Galery

2

1

The substantial and "hot" question is how much a host society is able to "absorb" this population especially in the labour market. And secondly, to what extent the institutional structure of a country could integrate the population in social structures in one way or another. At present, it is more than evident that the Greek state was unsuccessful in both things.

All those years it was convenient to use the workforce of these people and it did nothing for their integration and now it got to this impasse, which I call "the failure of immigration policy."

Was there such a policy?

This actually was a non-policy. It resulted in that people could come to work in a country where they would live better than in their homeland and the Greeks would live better than before, because it could take advantage of cheap labour. For 15 years the system has been operating in this logic of informal positive amount of the informal economy in which we both have been in a better state than before. But it fell apart when the conditions for the financial crisis were created and I think that the time was not now, but in 2004 - 2005. There is the beginning of the story.

So, the question whether the immigrants are many or not is meaningless. If Greece is in a state of development it has room for other immigrants, and those who come create new jobs. This is something that the world history, sociology and economics of immigration show. The states are not closed systems with a capacity of 18.5 people, for example. If ten people can live in a country today, tomorrow one thousand and ten could live in it, because of the existing economic and social dynamics.

What are the stereotypes of the immigrants in Greece? Is there a different one from the way in which immigrants are accepted in other European countries?
 
Stereotypes are variables. Today there may be a stereotype that is entirely obsolete tomorrow. I think the most representative example is the endemic and violent stereotype that conquered the Greek society in the 1990s and that was aimed primarily against the immigrants from Albania. Today, the stereotype is forgotten in the worst case for them themselves, but in the best -it is considered that they are already integrated and are no longer immigrants. The truth lies somewhere in between again. And although we think that these people have integrated there is the problem with the second generation immigrants from Albania, faced with the economic crisis in a manner similar to that of their Greek peers. These young people, unlike their parents who arrived in Greece to provide "a piece of bread" have more requirements. They have greater expectations for their social integration. This applies to all immigrants and characterizes the history of immigration. Therefore, their requirements are high and because the overall level in Greece falls at that time the statements that the Albanians are fully integrated are not true. Of course, a large number of them are integrated, but others are being dismissed and very quickly though.

Here I want to point out that this applies not only to immigrants but also to the Greeks. The great debate on immigration that must be carried out should raise not only the issues of people's identity, origin, religion and culture but also the main point - the one that causes the movement of people. And this is neither religion, nor origin. This is the social layer. We should consider the problems of immigrants as a part of the general problems of the class to which a person belongs, whether immigrant or not.
 
Another stereotype typical for the last seven years in Greece is the Islamophobia to the immigrants coming from the Middle East and the Indian peninsula. It is no way inferior to the stereotype existing across Europe. It is even stronger due to the fact that Greece has a specific geographic location and the way it is used. And the last citizen asked will tell you "they all enter here." Well, all come in and come out here. Some stayed and others went. Of course, there is a problem with that, with the Dublin Regulation 2, the distribution of immigration burdens. But when Greece is seeking solidarity from other countries it should better think about what it would do if another country was on its place and whether it would show the least solidarity in the distribution of immigration burdens.

On Islamophobia, let me say that this stereotype has metamorphosed in Greece over the past decade. The anti- Islamic stereotype has existed for a long time and it was connected with Turkey and the relations between the two countries. This stereotype gradually withdrew and gave place to the traditional Western Islamophobic stereotype.

What should happen in order to allay tension and to resolve the immigration issue?

The question is very complex and giving "formulas for success" is ridiculous. Even the people who believe that the solution lies in extraditions are not aware of the things just because there are no extraditions. Not because there is no political will but because of the lack of funds or difficulties of a technical or human nature, and the few that have been made in recent years were mostly to Albania. Those that offer to open the borders perceive the things equally simple. Things are serious and need a strategy. No charity is needed, neither bigotry nor racism.