![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
Abstract
This piece critically examines migration policies in Greece and Turkey with an emphasis on the Greek experience. It examines four thematic areas which shape the migration debates: social change, citizenship, rights and sovereignty. It then turns to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights to assess the main challenges associated with migrants’ rights: free trial, deprivation of liberty and conditions and procedures of detention and extradition. Honing in upon the case of Muslim migrants in Greece, it charts patterns of solidarity and exclusion. Exploring the impact of the Greek crisis on immigration, it highlights the securitization of public discourse on migrants and the rise of xenophobic political factions. The article concludes by suggesting that there are underexplored areas in which Greece and Turkey could cooperate when it comes to immigration and ensuring migrants’ rights.
Notes
1. Direct bilateral cooperation was conducted to a minimum extent with reference to the Greek–Turkish ‘Protocol of Readmission to Combat Irregular Migration’, signed on 8 November 2001. The protocol entered into force in April 2002, according to the Greek-Turkish agreement of cooperation signed in 2000 (Icduygu Citation2005).
2. It is very difficult to obtain a reliable number on the population of Christian immigrants in Turkey. It should not be more than 80,000 coming from Armenia, Georgia, Ukraina, Moldova and Bulgaria (statistics on immigration in Turkey: International Organisation for Migration Citation2008). In Greece, Muslim immigrants could be about 300,000 (Tsitselikis Citation2012).
3. Among others see the Hellenic League of Human Rights; European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (Citation2011); and UNHCR (Citation2011).
4. In Turkey, the status of refugee cannot be granted for those coming from Asia or Africa, in Greece special measures target immigration in toto as an unwanted phenomenon.
5. Answer of Mrs Malmström in the name of the Commission, 6 December 2011, to question E-5191/2011 submitted by MEP Mr Papanikolaou.
6. The Greek government has sought to reassure its Turkish counterpart that the wall is not intended to target Turkish citizens.
7. Council Regulation (EC) No. 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 established the criteria and mechanisms for determining the member state responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the member states by a third-country national. The regulation established the principle that only one member state is responsible for examining an asylum application. The objective is to prevent asylum seekers from being sent from one country to another, and also to prevent abuse of the system by the submission of several applications for asylum by one person.
8. ECtHR, Tabesh v. Greece, No. 8256/07, 26 November 2009.
9. Abdolkhani and Karimnia v. Turkey, No. 30471/08, 22 September 2009; Jabari v. Turkey, No. 40035/98, § 49, ECHR 2000-VIII; Alipour and Hosseinzadgan v. Turkey, Nos. 6909/08, 12792/08 and 28960/08, 13 July 2010; Z.N.S. v. Turkey, No. 21896/08, 19 January 2010; M.B. and Others v. Turkey, No. 36009/08, 15 June 2010; Ahmadpour v. Turkey, No. 12717/08, 15 June 2010. In some cases, the Court found that detention conditions did not comply with Article 3 of the convention: Tehrani and Others v. Turkey, Nos. 32940/08, 41626/08, 43616/08, 13 April 2010; Charahili v. Turkey, No. 46605/07, 13 April 2010.
10. Supra, note 2.
11. On the legality of the establishment of these detention centres vis-à-vis the non-feasible deportation of the immigrant detainees see: www.hlhr.gr/details.php?id=682.
12. University of Oxford, Turkish Migration Studies Group (TurkMiS), https://www.compas.ox.ac.uk/research/dynamics/turkish-migration-studies-group/.
13. Problematic conditions of detention have been documented by the ECtHR, see all relevant cases cited above.
14. Available at: www.hlhr.gr.
15. According to Article 91 of Act 3386/2005 immigrants living in Greece before 31 December 2004 had the right to apply for legal documents.
16. To reduce prohibitive transaction costs, the measure should be enforced in tandem with a reduction in the number of social security stamps required for the issuing of documents like residence permits.
17. Party websites are at www.laos.gr/load_file.asp?epilogi=/press/txtfiles/ΠΑΤΡΑ231010.txt; http://www.elora.gr/portal/interviews/9--/2559–2010-11–04-14–41-49; and http://www.xryshaygh.com.
18. For the declaration see: http://www.romfea.gr/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4275:-l-qq-&catid=26:2009-12-18-08-38-40.
19. On different approaches on social exclusion and its modalities, see Robbins Citation1999.
20. During Ramadan in August 2012 groups of neo-Nazis attacked a series of prayer halls in Athens, see: http://www.newsit.gr/default.php?pname=Article&art_id=157084&catid=3.
21. The political platform of the Golden Dawn is available at: http://www.xryshaygh.com/.