Thoughts on Greece's (new) asylum ban
A migration policy that's tough, but bare
Greece’s Prime Minister told our Parliament yesterday that his government will suspend the right to asylum for anyone arriving by boat from North Africa for 90 days, promising to detain all of them until they are returned.
The government is responding to what it considers an “invasion”, according to their newly appointed migration minister. 9,500 people have reportedly crossed by boat to Crete since the beginning of the year, 1,200 of whom arrived in recent days. Given the lack of any reception infrastructure on the island, those arriving have been housed in public spaces such as exhibition centres until being moved on to mainland refugee camps. This sense of disorder has fueled local reactions, including attempts to prevent the disembarkation of new arrivals.
Later that evening, we read the actual detail of the proposal:
The submission of asylum applications by persons who enter the country illegally by any vessel originating from North Africa is suspended. These persons shall be returned, without registration, to their country of origin or provenance.
The provision of paragraph 1 shall enter into force from the date of filing this document and for a period of three (3) months.
By Act of the Council of Ministers, the period of paragraph 2 may be shortened.
I won’t dwell on the legality or constitutionality of these plans. Leading experts (including former DPM Evangelos Venizelos) have pointed out how the government’s proposal, as is, would likely be thrown out by the courts. It is worth noting that this ‘law’ is in fact an amendment on an unrelated law1, an all-time favorite Greek government practice to fast-track legislation without too much scrutiny.
The public knows very little about those arriving, beyond a handful of photos in the press from the various makeshift (and unsuitable) accommodations around Crete. These photos suggest that most of those coming by boat are young men. Our shipping minister told a TV host that “in my opinion, these are not refugees.”
But there are several dozen Sudanese women among these recent arrivals who have been relocated to mainland camps. I have also received credible reports of Sudanese minors in detention facilities. Given the situation in Sudan, some of these people would likely be eligible for refugee status or subsidiary protection.
Those in favour of the amendment point to Poland’s recent law which also suspends the right to seek asylum at certain borders.2 There are two significant differences.
First, the Polish law clearly carves out exceptions: unaccompanied minors, pregnant women, vulnerable people owing to age or health, people who border guards can tell would be at risk if returned, and – of course – citizens of the bordering country itself. Instead, the Greek amendment imagines that everyone will be returned without registration, regardless of whether that would put them at significant risk.
Second, Poland implements that law on land borders, where it is at least technically possible to push someone to the other side of the frontier. Greek authorities are trying to deal with arrivals by sea from Libya, whose other government just deported the Greek migration minister alongside an EU commissioner. It is unlikely that Libya will be soon accepting returns from the new detention facility in Crete. The amendment also allows returning these new arrivals to their countries of origin, although it is unclear how authorities will know what country that is if they are not registering people in the first place.
There is every chance that this has less to do with 9,500 migrants than it does with the subsidy probe which led to the resignation of the previous migration minister. Or, perhaps, the rumours that a former conservative PM is about to launch a MAGA-style political party this month. Regardless, the amendment will likely leave a number of people in limbo, some of whom have a legitimate claim to protection.
Our government probably hopes this is a strong enough deterrent to prevent people from paying smugglers and then take what is an especially dangerous journey across the Mediterranean. “Deterrence plans also regularly overestimate the amount of information that migrants have about their destination” wrote Dr Matilde Rosina while investigating whether the UK’s Rwanda plan achieved that effect.
Egyptians seem to form the majority of these arrivals. 16.4% of the 22,806 asylum applications registered in May were from Egyptians, the recognition rate for whom stood at a low 1.8% since the beginning of the year. An effective agreement with Egypt could do two things: build on existing bilateral labor arrangements to expand legal pathways, and address the question of returns. This approach would prevent more boats from leaving Libya than this amendment ever will.
The next 90 days are likely to bring protests, legal challenges and ever-harsher rhetoric – the government spokesperson labelled criticism of this amendment as “opposition not to the government, but the country.” I doubt the authorities have a clear plan for what happens on day 91. The need to come up with an alternative vision of migration policy that upholds due process, fundamental rights and our national interest just became even more urgent.
The law is titled "Reform of the framework for the professional training of public procurement officials, the framework for the preparation and award of public contracts and legal protection in the field of public contracts, the framework for national quality infrastructures and the framework for the establishment, expansion and modernization of manufacturing activities in the Attica Region"
They also point to Greece’s decision to suspend asylum claims in March 2020, in response to increased arrivals at the land border with Turkey. That measure, very similar to the one submitted to Parliament yesterday, was criticised by the European Commission. Those who had arrived were eventually allowed to file asylum claims normally. Arrivals did go down in the weeks that followed this suspension – although that may be also credited to the COVID-19 pandemic.