Talk:2015 European migrant crisis

Is it a crisis of ‘Europe’ or of the ‘EU’?

In the lead section, second sentence, I made an edit on 15 August, pointing out that “those requesting asylum in Europe in 2015” etc. actually refers to ‘those requesting asylum in the European Union in 2015’, since that is what the mentioned ref sources 6(Ayaz) and 8(BBC referring to Frontex which is EU) actually say. Possibly a small number asked asylum in non-EU European coutries but we have no information directly stating that; this Wiki article originated out of political and other concerns (in the EU) about migrants coming to the EU, as is still recognizable in the rest of the lead section which consequently pertains to that EU’s migrant crisis. Therefore, it is a matter of transparency to explicitly state also in the first paragraph of the article’s lead section that ‘Europe’ in this article must generally be understood as ‘European Union’. Now, our colleague Deb reverted that edit on 15 Aug, suggesting that it was ‘minor’ which is misleading, and claiming that my edit attempt was only “ungrammatical” but in its purport apparently correct. If that is so, why does he not constructively repair the grammar of it? But if he actually really holds objections to the tenor of the edit, why does he not honestly tell us so? --Corriebertus (talk) 14:18, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll let Deb defend her edits herself if she wishes, but I am also against explicitly referring to the EU rather than Europe in this instance. I understand where you're coming from, but I think "EU" is too imprecise here. Norway and Switzerland (which aren't in the EU but still participate in Frontex), not to mention Turkey, took in a lot of refugees, too, while a lot of eastern EU countries took in next to none. Refugees were heading to any safe country willing to take them in. That simply happened to be mostly, but far from only, EU countries. Tserton (talk) 21:33, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Corriebertus - I first checked your reference to verify your intended meaning. However, what you wrote, viz. "the wealthy European Union, where most migrants were heading towards" is both ungrammatical and misleading. Not all of the European Union is wealthy - you probably meant to refer to the more wealthy countries. And "where most migrants were heading towards" is simply very bad English. Deb (talk) 09:33, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Still "into Europe". The migrants want to rich Western European countries, not to "Europe". Xx236 (talk) 12:53, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

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.

---

I propose that the section about the EU response be split into a separate page called European Union response to the 2015 migrant crisis. I think its important for sure but it is extremely long, to be frank makes it quite confusing because it discusses Merkel and it is not clear that these were probably made in EU forums and discussions. It has also created confusion as seen in comments above regarding if was an EU crisis or European crisis. I'd like to discuss this and then initiate a straw poll. Chefs-kiss (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I would agree to a split, but the title should follow Wikipedia standards, therefore a better option would be European Union response to the 2015 migrant crisis. Note the (non-)capitalization and the full spelling of EU. Yakme (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh ok! Yep. Ill go on and change it rn then Chefs-kiss (talk) 23:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

@Yakme: I think that just grabbing the text from the page itself and pasting it would be fine, or do you think it should be modified? Chefs-kiss (talk) 09:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Though we could add some stuff now that I think of it. Perhaps more about the EU as an institution and their reaction. A start point could be Nugent Neill book of The Government and Politics of the European Union. The first chapter kind of discusses this topic briefly? Chefs-kiss (talk) 10:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Stara Marusya, Dellwegg, Worldwar1989, Mikeblas, Rlink2, and Tserton: Pinging users that have contributed in the last year to this page to get their opinion.

I think this is a great idea. This article still needs quite a bit of work – even after a lot of culling over the last few years, it's too long – and splitting out its longest section would be a good next step. --Tserton (talk) 19:41, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree that a split might be useful, but not if it just gives someone an excuse to include all the racist stuff that we've culled from the article in the past. It should start from the existing content. Deb (talk) 13:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

As mentioned above, the idea is to simply split the main section out, keeping the content. Chefs-kiss (talk) 14:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Splitting

@Chefs-kiss: at the moment there are two "EU response" sections in this article. I guess we should remove one of them? Yakme (talk) 09:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

@Yakme: I agree. However the section conflates EU stuff and member level stuff. For example the section of Tightening of asylum laws discusses only national affairs. I'm not sure about the integration of refugees. Rejected asylum seekers I agree should be changed because there is some EU stuff there, the PTSD section is also purely national stuff.
I think that the stuff about Tightening of asylum laws and could be added to the section of statistics section, subsection assylum applications. Maybe integration of refugees and PTSD could be added to the aftermath section? Chefs-kiss (talk) 17:21, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Those subsections originally belonged to the "Aftermath" section (here's the last revision before the split). They must have gotten mixed up. I'll put them back under the Aftermath heading. --Tserton (talk) 12:36, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

thank you then Chefs-kiss (talk) 12:40, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

"Refugees", "asylum seekers"

Using "refugees", "asylum seekers" expressions in correlation with European/EU migrants crisis is incorrect.

According to Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (Certified true copy from UN Treaty Collection):

"Refugees unlawfully in the Country of Refuge

1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence. 2. The Contracting States shall not apply to the movements of such refugees restrictions other than those which are necessary and such restrictions shall only be applied until their status in the country is regularized or they obtain admission into another country. The Contracting States shall allow such refugees a reasonable period and all the necessary facilities to obtain admission into another country."

In 2015, none of these conditions were met at the Hungarian-Serbian border, actually didn't meet at Greek-Turkish and all of the migrants entering Hungary there had already traveled through Turkey, Greece, an EU Member State, North Macedonia, where none of the conditions were met either.

Ultimately, those arriving in Europe since 2015 were refugees only in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan, everywhere else they have been illegal migrants. Sziráki Tamás (talk) 13:05, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this particular case but usually in EU Law the issue of borders is up to the actual member states and how they define refugees since borders and exclusive competence.

in addition while the EU does adhere to the UN Treaties I recommend that you cite EU case law from the CJEU or ECtHR. Also most of the reporting did refer to them as refugees. Chefs-kiss (talk) 14:22, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia doesn't take its cues from the UN (or any other specific organization, for that matter). We use the terms used by reliable sources – news articles, books and academic publications. These all refer to the people coming to Europe in 2015 as either asylum seekers, refugees, or migrants. --Tserton (talk) 20:53, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

We already know how many "asylum seekers" obtained the asylum. Xx236 (talk) 08:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

2023 Crises

Proposing a new article on the 2023 migration crisis currently unfolding. Largest influx of asylum seekers seekers since 2015. cooljuno411 15:51, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Created 2023 European migrant crisis cooljuno411 16:16, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

"Largest", even if verifiable, is not synonymous with "crisis". Deb (talk) 16:54, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with cooljuno411 there should be a new page with updated numbers.Muaza Husni (talk) 12:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi would it be possible for you to list news articles that show this trend? Or any academic papers? I study this subject and have not heard anything about this from the academic side Chefs-kiss (talk) 12:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC)