kathimerini.gr
Greece Intensifies Migrant Returns, Ranking Fourth in EU
In 2024, Greece returned approximately 7,000 rejected asylum seekers, ranking fourth in the EU, utilizing both mandatory and voluntary programs like the EU-funded voluntary return program that aims to return 17,000 by 2027; further returns are planned for March, showing an increase in efficiency and alignment with stricter EU migration policies.
- What is the impact of Greece's intensified migrant return policy on the overall number of rejected asylum seekers?
- The Greek Ministry of Migration and Asylum is intensifying the return of asylum-seekers whose applications have been rejected, ranking fourth among EU member states in 2024 with approximately 7,000 returns. This involves both voluntary and mandatory returns, with recent examples including a February 4th FRONTEX-coordinated repatriation of 40 individuals and a February 13th voluntary return program for Georgians.
- How does the Greek government's approach to both voluntary and mandatory returns contribute to the effectiveness of its migration policy?
- Greece's increased migrant return rate, facilitated by programs like the EU-cofunded voluntary return program and expedited asylum application processing, reflects a broader European trend of stricter migration policies. The 7,000 returns in 2024, combined with planned March returns, demonstrate a significant increase in efficiency and enforcement of existing legislation.
- What are the potential long-term consequences of Greece's increased migrant return rate on its relationship with other EU member states and migrant-sending countries?
- The acceleration of migrant returns in Greece, while adhering to human rights standards, indicates a potential shift towards stricter border control measures across the EU. This trend could influence future migration flows and asylum policies within the EU, impacting both migrant populations and member states' resource allocation.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing emphasizes the Greek government's actions and achievements in returning migrants. The headline (if one existed) would likely highlight the increase in returns as a positive development. The article uses phrases like "intensifying returns" and "acceleration of return procedures", framing the increase as a positive action rather than exploring the ethical implications and the needs of the individuals involved.
Language Bias
The language used is largely neutral, but the repeated positive framing of the government's actions subtly influences the reader's perception. Phrases such as "intensifying returns" and "acceleration of return procedures" present the issue from a governmental perspective, without necessarily reflecting the lived experiences of those being returned. More balanced wording might focus on the "number of returns" or "increased rate of deportations.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the Greek government's perspective and statistics on migrant returns. It mentions the Eurostat ranking but doesn't provide comparative data from other EU countries to fully contextualize Greece's position. Additionally, the article lacks perspectives from migrants themselves or from human rights organizations regarding the conditions and fairness of the return process. While acknowledging limitations of space, the omission of these viewpoints limits a complete understanding of the issue.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat simplified picture by focusing primarily on the government's efforts in facilitating returns. It doesn't sufficiently explore the complexities of the situation, such as the challenges faced by returned migrants, the effectiveness of reintegration programs, or potential push factors driving migration.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights Greece's efforts to manage migration flows by increasing returns of asylum seekers whose applications have been rejected. This aligns with SDG 16, which aims to promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels. Efficient and humane asylum processes contribute to maintaining peace and order.