorder, and theological interpretations of insanity, though empirical evidence of efficacy was absent, with mortality rates high due to neglect and disease.^[105]^[100]

References

[1]
The 1951 Refugee Convention - UNHCR
The core principle of the 1951 Convention is non-refoulement, which asserts that a refugee should not be returned to a country where they face serious threats ...
[2]
1. A Brief History - Immigration Equality
U.S. asylum law is derived from international agreements written after World War II which provide protection to people fearing or fleeing from persecution.3. Elements of Asylum Law · 1-3, Asylum Law Basics · 2. Sources of Law
[3]
Global Trends - UNHCR
Jun 12, 2025 · During the year, at least 4.8 million people sought international protection, including those that applied for asylum on an individual basis ( ...
[4]
[PDF] global-trends-report-2024.pdf - UNHCR
Jun 12, 2025 · This figure includes those that applied for asylum on an individual basis (3.1 million), were recognized through group procedures (835,600) or ...
[5]
Refugee Data Finder API - UNHCR
In the first half of 2024, 711,100 substantive decisions were made on individual asylum applications. The global Total Protection Rate, which measures the ...
[6]
ASYLUM FRAUD: ABUSING AMERICA'S COMPASSION?
This is a hearing on asylum fraud. The Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security will come to order.
[7]
[PDF] The Asylum System and Refugee Intergration: Economic Analysis
Mar 4, 2024 · The UK's current asylum system cost a total of £1.36 billion in financial year 2020/21. The year before,. 2019/20, it was £956 million, which is ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[8]
The Fiscal Impact of Refugees and Asylees at the Federal, State ...
Feb 15, 2024 · The net fiscal impact of refugees and asylees was positive over the 15-year period, at $123.8 billion. This means that refugees and asylees ...
[9]
Asylum Fraud Isn't What You Think It Is - Niskanen Center
Aug 14, 2018 · These fraudulent seekers, claims the administration, “game the system” because asylum status allows them immediate legal entry, access to ...
[10]
Convention relating to the Status of Refugees | OHCHR
Each Contracting State shall accord to refugees lawfully in its territory the right to choose their place of residence and to move freely within its territory ...Preamble · Article 1 - Definition of the term... · Article 17 - Wage-earning...
[11]
Asylum-seekers | UNHCR
Asylum-seeker definition and meaning. An asylum-seeker is someone who intends to seek or is awaiting a decision on their request for international protection.
[12]
UNHCR Note on the Principle of Non-Refoulement - Refworld
The principle of non-refoulement is the cornerstone of asylum and of international refugee law. Following from the right to seek and to enjoy in other ...<|separator|>
[13]
Refugees and Asylum | USCIS
Aug 27, 2025 · Refugee or asylum status may be granted to aliens who have been persecuted or have a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of ...
[14]
Claiming 'Sanctuary' in a Medieval Church Could Save Your Life ...
Apr 18, 2019 · The concept of sanctuary predates Christianity, going back at least as far as Greek and Roman temples that offered protection to fugitives.
[15]
None
### Summary of Historical Development of Refugee Law
[16]
Asylum in the United States - American Immigration Council
May 9, 2025 · This fact sheet provides an overview of the asylum system in the United States, including how asylum is defined, eligibility requirements, and the application ...Missing: evolution | Show results with:evolution
[17]
2 . Convention relating to the Status of Refugees - UNTC
The Convention was adopted by the United Nations Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Status of Refugees and Stateless Persons, held at Geneva from 2 to ...<|separator|>
[18]
The 1951 Refugee Convention and Key International ... - UNHCR
The 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol are the key legal documents that form the basis of UNHCR's work. With 149 State parties to either or both.
[19]
The 1951 Refugee Convention and 1967 Protocol relating ... - UNHCR
The 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol provide the internationally recognized definition of a refugee and outline the legal rights they are entitled ...
[20]
5. Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees - UNTC
Subject to the following reservations in respect of the application of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, done at Geneva on 28 July 1951, under ...
[21]
[PDF] The 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol - UNHCR
1967 Protocol broadens the applicability of the 1951 Convention. The 1967 Protocol removes the geographical and time limits that were part of the 1951 ...
[22]
Access to territory and non-refoulement | UNHCR
Mar 6, 2025 · As refugee status is declaratory in nature, asylum-seekers must not be refouled prior to a final determination being made on their status by ...
[23]
OAU Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee ...
OAU Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa ; Date of Adoption: September 10, 1969 ; Date of last signature: May 19, 2016 ; Date ...
[24]
Cartagena Declaration on Refugees, adopted by the Colloquium on ...
Cartagena Declaration on Refugees, adopted by the Colloquium on the International Protection of Refugees in Central America, Mexico and Panama, Cartagena de ...
[25]
1984 Cartagena Declaration on Refugees, Colloquium ... - Refworld
1984 Cartagena Declaration on Refugees, Colloquium on the International Protection of Refugees in Central America, Mexico and Panama · English · French ...
[26]
Outmatched: The U.S. Asylum System Faces Record Demands
This report examines the current state of the US protection system, with a particular focus on recent changes the Biden administration has been making in ...Missing: controversies empirical
[27]
Latest Asylum Trends
Jul 17, 2025 · In May 2025, Germany received 9,900 applications, a drop of 47% compared to May 2024. Spain was the main receiving country in the EU+ with ...
[28]
2025 Asylum Policy Changes: Impacts, Risks, and Guidance | IL
Sep 28, 2025 · Under Proclamation 10888, the right to seek asylum at the southern border for those apprehended between ports of entry has been suspended.
[29]
Regional processing and resettlement - Department of Home Affairs
Any person entering Australia by boat without a valid visa will be returned or taken to a regional processing country for protection claims assessment.<|separator|>
[30]
Offshore processing statistics - Refugee Council of Australia
This includes 11 people sent to Nauru in September 2023, 12 sent to Nauru in November 2023, another 39 sent in February 2024, 10 in April 2024 and 37 in June ...
[31]
Australia Passes Harsh New Anti-Migration Laws
Nov 28, 2024 · The Australian government passed new laws that expand the country's offshore detention regime, further evade international obligations, and allow officials to ...
[32]
What Is Canada's Immigration Policy? - Council on Foreign Relations
Migrants can make an asylum claim at any border crossing or airport, as well as certain government offices inside Canada. In 2024, Canada received 174,000 ...
[33]
How Canada's refugee system works
Oct 24, 2024 · The Canadian refugee system has two main parts: Refugee and Humanitarian Resettlement Program. Refugees who come to Canada have left their homes.
[34]
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act ( SC 2001, c. 27)
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act ( S.C. 2001, c. 27) · Table of Contents · Related Information · Amendments * · Regulations made under this Act · Repealed ...Permanent Resident · Interpretation · PART 1Immigration to Canada · Regulations
[35]
Denmark grants asylum to 'historically' low number - Euronews.com
Feb 10, 2025 · In 2021, the country passed a law allowing immigrants to be moved to asylum centres in partner countries. The decision was condemned at the time ...
[36]
Denmark's Turn to Temporary Protection - Migration Policy Institute
May 21, 2025 · Denmark is well known for its tight family reunification rules for refugees, compared to neighboring states which take a more liberal approach.Most immigrants in Denmark... · Recent policy has sought...
[37]
Asylum and refugee resettlement in the UK - Migration Observatory
Aug 1, 2025 · In 2024, the UK ranked fifth in the absolute number of asylum claims received when compared to EU+ countries. When adjusted for population size, ...Missing: variations | Show results with:variations
[38]
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill 2025 - GOV.UK
The Bill to create a framework of new and enhanced powers and offences to improve UK border security and to strengthen the asylum and immigration system.
[39]
Rwanda asking UK for $63 million over cancelled asylum ... - Reuters
Mar 4, 2025 · Rwanda is asking Britain for a 50 million-pound ($63.62 million) payment over a cancelled asylum deal, a source close to the government in Kigali said on ...
[40]
Refugee status determination - UNHCR
RSD is the legal or administrative process by which governments or UNHCR determine whether a person seeking international protection is considered a refugee.
[41]
[PDF] Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee ...
9. By accession to the 1967 Protocol, States undertake to apply the substantive provisions of the 1951 Convention to refugees as defined in the Convention, but ...<|separator|>
[42]
[PDF] DHS Needs to Improve Its Screening and Vetting of Asylum Seekers ...
Jun 7, 2024 · DHS's screening is not fully effective due to technology limitations, inconsistent procedures, and lack of biometric matching. Five ...
[43]
Documentation – UNHCR – Guidance on Registration and Identity ...
At the end of the registration process, registered individuals should be issued documentation enabling them to demonstrate their identity and, as applicable, ...
[44]
Study finds problems in detecting fraud among asylum seekers
The Obama administration is having trouble detecting fraud in asylum requests from immigrants seeking to stay in the ...
[45]
[PDF] Effective processing of asylum applications: Practical considerations ...
The primary goal of this paper is to document relevant options and measures initiated by national asylum authorities - in countries with advanced asylum ...
[46]
Global Trends report 2024 - UNHCR
At the end of 2024, 123.2 million people worldwide were forcibly displaced as a result of persecution, conflict, violence, human rights violations and events ...
[47]
Global Report 2024 - UNHCR
Jun 17, 2025 · By end-2024, 91% of refugees and asylum-seekers were individually registered in 98 countries, an increase from 89% in 2023. More than 3.4 ...
[48]
Asylum applications down by 23% in the first half of 2025
Sep 8, 2025 · By the end of June 2025, EU+ countries received 399 000 asylum applications, a 23 % decrease compared to the first half of 2024.1 This shift was ...
[49]
Asylum applications - monthly statistics - Statistics Explained - Eurostat
On a quarterly basis, there were 155 980 first-time asylum applicants in the EU countries in Q2 2025, a decrease of 15.8% compared with the previous Q1 2025 ( ...
[50]
[PDF] Asylees: 2023 - Office of Homeland Security Statistics
Oct 1, 2024 · EOIR immigration judges granted defensive asylum to 32,050 people in 2023, an increase of 42 percent from 2022 levels and an over four- fold ...Missing: fraud | Show results with:fraud
[51]
Asylum Grant Rates Decline by a Third - TRAC
Nov 19, 2024 · The latest case-by-case Court records for October 2024 show asylum grant rates had declined to just 35.8 percent. This is in down sharply from earlier in the ...Missing: 2020-2025 | Show results with:2020-2025
[52]
Immigration Judges Closed and Denied More Asylum Cases in ...
May 11, 2025 · In March 2025, immigration judges decided 10,933 asylum cases—more than in any other single month since at least 2001. And of those cases, 76% ...
[53]
[PDF] USCIS Records Reveal Systemic Disparities in Asylum Decisions
May 1, 2022 · Based on Human Rights First's analysis of USCIS data, the asylum office grant rate2 fell from 44 percent in FY 2016 to 28 percent in FY. 2020 – ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[54]
The crime effect of refugees | CEPR
Jul 24, 2022 · The results show that the refugee influx led to an increase in the incidence of crime by 2% to 4.75% per year, which corresponds to about 75,000 ...Missing: employment | Show results with:employment
[55]
[PDF] The Crime Effect of Refugees
The study found that an increase in the number of refugees leads to more crime, with 75,000 to 150,000 additional crimes per year generated between 2012 and ...
[56]
The effects of exposure to refugees on crime - ScienceDirect.com
A 1% increase in refugee share on Greek islands increases crime by 1.7-2.5%, driven by refugees, with increases in property crime, knife attacks, and rape.
[57]
Do refugees impact crime? Causal evidence from large-scale ...
Our results indicate that crime rates were not affected during the year of refugee arrival, but there was an increase in crime rates one year later.
[58]
Immigration and Crime: An International Perspective
We review the evidence on this point so far, which overwhelmingly suggests that immigrants do not increase crime levels in the communities where they settle, ...
[59]
[PDF] The Integration of Recent Migrants and Refugees: A Review of ...
This EU-funded project, SPRING, reviews integration policy practices for recent migrants and refugees, aiming to improve integration effectiveness and ...<|separator|>
[60]
Fact Sheet: Asylum Fraud and Immigration Court Absentia Rates
Oct 8, 2021 · Individuals who have been found to have filed a fraudulent asylum application are barred from applying again in the future. Tools in the Fraud- ...
[61]
[PDF] GAO-08-935 Highlights, U.S. ASYLUM SYSTEM:
IJ survey respondents cited verifying fraud (88 percent) and assessing credibility (81 percent) as a moderately or very challenging aspect of asylum ...Missing: rates statistics
[62]
[PDF] Asylum Fraud: Abusing America's Compassion
Feb 11, 2014 · Key Findings. • Of the 239 randomly selected cases, 29 (12%) were determined to be fraudulent. o 12 (41%) of the 29 fraud cases (5% of the study ...Missing: prevalence | Show results with:prevalence
[63]
MW511 : Recent change in the UK asylum grant rate
Dec 22, 2022 · The EU+ recognition rate (for initial applications) was 37% in September 2022, compared with 77% in the UK. Recognition rates at the EU level ...
[64]
Twelve People Charged for Their Roles in International Alien ...
Sep 4, 2025 · Twelve people have been charged in a superseding indictment for their roles in an international conspiracy involving alien smuggling, asylum ...Missing: 2020-2025 | Show results with:2020-2025
[65]
USCIS Announces Results of Operation Twin Shield, a Large-Scale ...
Sep 30, 2025 · Immigration officers discovered immigration fraud in forms of marriage fraud, fake death certificates and other bizarre schemes.
[66]
[PDF] GAO-08-935 U.S. Asylum System - TRAC
Sep 25, 2008 · IJ survey respondents cited verifying fraud (88 percent) and assessing credibility (81 percent) as a moderately or very challenging aspect of ...
[67]
FACT BRIEF: Are nine out of 10 asylum claims fraudulent?
Apr 18, 2025 · No. There is no evidence that 90% of asylum claims are fraudulent. While estimates for the number of asylum applications granted in recent years vary widely.Missing: 2020-2025 | Show results with:2020-2025
[68]
What is the evidence of asylum fraud? - Migration Watch UK
Sep 23, 2021 · 'Fraud' means deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.
[69]
[PDF] CBP Faces Limitations Detecting and Preventing Aliens ... - DHS OIG
Sep 12, 2025 · We reviewed a sample of 60 immigration files and determined 28. (47 percent) were missing available information about the use of fraudulent ...Missing: prevalence statistics<|separator|>
[70]
Macroeconomic implications of the recent surge of immigration to ...
Oct 14, 2024 · Previous IMF work has shown that the increased migration caused initial fiscal costs of around 0.2% of EU GDP and as high as 1% of GDP in those ...
[71]
[PDF] Asylum Report 2025
Jun 30, 2025 · The Asylum Report 2025 is an annual report on the situation of asylum in the European Union, published in June 2025.
[72]
[PDF] The Fiscal Impact of Refugees and Asylees Over 15 Years
Feb 1, 2024 · While refugees, asylees and their immediate families provided a net benefit to the federal government, estimated at $37.5 billion, they were a ...
[73]
Fiscal Impacts - Office of the New York City Comptroller Brad Lander
Funding for Asylum Seekers (FY 2023 and FY 2024 Actuals, as of the January 2025 Financial Plan) ; City, $1,036, $2,323 ; State, $438, $1,310 ; Federal, –, $120 ...Missing: United | Show results with:United
[74]
The Costs of Hosting Refugees in OECD Countries and Why the UK ...
Sep 25, 2024 · There are nine countries who reported costs of over $1 billion in 2023; in a total of $29 billion. To properly compare these figures, we need to ...
[75]
Facts about migration, integration and crime in Sweden
Oct 6, 2025 · Since 2013, the number of cases has increased. The Police Authority's statistics show that lethal gun violence has increased within the context ...
[76]
Forced Migration and Social Cohesion: Evidence from the 2015/16 ...
In this paper, we investigate whether hosting asylum seekers affects social cohesion in a major receiving country. ... The impact of the mass asylum seeker inflow ...
[77]
Does immigration undermine social cohesion in the receiving country?
Jan 23, 2023 · The study's findings suggest that a sudden and significant influx of refugees did not significantly alter Germans' perceptions of their society.
[78]
Behind the statistics: Crime, migration and labor shortages in Germany
Oct 18, 2024 · Additionally, 179 crimes against asylum shelters were recorded in 2023, marking an increase of approximately 50 percent compared to the previous ...
[79]
Reframing Threats from Migrants in Europe - ICCT
Dec 13, 2021 · They were quickly blamed for several terror attacks across Europe. ... refugees and a 2,500 percent increase in terrorism against refugees.
[80]
Germany: populist far right strengthened by terror acts
Oct 21, 2024 · Any further terrorist attacks by refugees or asylum seekers and, indeed, those against refugees and migrants in-country will only accelerate ...
[81]
[PDF] Challenges to sovereignty: migration laws for the 21st century
Calls to reframe the Refugee Convention or announcements of upcoming derogations reflect the importance of migration control to perceptions of national ...
[82]
The End of the 1951 Refugee Convention? Dilemmas of ...
Jul 28, 2020 · The 1951 Refugee Convention is threatened by states circumventing obligations, deterritorialization, territorialization, and a shift towards ...
[83]
Deputy Secretary Landau Leads UNGA Event on Migration Reform
Sep 25, 2025 · During the event, sovereign states shared their perspectives on the problems with the outdated and broken international refugee and asylum ...
[84]
S.4361 - Border Act of 2024 118th Congress (2023-2024)
The bill also increases base pay for asylum officers and grants DHS temporary direct hire authority to hire personnel to implement the bill. Congress.gov. Site ...Missing: sovereignty | Show results with:sovereignty
[85]
How the U.S. Asylum Process Works | Council on Foreign Relations
The 1980 law created the current statutory basis for asylum, guaranteeing family reunification rights and providing asylees—migrants who receive asylum—with a ...Missing: milestones | Show results with:milestones
[86]
EU Labels 7 Nations as 'Safe' to Fast-Track Asylum Claims ...
Apr 21, 2025 · The EU names seven countries as safe to fast-track asylum claims and deportations. Learn how this shift may affect migrants and member ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[87]
The Trump administration's call to 'reframe' the global asylum system ...
Sep 26, 2025 · The US administration's claim that asylum seekers pick and choose the country where they claim asylum is not supported by evidence. In fact, ...
[88]
[PDF] The Tension Between Asylum Advocacy and Human Rights
A critical issue has been the tension between refugee protection and defer- ence to state sovereignty; in particular, the extent to which a law "of general.<|separator|>
[89]
The Surprising New Consensus on Asylum Reform - AEI
Sep 30, 2025 · Asylum remains an option for those who enter the United States via other legal means, but the administration has taken various steps to make it ...
[90]
What Immigration Reform Should Look Like - The Heritage Foundation
The debate is not about whether we should allow immigration – it's about how we do so in a way that protects American sovereignty, respects the rule of law, ...
[91]
U.N. refugee agency chief suggests that US deportation practices ...
Oct 7, 2025 · Refugee Convention and the principle of asylum on the table would be a catastrophic error.” He insisted that “national sovereignty and the right ...
[92]
Churches have a long history of being safe havens — for immigrants ...
and, in recent decades, sanctuary from the U.S. ...<|separator|>
[93]
What were the cities of refuge in the Old Testament? - Got Questions
Feb 10, 2025 · Of these forty-eight cities, six were designated as cities of refuge. The cities were Kedesh, Shechem, Hebron, Bezer, Ramoth, and Golan (Joshua 20:7-8).
[94]
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Cities of Refuge - New Advent
The Biblical cities of refuge were six in number, viz., to the west, Cedes in Galilee, Sichem in Mount Ephraim, and Hebron in the south; to the east, beyond ...
[95]
Cities of Refuge Demystified - Guest Columnists - Parshah
The cities of refuge were only for those who killed accidentally, not knowing the consequences of their actions.
[96]
Sanctuary (right of refuge) | Catholic Answers Encyclopedia
The right of sanctuary was based on the inviolability attaching to things sacred, and not, as some have held, on the example set by the Hebrew cities of refuge.
[97]
Social Justice — Catholic Churches and Hospitals as Sanctuaries ...
The Archbishop of Canterbury had the power to offer protection to fugitives and those who sought asylum from the crown's justice. The Church's role as a ...
[98]
The Church as Sanctuary: What Does It Mean to Be a Refuge for ...
Mar 19, 2025 · Unlike medieval sanctuary, which sometimes protected violent criminals, this modern movement was about safeguarding those escaping violence ...Missing: fugitives | Show results with:fugitives
[99]
From Bethlehem to Bedlam: England's First Mental Institution
In 1247, the Priory of St Mary of Bethlehem was founded, devoted to healing sick paupers. The small establishment became known as Bethlehem Hospital. Londoners ...
[100]
The history of Bethlem Hospital - Hektoen International
Feb 22, 2017 · Bethlem Hospital was a historic place that housed real patients. Over the span of seven-and-a-half centuries, this pioneer institution welcomed inmates under ...
[101]
Bethlem Royal Hospital
The priory of St Mary of Bethlehem was founded in Bishopsgate (near the present site of Liverpool Street Station) in 1247 by Simon Fitzmary, an alderman and ...
[102]
Bethlem Royal Hospital: why did the infamous Bedlam asylum have ...
Bethlem was founded in 1247 and through most of its history reflected contemporary views on the treatment and care of people with a mental illness. There was, ...
[103]
Our History - Maudsley Charity
In 1547 King Henry VIII granted the 'custody, order and government' of the hospital of Bethlem to the City of London, as one of the five 'Royal' hospitals re- ...
[104]
History of Psychiatric Hospitals - Penn Nursing
Massachusetts General Hospital built the McLean Hospital outside of Boston in 1811; the New York Hospital built the Bloomingdale Insane Asylum in Morningside ...
[105]
A Victorian Mental Asylum | Science Museum
Jun 13, 2018 · But when the first large asylums were built in the early 1800s, they were part of a new, more humane attitude towards mental healthcare. The ...The origins of the asylum · Physical restraints in asylums · New attitudes to mental...