Arguing about asylum: the complexity of refugee debates in Europe

Few issues in Europe today are as controversial as the granting of asylum. While the general idea that politically persecuted people ought to receive asylum is widely accepted, the source of the controversy lies in the details. What precisely constitutes “political persecution?” How can an asylum application be judged fairly? To what extent should domestic constraints influence asylum decisions? These are all difficult questions that bring to light the complex mix of political, cultural, moral, legal, economic, and ideological motives that shape asylum policies in Europe.

This research covers the period from the late 1970s, when asylum was just beginning to cause political ripples, to the mid 1990s, when it had become one of the dominant issues in Europe. Germany, Britain, and Switzerland offer a wide variation in European asylum policies: Germany’s policy has been among the most generous, Britain’s has been among the most restrictive, and Switzerland’s has been in between. Given the spatial and temporal variation in the asylum policies of these three countries, parliamentary debates capture a whole range of arguments built upon concerns for national interests, international norms, and morality, and this range nicely demonstrates the complexity of asylum.