EUROPEAN RESEARCH CONFERENCE HOMELESSNESS AND POVERTY IN EUROPE

International and European Perspectives

The Early Stages in the Life of Immigrants

in Greece: A Case of Extreme Conditions of Poverty and Homelessness

Aris Sapounakis, Ph.D.Assistant Professor at the University of Thessaly, Volos, Greece

Research assistants: Themis Pellas, Dafni-Efrosini Delfaki

Volos, August 2009

1 INTRODUCTION

By the end of the first decade of the 21st century, it has become more than evident that the phenomenon of immigration is challenging Greek society in a surprisingly intense manner. As Greece during the last three decades has been transformed from a country whose citizens emigrate abroad to one that receives immigrants, the growing influx of people from the developing world has put excessive pressure on existing structures leading to serious questioning of the policies adopted so far. With nearly 150,000 immigrants entering the country last year, it is apparent that new policies for accommodation and integration of immigrants are needed.

On the other hand, immigrants experience adverse living conditions during the first period of stay. Whether they legally or illegally manage to enter the country or they are intercepted by the authorities, they are bound to struggle hard in order to achieve appropriate housing and employment standards. Regardless of their interest to stay in Greece or to move to another final destination, their first period of stay in the country has presently proven to be more difficult than ever before.

The present paper deals with the living conditions of new-comers as they move along the ‘enter-stay-exit’ axis. In this approach, it is important to focus on the manner in which the immigrants’ quest for acceptable housing and employment standards is confronted by relevant national policies.

2 MIGRATION POLICY FRAMEWORK

The European Union’s initiatives for a coherent migration policy have proven to be elusive so far. The diverse migration tradition and background of member states, the divisive nature of migration as a political issue usually based on national priorities, the notion of national sovereignty and the way it is perceived have prevented EU members from arriving at a unanimous agreement on clear political objectives on the particular field.

In post-Amsterdam’s institutional arrangements, several measures towards a common policy on asylum and migration have been produced, such as the Directive concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents, the Directive on the right to family reunification, the Directive on Common Standards and Procedures in Member States for Returning Illegally Staying Third-Country Nationals (2006), the Reception Conditions Directive, the Dublin Regulation and the more recent Commission's Communication on circular and mobility partnerships between the European Union and third countries (2007) and the European Pact for Immigration and Asylum (2008) which are documents of both consultative and political character.

In view of these, the various projects dealing with immigration progress at different rates. Policies addressed to illegal migration have attracted a sizeable amount of cooperation among different member states which has taken the form of harmonization laws, such as the Directive on the return of irregular migrants and the Directive on employer sanctions, of the coordination on operational issues, such as the FRONTEX agency, and RABBIT, the use of advanced technological instruments, such as SIS, VIS, EURODAC and biometrics in the future, and so on. Furthermore cooperation among member states has been monitored in cases of externalization of the EU borders in collaboration with third countries. Emphasis remains on policies concerning border controls.

As EU member states’ views on economic migration differ, labor migration has proven to be the most difficult field for arriving at a common basis among national legal frameworks. In 2004 Commission had to abandon a proposal for two directives on this matter. The well-known Blue Card Directive is still in the process of being negotiated. Tackling irregular migration by diverting it effectively to legal channels still remains the key point for a more comprehensive European migration policy.

Greece is a country that characteristically involves problematic legal migration channels. As Maroukis (2008) has suggested, “the ways the landscape of migration policy interweaves with the migrants’ strategies in the particular economic environment of Greece create a particular context for the production of irregularity”. The narrow entry legal channels are the threshold to a bureaucratic state mechanism whose procedures lead to the production of irregularity in various stages of an immigrant’s life in its territory.

‘Metaklisi’, one of the main legal channels to enter the country to work that could have been utilized by immigrants, fails due to the bureaucratic procedures it involves. Employers avoid to employ foreigners in this manner as they prefer the immediate exploitation of the stock of workers already available. Due to the lack of the appropriate Labor consultancy Offices, which were announced by Law 3386/2005 but never actually established, migrants make use of formal and informal employment agencies in their country of origin to acquire visas. Although the main criterion to get a visa is money and not qualifications, in the majority of cases migrants acquire short term visas for tourism and after they enter the country, they come in contact with employers already known by their agencies.

Coming to Greece as an asylum seeker is another legal pathway which due to the tedious procedures it involves is bound to lead many immigrants to illegality (see Section 5). “The control of irregular migration has been transferred from the inadequate regulatory processes of entry to the interior of the country through the policy of the stay permit system and its main lever, the immigrant regularization programs”, (Maroukis, 2008). In an overview of the legislation regulating the stay permit, the characteristics of the Greek labor market as well as the way migration strategies interweave with these, Maroukis shows how the incompetence of regulating policies to adapt to the economic reality and immigrants’ social imaginary has been forcing the latter to illegality.

Regulations which relate to the manner in which immigrants leave the country without their will is a matter that surely requires attention. As the deportation system does not operate properly mainly due to the costs of repatriation as well as the malfunction of the readmission Protocol with Turkey, immigrants whose identity has not been established remain in Greek territory after their detention period. Furthermore, the Greek government has recently issued a bill that among other provisions included an amendment which allowed for the elongation of the detention period of immigrants before they are deported.

It is important to note that this legislative instrument is recognized by public discourse as the de jure conceptualization of migration as a disordering society factor which in many ways is equivalent to pure crime. The new amendment is not in accordance with the protection of fundamental rights established by the Greek Constitution as well as international law, as it connects directly a simple penal prosecution, which is typically not a condemnation, with irreversible consequences. The deportation of immigrants, without them being able to express their position officially, practically abolishes their right for judicial protection.

Although the aim of the recent legal instrument, as this has been announced, is to eliminate illegal migration, there appear to be no actual discrimination between legal and illegal immigrants. The result of this omission is that even people who live in Greece for years, people who work, pay taxes and possess a valid residence permit, may also face the danger of deportation.

3 CATEGORIZATION AND ESTIMATE OF THE NUMBER OF

IMMIGRANTS

Unquestionably, there are several ways of categorizing immigrants based on different kinds of parameters. A most important parameter concerns their legal status of stay in the country. A considerably small number of immigrants who enter the country are equipped with legal documents that allow them to stay and work. Usually immigrants who fall into this category come from countries that have developed bilateral agreements with Greece.

However, the majority of immigrants try to enter country without legal documents. These people either attempt to enter the country by sea, in case their country of origin is in Asia or Africa or through the northern borders as is the case of those who originate from the eastern European and Balkan countries. An unidentified percentage of them are caught and are led to the reception centers that are usually located in islands of eastern Aegean Sea and cities near the borders. Hereupon, they may apply for asylum facing a number of bureaucratic formalities in order to become asylum seekers. Finally, if their request is granted they are considered refugees1. It must be noted that a significant number of immigrants who are arrested by Greek authorities is deported.

Another scenario applies to immigrants who have entered the country illegally without being intercepted. Most of them are trying to make a living by seeking a job2, while a substantial but undefined number of them eventually move to other EU countries that, to their opinion, offer better employment opportunities. In this case, Greece functions as a stepping stone, a transit country that connects the eastern to the western world. Yet, even those who manage to enter the country illegally may sometimes find themselves in a state of legality either by marrying an indigenous person or by having relatives who live legally in the country etc.

A broad definition of illegal migration refers to the person “without a legal residence status in the country he/she resides in and whose presence in the territory if detected is subject to termination through an order to leave and/or an expulsion order” (Clandestine Project).

The most common countries of origin of economic immigrants in Greece are Albania, Rumania, Ukraine, Georgia, Poland, Pakistan and countries of 1 The 1951 Refugee Convention establishing UNHCR spells out that a refugee is someone who "owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country" (www.unhcr.org, The UN Refugee Agency). Refugees and asylum seekers should be protected by law, although in reality they usually face many difficulties.2 These people constitute a particularly vulnerable group as they are not insured, don't pay taxes and don't have access to the primary health care system. They are considered economic immigrants despite the fact that among them, there are people who could have been protected by the state as refugees.

northern and central Africa. Those who apply for asylum, usually originate from Iraq, Iran, Somalia and Palestine due to the belligerent state of their countries of origin.

Estimating the number of immigrants in a specific period of time is an extremely difficult task as not only the actual amount of foreigners within the country fluctuates significantly with time, but also because the nature of their legal status changes continually as they move along the various grey zones from legality to illegality. As the recent study conducted by the Institute of Migration Policy (IMEPO) has shown statistics vary depending on the interests of the body that assesses available data while even the validity of data may easily be questioned (IMEPO, 2008).

The safer manner to approach the number of immigrants is based on the three legalization campaigns that have been monitored in Greece since 1998 as well as the population statistics based on the 2001 inventory which had arrived at the figure of 672,191 people of foreign descent living in Greece, 66,000 of whom originated from Cyprus and other EU countries. While the 2001 legalization operation involved 367,860 immigrants, only 217,000 managed to attain a proper work and stay permit. The response to the last legalization program has been even smaller as the applicants did not exceed the figure of 145,000. As a result of the three programs, the total number of work and stay permits issued for foreigners has been 604,215 for the year 2005 and 695,979 for 2006 (IMEPO, 2008).

In view of the above, in approaching the specific issue it appears reasonable to examine migration as a continuum of irregularity-regularity rather than to simply measure people. As Maroukis has shown, what one may understand is that estimates on the size of migration stock affect directly the discourse that frames the migration landscape (Maroukis, 2008). The latter involves different actors in it, with different roles, adapting numbers that support their own agendas. “These agendas are organizational, sociopolitical and scientific, and are influenced by evolutions on the national, regional and international level”. Sometimes the same estimate can meet different goals; “a dramatized estimate for example could serve both the Greek Police and Coastguard and the part of academia that argues for migration-friendly policy reforms. For the former it would mean justification for further EU support to the enforcement mechanisms and for the latter it would bring up in the discussion the need for changes on the existing migration policies and the Greek economy as it is interconnected with the political system”. Some agendas outweighs others and the effects of that depends much on the political, social, economic timelines the various estimates are introduced (Maroukis, 2008).

Maroukis undergoes an overview of the Greek case to show the evolution of Greek migration framework, from the early nineties estimates of a half a million illegal immigrants to around 250.000-205.000 during 2007. “Different agendas have different readings to the same estimate. The agendas though set the pace to the debate- the numbers have a secondary impact”. He shows that even if overall numbers of apprehensions and expulsions have decreased from the early nineties, that should be read more as a cause of the new nationalities that are more likely to be apprehended and more difficult to

deport and the regularization programs of the past years, and not a change in the philosophy of the migration policy emphasized by the police-practice.

4 ‘RECEPTION’ OR RATHER DETENTION/DEPORTATION

CENTERS

As mentioned earlier, an excessive amount of immigrants attempt to cross the Greek borders on a daily basis during the last couple of years. These people not only had to pay several thousands of Euros to those who organized their illegal transport, but also, due to the complete lack of the appropriate support, are bound to face many difficulties at the frontier regions. Their arrest, most of the times, is forcible allowing no possibility to communicate with people who understand their language or people who will inform them about their rights and their obligations, as there is no skilled stuff such as interpreters, legal advisers or even sociologists.

People who are intercepted while attempting to enter the country are led to institutions called Reception Centres where they were required to stay for a period up to three months. The recent presidential decree 81/2009 imposes detention in Reception Centres for up to one year. It is apparent that under new legislation people who have committed the crime of not having the necessary documents are bound to experience close confinement and freedom deprivation for a fairly long period (www.gcr.gr, Greek Council for Refugees). For this reason, the official term is usually changed to ‘detention/deportation centres’ which appears more suitable to the character of the specific institutions. It is beyond any doubt that this detention not only allows the authorities to check new-comers but also decelerates the process of their integration.

Reception Centres rarely follow the standards that should fulfill. In most cases the number of the detained immigrants is much higher than its actual capacity. As a result, these people live under extreme overcrowded conditions, while there have been complains about the standard of living which often is often poor in basic amenities such as food, health care etc.

It is important to note that, during their stay in the centers, new-comers have no chance to work, to get education, even to facilitate the procedure leading to their integration. The detention/deportation centers, are usually located in frontier regions or islands which are typically far from the large urban centers that could offer them a diversity of integration opportunities.

It is interesting to present a spatial depiction of Reception Centres. As is expected, the centres tend to be located near the borders. The most important ones are the ones located in the islands of Samos, Lesvos and Hios as well as the territory of Evros, near the Turkish border in north-eastern Greece.

Apart from the above, there are also many informally established camps where immigrants, apart for the overcrowded conditions they face, find themselves being accommodated in unsuitable structures such as old, abandoned stores, amenity centres, prisons and police stations. Almost every island of eastern Aegean Sea, such as Leros, Patmos and Agathonisi, is

equipped with an informal detention centre. The case of Agathonisi is exceptional as the island’s population is often smaller than that of immigrants stationed there.

One should also note the operation of reception centers for the minors such as ones in Konitsa, near the city of Ioannina at the north-western border to Albania, and in Anogia, Crete. The question that arises in relation to reception centers for minors is whether there has been provision for family support for minors.

Finally the only centre that actually operates as a reception centre is located in Lavrio, near the city of Athens. Still, although this centre has been in operation for several decades and has catered for the needs of asylum seekers, there have been several complaints about the quality of living conditions and especially legal support in view of the users’ need for integration.

As the influx of immigrants is growing, the government has announced its intention to establish four new centers chiefly by transforming unused military camps. Two of these centers will be established in Athens and the island of Evoia and the other two in Macedonia, in the north of Greece. The centers will be guarded by policemen, but there are no further pronouncements if there will be staffed with specialized personnel. Also, it is worth mentioning that according to declarations of the Ministry of Interior, these centers “will be serving as detention centers for the immigrants, until their deportation become realizable”. There are also plans for the operation of a ‘floating temporary detention centre’, a boat which will be collecting the illegal immigrants of the sea and will transfer them to Athens, in view of the necessary procedures for their deportation. Although these measures will surely provide a solution to the problem of overcrowded existing services, it will have to be paired by additional supporting mechanisms to ensure a comprehensive immigration policy for integration.

5 ASYLUM FRAMEWORK

In order to set the contemporary scene of asylum in Greece one should start with the Presidential Decree 81 issued in July 2009. This legal instrument amends the previous Presidential Decree 90/2008 in respect to the requirements and procedures of granting and recalling the refugee status. The refusal of participation and consequent withdrawal of the UN High Commissioner from the consultation process on the discussion of PD 81/2009 before it was issued reflects the harsh framework in which asylum seekers find themselves when applying for asylum in Greece.

According to PD 81/2009 procedures are decentralized to 50 police authorities throughout the country equipped with insufficient infrastructure to house asylum seekers and insufficient staff to support them. The committee of refugees that under preexisting legislative framework examined the cases at a higher level is now substituted by the Ministry of Public Order, despite the European legislation that requires applications to be examined by an independent authority.

The examination of asylum applications at the higher degree is of crucial importance as out of 19,884 applicants in 2008, only 0.05% has been granted refugee status at the first degree and 10.29% at the second. It is important to note however that before 2008 the latter percentage used to be 2%, the recent raise mainly being due to the pressure exerted on government officials by NGOs.

Still, a statement in the report of the three non-governmental organizations, Norwegian Organization for Asylum Seekers (NOAS), the Norwegian Helsinki Committee (NHC) and the Greek Helsinki Monitor (GHM) (2008), is indicative of the current situation; “In our opinion the deficiencies in the Greek asylum process, documented through this report, entail that there is a discord between the preconditions on which the Dublin II Regulation was founded and procedural practices followed in Greece. In our opinion the Greek system does not guarantee even minimum basic legal protection for the asylum seekers... Based on our findings, we consider it evident that, at the time being, it is not safe to transfer asylum seekers to Greece in accordance with the Dublin II Regulation. Member States have an independent responsibility to initiate investigations and implement measures necessary to fulfill international human rights obligations”.

A similar view has been expressed by UNHCR in the report on the ‘Position on the Return of Asylum-Seekers to Greece under the Dublin Regulation’. The latter regulation is also part of the problem, though, as many reports state. It intensely charges the countries in the European frontlines with the management of the everyday migration flows which in many cases have been growing rapidly. In 2007 for example Greece has registered more asylum seekers than Germany a country seven times its size. In the report “The truth may be bitter but it must be told” (2007), by the Group of Lawyers for the

Right of Refuges and Migrants, the situations the immigrants encounter when reaching the Greek territory are vividly described.

Mixed migration flows of refuges and economic immigrants apprehended at the borders face detention under inhuman conditions, with no access to asylum determination procedures and what follows in most cases is immediate deportation. At first they are all regarded as aliens, using the Greek term ‘lathrometanastes’ or illegal immigrants. Asylum seekers, victims of torture, minors, people who are ill, pregnant women or other people needing protection are all detained and deportation orders are issued.

These flows practically remain mixed for all their detention period. That’s a situation that exists actually in many aspects of the interaction of the immigrants with the Greek authorities that follows their movement in the country. This is mainly due to the tedious time-consuming procedures that may last for more than a year. It’s actually due to the lack of specialized staff at the borders that most of the applicants must lodge their application for asylum to a local police station within 3 months after their entry. Most applications register with the Attica Police Asylum Department in Athens (about 95%). The latter, as the main way for immigrants to get the so called Pink Card which confers no rights beyond that of them not being deported, cannot compete with the large numbers of applicants. Until today the three main stages of this dysfunctional asylum system - appointment, interview, examination of cases, i.e. 1st and 2nd degree, until recently, notification of decision - take too much time and this is often unbearable for the applicant as he/she becomes vulnerable for organized crime. A sizeable amount of applicants give up the procedure, having already wasted money and time, not to mention psychological issues) thus deciding to remain illegal, to work in the marginal economy, and to raise money in order to seek for asylum in another country.

6 IMMIGRANTS AND THE GREEK HOUSING MARKET

As, in the absence of a coherent housing provision framework, the integration of immigrants is related to the affordability pattern allowed by the Greek housing market in which the availability of low-cost existing housing stock is of crucial importance. As a result, the majority of immigrant new-comers tend to take advantage of the obsolete urban housing stock in either a permanent or a temporary manner. Adverse housing conditions hinder immigrants’ access to employment, education and other public services and act unfavorably in respect to their aptitude of ameliorating their living standard. At present, it forces immigrants to become even more vulnerable to the current economic crisis and surely to adopt an active stance in current Greek society.

The Greek housing system is not based on a comprehensive housing policy but on a mixture of fragmented policies. Most efforts to provide affordable solutions to housing so far, like the lowest guaranteed rent threshold, have ended in reproducing inequalities. In most cases immigrants are left to face the privately rented housing sector unprotected and are bound to come across increased property prices. The decision to buy a house for those who can afford it is greatly influenced by the difficulty to achieve long-term legal residence in the country.

Since the turn of the century, the situation has somehow changed. Immigrants who work and pay taxes in Greece acquired similar rights as Greek citizens. Additionally, they can benefit from the housing program of the Organization of Labor Housing (OEK) as long as they fulfill certain requirements. Thus immigrants have the opportunity to benefit from it by receiving a monthly rent subsidy or by acquiring a flat in public housing estates through lottery just as Greek beneficiaries do. It was no sooner than 2006 that the first Albanians citizens who established the minimum required working record in Greece despite working legally since 1998, managed to receive a housing loan.

With reference to the Greek housing market, it should be mentioned that there is evidence that although immigrants tend to concentrate in specific urban areas, where buildings are older and prices are lower, these concentrations are not formed in isolated areas and thus do not have the character of a ghetto. As it has been argued, immigration does not alter the traditional pattern of a city composed by large socially mixed areas (Leontidou, 1997), but it is connected to the increase of social and housing inequalities, the social differentiation of access to home ownership holding a key role in this particular context (Kandylis & Maloutas, 2009). In the case of Athens, even districts with an increased immigrant population are not systematically segregated by natives, partly because of the vertical social segregation pattern of living in which the poorest tend to dwell in the lower levels of the buildings (Leontidou, 1990; Maloutas and Karadimitriou, 2001; Arapoglou, 2006; Maloutas, 2007).

On the other hand, despite the lack of systematic segregation, the smooth integration of immigrants in the Greek society is seldom achieved. Inadequate housing conditions, fragmented migration policies, high population densities and especially intolerance of natives in respect to foreigners are some of the basic issues that hinder integration. What seems most important is that the above questions generate additional difficulties which relate both to immigrants as well as to the native population. For instance, health issues have emerged among new-comers due to their conditions of accommodation. In areas with sizeable amounts of immigrants, land values decrease dramatically and residents blame foreigners for this. The combination of the above paired with the increasing incidents of violence and illegal activity among immigrants, has led to the escalation of racism. Sometimes the authorities, mainly the police, contribute to the enhancement of this phenomenon. A specific example is when a policeman in Athens destroyed a copy of the Koran which was held by a Muslim immigrant leading to the mobilization of the immigrant community followed by growing disenchantment from the part of the indigenous population of the petty-bourgeois neighborhood of Agios Panteleimonas in Athens in June 2009. Similar aggressive incidents refer to the case of hunger strike of 580 users of the Samos services in view of their transport to the Evros Reception Center, the reaction against Muslims who ask for the construction of a mosque in Athens, antiracist demonstrations met with hostility etc.

7 HOUSING ACCOMMODATION PATTERNS FOR IMMIGRANTS

In order to arrive at comprehensive way of monitoring, mapping and evaluating housing conditions of immigrants, it is necessary to approach the manner in which the specific social group is currently accommodated in Greece. More specifically, based on conceptual categories of ETHOS typology of Homelessness and Housing Exclusion, an operational classification is formulated by focusing on immigrants and the manner in which they cope with their housing problems. According to the ETHOS typology there are three domains that constitute a “home”: the physical, the social and the legal domain. These domains lead to the four conceptual categories; Rooflessness, Houselessness, Insecure Housing and Inadequate Housing.

Specifying these categories in a way that they are precisely adapted to the immigration issue, it becomes explicit that there is a wide range of homeless immigrants. As it will be ascertained, the state of homelessness of an immigrant in Greece is related directly to his country of origin and of course to his/her occupation, or the lack of it.

Roofless immigrants are those who face the most adverse conditions and are exposed to the greatest danger. They usually live in streets or public, open spaces such as squares and especially the most centrally located squares of the two main urban centers, Athens and Thessaloniki. They sometimes make use of overnight shelters for urgent cases.

These people, who are completely deprived of the material notion of a ‘home’, find themselves in this situation because of extreme poverty, complete lack of income and difficulty in finding a job. The countries of origin of Roofless immigrants are not usually European but generally Asian or African and suffer from poverty and/or war. These people face the greatest difficulty of integration as their social, cultural and housing problems are often paired with other personal reasons such as psychiatric disease, physical disability, complete lack of basic education etc.

The next category relates to Houseless immigrants who stay in temporary accommodation shelters. Although this form of accommodation is not yet fully developed in Greece, neither for Greeks nor for aliens, while many of the existing shelters do not offer beds to non-Greeks, there exist a number of services which cater for the needs of immigrants. Such shelters are usually related to the Catholic Church or other charity organizations.

However, besides these centers there are also hostels for houseless immigrants and refugees, not necessarily state-run. The existence of these hostels, as well as special temporary housing programs (in apartments that are rented by the NGOs with European backing) comes from the remarkable action of NGOs for immigrants and refugees. Still, these efforts do not provide

concrete solutions to housing problems but a more general support for families, people in need of nursing, minors etc. It becomes obvious, that the period of stay in these hostels or apartments, is intended to be short term and does not usually include long-term support.

A special category of temporary accommodation institutions are the nearly ten Reception centers for immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers organized and run by statutory or voluntary bodies. As there have been many complaints about the low living standards as well as the absence of follow-up mechanisms after users leave, it has become apparent that the expression that qualifies in a more appropriate manner the character of these institutions is that of a ‘detention centre’.

Still, it must be noted that a multitude of voluntary sector organizations, such as the Red Cross, the Doctors of the World, the Greek Institute of Solidarity and Cooperation, the Centre of Social Solidarity in Thessaloniki along with the Greek Council for Refugees operate services which usually combine temporary accommodation with psychosocial support for immigrants and asylum seekers.

What follows, is a reference to people living under insecure conditions being deprived of the legal domain of a “home”. The first case concerns people who temporarily live with family or friends. This case is common among organized immigrant communities, such as Filipinos, Albanians and Poles, who have been in Greece for several decades. Recently, forced cohabitation is also practiced by members of other ethnic communities such as Nigerians, near East Asians etc. It is also noted that, immigrants, usually Afghanis, Pakistanis and Africans, use to rent small apartments in groups of 20-30, mostly men, and use them in shifts in order to share the rent. These people live in extreme over-crowded conditions well below the accepted floor-space standards and are often susceptible to problems of hygiene.

A special mention is due to the phenomenon of illegal sub-tenancy such as the illegal occupation of privately owned or state-run abandoned dwellings by houseless immigrants. In some cases, the squatter occupies the place not only for his/her exclusive use, but also as an opportunity for income, as he rents the place that he does not own to others.3 This conceptual category also includes the case of being accommodated in one’s place of work, such as a shop, a garage, a gas station etc. This temporary solution to immigrants’ housing problem is widely practiced by women who work as house-keepers, governesses or nurses and spend the night in the house of the family they work for, as they don't have enough income to rent their own flat. This kind of obligatory cohabitation mostly concerns women from Bulgaria, Ukraine, Georgia and Philippines.

The last conceptual category of the ETHOS typology relates to people living under inadequate conditions. This category includes people living in temporary, non-conventional structures such as caravans, containers,

3 A typical example of this case in Greece is the case of the occupation of the old Court of Appeals building which is no longer in use, next to Omonoia Square in Athens, by immigrants mostly of African origin. The building was violently evacuated by the police in early August 2009. Since then, it is guarded. It is important to note that more than 50 centrally located obsolete buildings in Athens, which were occupied by immigrants, have been evacuated by the police in July and August 2009.

makeshift camps, off-hand huts etc. These cases mostly occur in the countryside, although the case of the camp in the port of Patras is noteworthy.4 This category also includes the case of Asians working in the strawberry fields in Manolada, Peloponnese, who stay in tents as well as the case of people, usually Indians, Afghanis and Albanians living in stables and winter gardens. One should also mention the special case of Egyptians, who work and sleep in fishing boats, working as fishermen.

The above cases expose the serious housing problems that immigrants have to face during their stay in Greece. Despite the fact that the overall state of affairs and especially the current economic crisis are affecting the different categories of immigrants in a varying way, it is evident those who have not managed to secure their conditions of stay are the most vulnerable and hence susceptible to risk complete detachment from both the housing and the labor market. In their attempt to stay in the country, they are expected to be inclined to accept unregistered employment at lower rates and even to be involved in networks of clandestine character such as trafficking, exploitation of children etc.

4 The makeshift camp next to the Port of Patras was evacuated in July 2009. Seventy-four immigrants were forced to live the dwelling they used for more than a year without any special provision about their future.

8 PROPOSALS – RECOMMENDATIONS

Migration typically involves different actors with different agendas whose discourse functions on diverse rules, priorities and criteria, ideologies, strategies. As developments in 2009 have shown, porous Greek borders have allowed growing migration flows to accentuate the inconsistencies of the troubled Greek social structure and to produce unanticipated aggression between natives and foreigners. At this stage it is important for the actors involved to collaborate in the developing landscape of the forthcoming Stockholm Program, which will introduce a five year procedure on European judicial matters and home affairs. Realistic specific steps should be taken so that Greece copes with the impact of growing immigration.

There are three basic levels of action, each with different timelines, procedures and a combination of actors and authorities, NGOs, academic society, as well as immigrant and local population. Migration policy should stop being a police issue and allow the ground to be available for all the above actors to act. It is important to note that the involvement of all actors mentioned takes time, yet it is of crucial significance as it completely changes the approach to the issue, from narrow-minded to holistic.

1. The first body of recommendations comprises short-term measures.

The essential prerequisite is the development of a well-organized system of appropriate reception institutions. In essence, these structures should include the processes of detection and categorization, the records of illegal entries and the transportation of new-comers to the relevant agencies, such as reception centers, etc. On the other hand, the operation of the reception centers must undergo a number of elementary modifications. It is essential, that reception centers not only provide the necessary living standards but also that they are equipped with specialized staff that will inform, provide legal services and support immigrants in their struggle to become integrated in the Greek society.

Another most important point has to do with the asylum framework and the part that repression mechanisms, such as the police force, play in it. It has become apparent that policemen are not the proper people to admit and elaborate the asylum requests. On the contrary, the examination of each case of asylum seeker must be the object of specialized staff of interviewers and interpreters and interviewers who will be able to provide a more rational approach. During this procedure, priority should be given to minors seeking asylum.

The essential aim is that structural alterations will lead to a systematic reception procedure. This whole structure should be materialized through an ad-hoc planning system for each territory concerned with the cooperation of local authorities in order to assure appropriate domestic solutions.

2. The second body of recommendations pertains to a more fundamental revision in view of the need to set the structures of a coherent migration policy.

In order to arrive at the needed strategy, Greek policy-makers should formulate a think tank involving all actors of the migration agenda and ask them to participate towards the reform of the current legal framework. Immigrants of course must play an important role in this. Political, economic and social needs should be met. The overall strategy must lead to specific policies and measures that will have to be formulated in a clear manner and understood by all participants. A few of the proposed priority fields that need to be addressed are urban domestic current problems, informal economy, xenophobic social reflexes, education, second generation immigrants, organized crime etc.

Immigrants in turn are expected to use their informal networks not to illegally transfer their people but to thoroughly inform and advice them so that they know how to use the opportunities that arise for them. This social capital will be concerned as a source for hybrid investments.

3. The third level of intervention transcends national policies and operates at a European level. National policies have European and international connections. Greece should be adequately prepared to link its current situation properly and participate to the discourse that will form the European migration framework. Just asking for funds to operate FRONTEX-like measures does not solve the problem. It is obvious that a more comprehensive migration plan that will involve all European member states alike will address the issue properly.

APPENDIX

TABLE 1

TABLE 2

TABLE 3

TABLE 4

TABLE 5

TABLE 6

TABLE 7

MAP 1

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Elspeth Guild and Sergio Carrera, (2008) The French Presidency's European Pact on Immigration and Asylum, CEPS Policy Brief, no. 170

IMEPO, (2008), ‘Estimate of the multitude of immigrants who stay illegally in Greece’, Institute of Migration Policy, April 2008, Athens

Kandylis G., Maloutas T., (forthcoming 2009), Housing systems, affordability and immigration in Greek cities, Urbanistica

Leontidou, L. (1997) “Five narratives of the Mediterranean City” in R. King, L. Proudfoot, B. Smith (eds.) The Mediterranean: Environment and Society, London: Arnold.

Maroukis T., (2008), Undocumented Migration Counting the Uncountable. Data and Trends across Europe

Norwegian Organization for Asylum Seekers (NOAS), the Norwegian Helsinki Committee (NHC), and Greek Helsinki Monitor (GHM), (2007) A Gamble with the Right to Asylum in Europe: Greek asylum policy and the Dublin II Regulation, Oslo and Athens: Norwegian Helsinki Committee

Triandafyllidou A., (2009), Attempting the Impossible? The Prospects and Limits of Mobility Partnerships and Circular Migration

UNHCR, (2007), Position on the Return of Asylum-Seekers to Greece under the Dublin Regulation

www.tvxs.gr.

www.eliamep.gr.

www.migrantsingreece.org

http://www.uth.gr. University of Thessaly

http://www.ypes.gr/ Ministry of Interior

http://imepo.gr/

http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/index_en.htm Directorate General of Justice and Home Affairs