© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2011 DOI: 10.1163/157181611X587847
European Journal of Migration and Law 13 (2011) 251–273
brill.nl/emil
Irregular Immigration Control in Italy and Greece:
Strong Fencing and Weak Gate-keeping serving
the Labour Market
Anna Triandafyllidou
a)
and Maurizio Ambrosini
b)
a)
Professor (part-time), European University Institute, Florence, Italy
b)
Professor, Department of Social and Political Studies, University of Milan, Italy
Abstract
Italy and Greece have been often blamed by their fellow EU Member States for the excessive permeability
of their borders, their inability to stop irregular migration, and their inefficient asylum systems. In addi-
tion the two countries have weak internal controls, especially as regards the sectors of the labour market
where immigrants are usually employed e.g. agriculture, domestic work, tourism and catering. is article
seeks to make sense of these fundamentally contradictory policies that characterise Greece’s and Italy’s
approach to managing migration. e article starts by outlining the common features of Italian and
Greek immigration policies and proposes an analysis of immigration control regimes along two dimen-
sions: their internal (within the country’s territory) or external (at the border or outside the border)
character, and their fencing (stopping) vs. gate-keeping (preventing) nature. Section 3 discusses critically
the irregular migration inflows in Greece, the policies implemented to address them and their contradic-
tory results. Section 4 reviews the related policies in Italy and casts light to their inconsistencies. In the
concluding section, we highlight the possible explanations for these two countries’ lack of direction in
immigration management pointing to the opposition between excessively regulated labour markets, large
informal economies and strict border controls which however become lax and ineffective once irregular
migrants or asylum seekers are within the country.
Keywords
irregular migrations; labour market; migration policies; Southern Europe; regularizations
1. Introduction
Irregular migration is a policy priority at both the national and the EU level,
though EU countries are not all affected in the same way by the phenomenon.
Countries at the geographical periphery of the Union, and in particular southern
EU Member States that are close to important migration source and transit coun-
tries, face significant inflows from their land and sea borders. e Greek Turkish
border emergency with increasing numbers of people crossing during the sum-
mer and winter of 2010 the land border at the north-eastern corner of Greece,
or the most recent (spring 2011) ‘emergency’ regarding the arrival of irregular
migrants and asylum seekers on the Italian island of Lampedusa fleeing unrest in
252 A. Triandafyllidou, M. Ambrosini / European Journal of Migration and Law 13 (2011) 251–273
Tunisia and war in Libya are but indicative of the importance of irregular migra-
tion management for Italy and Greece.
What is also distinctive of these two countries is however their internally con-
tradictory migration management policies. Indeed both Italy and Greece have
been blamed by their fellow EU Member States for the excessive permeability of
their borders, their inability to stop irregular migration, and their too frequent
implementation of massive regularisation programmes. At the same time both
countries have been accused for violating the human rights of irregular migrants
and asylum seekers. Italy has been condemned for its illicit accords with Gaddafi’s
Libya for sending back irregular migrants without examining if they were in need
of protection or whether they would be safe when back in Libya. Greece has been
the target of strong criticisms (and of a decision of the European Court of Human
Rights, on 21 January 2011) because of its problematic asylum system that did
not effectively provide people with the possibility to seek asylum and have their
case examined according to international standards. In addition the two countries
have weak internal controls, especially as regards the sectors of the labour market
where immigrants are usually employed e.g. agriculture, domestic work, tourism
and catering.
is article seeks to make sense of these fundamentally contradictory policies
that characterise Greece’s and Italy’s approach to managing migration both from
a political perspective (why did policy makers and politicians opted for such con-
tradictory policies?) and from a theoretical perspective (distinguishing between
fencing and gate-keeping, external and internal control policies). More specifi-
cally, the following section outlines the common features of Italian and Greek
immigration policies and proposes an analysis of immigration control regimes
along two dimensions: their internal (within the country’s territory) or external
(at the border or outside the border) character, and their fencing (stopping) vs.
gate-keeping (preventing) nature. Section 3 discusses critically the irregular migra-
tion inflows in Greece, the policies implemented to address them and their con-
tradictory results. Section 4 reviews the related policies in Italy and casts light to
their inconsistencies. In the concluding section, we highlight the possible expla-
nations for these two countries’ lack of direction in immigration management
and outline the need for more in depth analysis of irregular migration in southern
European countries with a view to understanding the internal dynamics that con-
dition how migration is managed in these countries.
2. A Framework for Comparing Greece and Italy
In order to understand the political context within which migration management
policies have developed in the two countries we need to take a step back and look
at when Italy and Greece transformed from migrant senders to migrant hosts. In
A. Triandafyllidou, M. Ambrosini / European Journal of Migration and Law 13 (2011) 251–273 253
Italy the shift took place during the 1980s, becoming evident at the end of the
decade, while in Greece it was in the early 1990s after the debacle of the Com-
munist regimes in Central Eastern Europe. e first regularisation programme in
Italy took place in 1986 – on the occasion of the first Italian law that speaks of
immigration. It was in 1989 when the so-called Martelli Law (Martelli was the
then Minister of Interior) was approved by parliament. In 1991, soon after the
first boats with large numbers of Albanian irregular migrants began arriving,
migration attracted the attention of the media and public opinion. In Greece the
first immigration law was voted in 1991 aiming mainly at facilitating expulsion
of irregular migrants apprehended near the country’s borders. at law was a
quick response to the collapse of the Communist regimes in neighbouring coun-
tries and the subsequent border crossing of thousands of Albanian men and
women into Greece.
Interestingly, ever since both countries’ immigration policies share four com-
mon main features. First, they are both characterised by a general closure towards
economic immigration. For both Italy and Greece immigration is seen as a
necessary evil. Hence the related policies aim to mediate or reduce the negative
consequences of the phenomenon rather than explore its positive impact and
plan ahead.
Second, in both countries legal entries are managed through annual quotas. In
the case of Italy such quotas have in fact been converted to mini-regularisation
programmes of people already in the country. Generally the implementation of
these quotas has responded more to the political moods of the government in
power rather than to the real labour market needs, which in any case were higher
than the quotas. Similarly in Greece, the quotas are rather small and generally do
not respond to the labour market needs not least because their implementation is
particularly lengthy and cumbersome.
1
Such quotas do not respond to the nature
of the Greek economy and its businesses that are small and have to react flexibly
and quickly to the changing conditions of the market.
ird, both countries have repeatedly resorted to massive regularisation pro-
grammes as a way of managing migration a posteriori. Fourth but not less impor-
tant, both countries have had asylum systems that were inadequate even if they
differed in their recognition rates; Greece has had among the lowest recognition
rates in the EU (below 3 percent and often below 1 percent) during the past
decade while Italy’s recognition rate was average or high (e.g. 12 percent approx.
in 2005, 60 percent in 2007).
2
While Italy has a system of protection (SPRAR),
1)
Triandafyllidou, A. (2011). ‘Twenty years of Greek immigration policy’, in: A. Triandafyllidou &
T. Maroukis. (eds.), Migration in 21st Century, Athens, Greece: Kritiki, in Greek.
2)
Düvell, F. and Vollmer, B. (2011). European Security Challenges, Report prepared for the project
Improving EU and US Immigration Systems’ Capacity for Responding to Global Challenges: Learning
from experiences, available at: http://www.eui.eu/Projects/TransatlanticProject/Docu ments/Back ground
254 A. Triandafyllidou, M. Ambrosini / European Journal of Migration and Law 13 (2011) 251–273
it still lacks an organic law on asylum. Greece’s shortcomings in asylum matters
have been widely known and have attracted a lot of attention during the recent
years.
3
e legal situation has significantly improved by a new law on asylum and
irregular migration (law 3907/2011); implementation, however, had just begun
in spring 2011, notably some interim measures designed to process slowly but
properly a backlog of an estimated 40,000 cases.
4
Table 1. Dimensions of Migration Control Regimes
Gate-keeping Fencing
External
control
policies
• visa procedures
• carrier sanctions
• paper controls at ports of entry
(land border or sea border or
airports)
• procedures to deal with asylum
at the border
• cooperation with countries of
origin and transit to prevent
irregular migration
• border controls outside ports
of entry, at land or sea
• cooperation with transit or
origin countries for expulsion
and readmission procedures
Internal
control
policies
• regularisation of illegal status
• asylum procedures within the
country’s territory
• labour market checks and
controls of access to welfare
and other services
• Internal controls at public
places
• detention, expulsion, removal
and other procedures to
enforce return
Source: Authors’ elaboration on the basis of Vogel.
5
Papers/EU-USImmigrationSystems-Security-bp.pdf last accessed on 27 June 2011; UNHCR (2008),
Statistical yearbook 2007, Trends, Geneva: UNHCR.
3)
European Council for Refugees and Exile (2008). Sharing Responsibility for Refugee Protection in Europe:
Dublin Reconsidered, March 2008, available at www.ecre.org, last accessed on 13 June 2011; NOAS,
NHC, and GHM (2008). A gamble with the right to asylum in Europe, Oslo, March 2008; Fundamental
Rights Agency (2011). Coping with a fundamental rights emergency. e situation of persons crossing the
Greek land border in an irregular manner, available at http://www.state watch.org/news/2011/mar/greece-
fra-report-border-situation-report.pdf, last accessed on 13 June 2011; Pro-Asyl (Ed.) (2007). e truth
may be bitter but it must be told: the situation of refugees in the Aegean and the practices of the Greek Coast
Guard, Frankfurt: Forderverein Pro Asyl e.V.
4)
Delithanassi, M. (2011). Αδυναμία απορρόφησης κονδυλίων για το άσυλο [Asylum funds not
absorbed], Kathimerini, 20 April 2011, available at: http://news.kathimerini.gr/4dcgi/_w_arti cles_politics_
1_20/04/2011_439614, last accessed on 10 June 2011.
5)
Vogel, D. (2000), ‘Migration Control in Germany and the United States’, International Migration
Review 34(2), pp. 390–422.
A. Triandafyllidou, M. Ambrosini / European Journal of Migration and Law 13 (2011) 251–273 255
In order to analyse the apparently contradictory policy choices of Greece and
Italy as regards migration management and in particular irregular migration con-
trol, we would like to introduce two sets of distinctions.
6
e first distinction is
to be made between external and internal immigration policies: external immi-
gration policies are those directed at potential immigrants outside the regulating
state and at the border, while internal immigration policies are those which con-
cern immigrants who are already inside the nation’s borders.
Secondly, irregular migration control policies can be distinguished on the basis
of whether they follow a ‘fencing’ or a ‘gate-keeping’ strategy: gate-keeping strate-
gies aim at restricting practical legal access to a nation and its institutions, while
fencing measures actively target illegal migrants in order to arrest and then expel
them. Typically, gate-keeping involves paper controls of people who seek to enter
a country or who come voluntarily forward, while fencing involves detecting
persons in hiding and trying to deter/stop those who seek to enter without appro-
priate authorisation.
is article investigates what kind of internal and external control policies the
two countries have implemented and how these two sets of policies have been
at best not properly coordinated, at worse contradictory. e article exposes the
internal contradictions of the Greek and Italian immigration policy and shows
how internal and external control, fencing and gate-keeping policies are strongly
dependent on one another. However, because these policies touch upon different
private interests within the receiving countries, they may develop independently
and in a contradictory way when a country has no clear and proactive immigra-
tion policy.
3. External Control Policies in Greece: Sealing the Borders?
Greece faced important irregular immigration as of the early 1990s after the col-
lapse of the Communist regimes in Central Eastern Europe. During the 1990s,
people crossed on foot (with or without the assistance of smugglers) or were
smuggled by speed-boats through the Ionian Sea to the north-western Greek
coastline and the island of Corfu. e then Conservative government in power
reacted swiftly by introducing law 1975/1991, voted in by the Greek Parliament
in October 1991, and formally implemented in June 1992. is law, which
remained in force until 2001, was eloquently entitled: ‘Entry-exit, sojourn,
employment, deportation of aliens, procedure for the recognition of alien refu-
gees and other provisions’. e main aim of the law was to make the expulsion
of irregular aliens easier and quicker.
7
Nonetheless irregular migration towards
6)
Ibid., p. 397.
7)
e law concentrated on the development of stricter police controls throughout the country and the
border regions in particular. Its main objectives were to prevent the entrance of illegal immigrants and
