taz.de
Greece Passes Stricter Migration Law
Greece passed a new migration law on July 12th, 2024, increasing penalties for illegal entry and stay, shortening deadlines for voluntary departure, and expanding the definition of 'return country'.
- How does the new law affect asylum seekers and the asylum process?
- The law expands the definition of 'return country' to include safe third countries and the first asylum granting country, aiming to prevent 'asylum shopping'. It also abolishes the legalization after seven years of illegal stay and makes it harder to apply for international protection to prevent "misuse".
- What are the most significant changes introduced by Greece's new migration law?
- The law introduces mandatory rejection for those posing a threat to public order, criminalizes illegal stay with 2-5 years imprisonment and a €5,000 fine (unless voluntary departure occurs), and increases penalties for illegal re-entry. It shortens the voluntary departure deadline to 14 days and allows electronic monitoring.
- What are the potential consequences and criticisms of this stricter approach to migration?
- Critics, including the UN Refugee Commissioner, fear that the law's increased penalties and restrictions on asylum applications will violate international human rights standards. The Greek Association of Administrative Judges stated that the issue cannot be solved solely through repression.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article presents the new Greek migration law primarily from the perspective of the government, highlighting the government's statements and celebrating its passage. The critical voices of opposition parties, NGOs, and the UN Refugee Commissioner are mentioned, but their arguments are presented more briefly and less prominently than the government's viewpoint. The headline, while not explicitly biased, emphasizes the passage of the law without highlighting the controversy surrounding it. The introductory paragraph sets the tone by describing the law as an "expected" further tightening of already "extremely rigid" policies, framing the changes as a continuation of an existing approach rather than a significant shift.
Language Bias
The article uses language that could be considered loaded, particularly in describing the government's actions. Phrases like "extremely rigid migration and asylum course" and describing the minister's statement as "boasting" frame the government's policies negatively. Conversely, the government's justifications for the law are presented more neutrally. Terms like 'illegal' and 'unerwünschter Personen' (undesired persons) carry strong negative connotations. More neutral alternatives could be 'irregular' or 'individuals whose presence is deemed undesirable'.
Bias by Omission
While the article mentions criticism from opposition parties, NGOs, and the UN Refugee Commissioner, it does not delve deeply into the specifics of their arguments. The detailed consequences of the law for asylum seekers are outlined, but the potential broader societal impacts (e.g., on human rights, international relations) are not explored. Given space constraints, this omission may be partially unavoidable, but it contributes to a less balanced portrayal of the issue.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat simplified dichotomy between the government's position (stricter migration controls) and the opposition's stance (criticism of the law). The nuanced debate around migration policy and the complexities of the issue are not fully explored. The framing of the choice as 'Knast oder Rückkehr' (prison or return) is a clear example of oversimplification.
Sustainable Development Goals
The new migration law introduces stricter penalties for illegal stay and re-entry, potentially leading to human rights violations and undermining the rule of law. The expansion of "return countries" and measures to prevent "asylum shopping" may violate international refugee protection principles. The UN Refugee Commissioner's criticism further highlights these concerns. The law's focus on repression rather than comprehensive solutions contradicts principles of justice and fairness.