Presentation given by Aristides Sapounakis, University of Thessaloniki, Greece at a FEANTSA Research Conference on "Homelessness and Poverty", Paris, France, 2009

1. 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

2. 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.

3. 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

4. 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.

5. 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
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.
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.

6. 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.

7. 4
CENTERS
‘RECEPTION’ OR RATHER DETENTION/DEPORTATION
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

8. 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.

9. 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

10. 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.

11. 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

12. 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.

13. 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

14. 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,
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
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.
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.

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. APPENDIX
TABLE 1

19. TABLE 2

20. TABLE 3
TABLE 4

21. TABLE 5

22. TABLE 6

23. TABLE 7

24. MAP 1

25. 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