There is a lot of discussion in luxembourg about 'asylum seekers', notably people saying they should all be banished and people saying what right we have to cast them away. It is getting very heated.
Now, someone has posted a picture of Charlotte, Grand Duchess of
Luxembourg, with the word 'Asylum Seeker' written under it, which caused a lot of debatte. One point which keeps returning is "she wasn't seeking asylum, she was in exile", the other one being "That's why we have to censor the web" (shudder).
Before making my own comment, I researched the meaning of both words but came to the conclusion that both can be used for 'political refugees' (Oxford Dictionary).
So, my question is: What is the difference between Asylum and Exile? Bonus: In context of 'political refugee'.
EDIT 1
An example: A dictator/monarch/bloke with his own opinion is hunted and has to flee. He wasn't catched but fleed by his own terms. By my own understanding, he fled and asked asylum in another country. However, if he were indeed catched, he would be sent into exile (since he was explicitly sent somewhere else by the opposing party). If that is true, why is it that the word "asylum" is not used with certain people?
In my case, it is Charlotte. She clearly fled from the nazi regime on her own terms (she could have stayed) and yet, Wikipedia states "During the German occupation of Luxembourg in World War II, Charlotte, exiled in London, became an important symbol of national unity.".
Also, exile means that someone is not allowed to return. However, someone who lives in asylum cannot return either because he might get killed. I hope this helps illustrating my troubles distinguishing both words.
Best Answer
Asylum refers to political protection. It is given to those who are persecuted for something in one country, and wish, no, are in need of sanctuary in a country that will not imprison, torture or otherwise perpetrate human rights violations against the individual who is at risk. Granting asylum is a measure that transcends and supersedes all international laws of immigration that might otherwise be in place.
Exile can be involuntary OR voluntary. Involuntary scenario: Emperor Napoleon (the first one, I think) was exiled by the French government to the Island of Elba.
All instances of exile are not punitive though. Here's an example of going into exile in order to avoid prosecution (not persecution), motion picture director Roman Polanski. Polanski chose exile to avoid criminal charges in the United States.
Voluntary scenario: Hypothetically, Polanski might have chosen to leave the U.S., in a self-imposed exile, to get away from the emotional anguish he associated with the U.S.A, where his 8+ months pregnant wife, Sharon Tate, was murdered by Charles Manson et. al. I mentioned that just for illustration purposes. It is well established that Polanski was a fugitive from justice and went into exile to a country that didn't have mutual extradition laws in place with the U.S.A. (And, unlike Gaddafi, Polanski was not accused of a crime as serious as mass homicide, which is a reason the country he fled to was willing to tolerate him.
Corrupt head of state example
Baby Doc Duvalier went into exile in France, once his oppressive totalitarian regime was overthrown by the people of Haiti. It was not so much a matter of France offering him political asylum, as France tolerating him to live there, an ocean away from Haiti. That's an example of exile, rather than asylum. It is involuntary, as Duvalier had to get out of Haiti. It is voluntary, in that he chose France (I guess).
Regarding @Mike's follow-up comment,
@Mike cites a specific example, a Reuters news story about Gaddafi. However, this was NOT a situation where another country offered asylum to Gaddafi (the corrupt head of state that Mike referenced). Here is the relevant part of the Reuters article:
It is important to note that Burkinabe Foreign Minister Bassolet said Gaddafi could go into exile in his country. He was willing to tolerate Gaddafi as an exile in his country only for the sake of expedience, to end civil war in Libya with associated loss of life. It was offered for the greater good of peace.
That is very different than granting political asylum to Gaddafi! It offers no guarantees of permanence unlike being granted political asylum. Being allowed entry as an exile, under conditions of duress (e.g. as Burkino Faso proposed), is an emergency measure. Gaddafi would have had to accept whatever terms he was offered by Burkino Faso, even it meant house arrest or confinement in primitive circumstances in exchange for assurance of his physical safety. The world community would have censured a country who was a signatory to the International Criminal Court, yet gave Gaddafi asylum.
This is the distinction between exile and asylum, although you may notice the words being misused, for political reasons, at times.