Foreign language - European Commission

59 downloads 605 Views 2MB Size Report
intermediate technical schools and certificate of post-secondary education natives .... to gather all the illegal immigr
CENTRE OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC RESEARCH EMN GREEK NATIONAL CONTACT POINT

ILLEGALLY RESIDENT THIRD COUNTRY NATIONALS IN GREECE: STATE APPROACHES TOWARDS THEM, THEIR PROFILE AND SOCIAL SITUATION

(1ST draft) By COSTAS N. KANELLOPOULOS* in cooperation with MARIA GREGOU and ATHANASIOS PETRALIAS

Athens August 2005 We would like to thank officials of Ministry of Interior, Ministry of Public Order and National Statistical Service for providing promptly unpublished data and information, as well as many colleagues for stipulating discussions.

* CENTRE OF PLANNING AND ECONOMIC RESEARCH (KEPE) HIPPOKRATOUS 22 STR., ATHENS 106 80, GREECE EMAIL: [email protected]

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS: INTRODUCTION Executive Summary Type of material collected 1. LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND POLICY DEVELOPMENTS 2. STOCKS AND PROFILES 3. STATE APPROACHES 3.1 Measures to Prevent Illegal Immigration 3.2 Measures of Domestic Control 3.3 Voluntary and Forced Return 3.4 Measures of Rectification and Remedy 3.4.1 Legal Status 3.4.2 Social Services 3.4.3 Educational Facilities 3.4.4 Work 4. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC SITUATION, POLITICAL PARTICIPATION 4.1 Social Situation 4.2 Economic Situation 4.3 Political Participation 5. THE IMPACT OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IN THE HOST COUNTRY 6. CONCLUSION REFERENCES ANNEX I: TABLES ANALYSED IN THE STUDY ANNEX II: INSTITUTIONS AND ORGANISATIONS ADDRESSING THE ISSUE OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

2

INTRODUCTION Executive Summary Illegal immigration has taken sizeable extent in Greece since the early 1990s, when the country changed from a traditional emigration to immigration country, through massive inflow of immigrants mainly from its neighbouring countries of the then collapsed communist bloc. It is indicative that until 1998, when the first regularisation took place, the bulk of newly arrived immigrants were illegal. During the first legalisation campaign 371,641 applied for the so-called temporary white card, while only 219,024 out of these proceeded to the application for the Green card. A reasonable estimate is that 200,000 illegal immigrants abstained from the first regularisation and remained illegal. Roughly similar application figures appeared in the second regularisation (361,119) that took place in 2002, while the number of those not registered appears smaller around to 130,000. Even though both regularisation campaigns reduced the number of illegal immigrants, they did not solve the problem of illegality once and for all. The remarkable reduction of the extent of illegal immigration is evident in the fact that the number of expulsions declined drastically after the second regularisation. While in 1990s more than two hundred thousand immigrants were expelled, in the recent years these are drastically reduced to around 45,000. The evolution of illegal immigration since 2002 is not easy to document. Trade union representatives and officials from the Ministry of Public Order estimate the current stock of illegal immigrants to around 400,000. However, such a number should be considered as an overestimation. It is true that the economy until the Athens Olympic Games (August 2004) experienced a rather high growth rate, because of the preparations for the Games, as well as because of the boom in the construction sector. These activities absorbed a sizeable number of immigrants mainly those legalised through the second regularisation programme. This is confirmed by the Labour Force Survey data that show a clear increasing trend in the employed foreigners, from 145,000 in 2000 to 280,000 in 2004. Furthermore about 550,000 foreigners are secured in the main social funds, implying they are legally resident. It should be pointed out that the number of those who received a temporary residence permit was 361,110 in the second regularisation. These temporary residence

3

permits as well as those annual permits awarded after full examination of required documents, actually extended through successive laws for a much longer period. Thus, after the first stages of the second regularisation programme the number of those lapsed into illegality is actually relatively small and the number of those who remained illegal (taking into account asylum rejections) should be around to 150,000 persons. Moreover, because of the new arrivals of illegal immigrants it seems that the total number of illegal immigrants currently could be approximately estimated up to 200,000. Regarding the profile of illegal immigrants we use micro-data from the Labour Force Survey by identifying as illegal immigrants those unsecured. As expected, it turns out that the predominant country of origin is Albania (64%), the least developed European country. Also, most of the unsecured (illegal) immigrants are unmarried and relatively younger than the natives and even secured (legal) immigrants. Moreover, as expected, unsecured immigrants have a smaller period of residency in Greece than secured aliens. About one out of two of unsecured has been in the country for less than four years. On the other hand, a large proportion of secured (18.34%) stay in Greece for more than a decade. Due to the massive influx of immigrants to Greece since the beginning of 1990s and its complex natural terrain, Greece has undertaken, even if slowly, a series of measures to enhance its external border control. Greece has set up 58 departments of border guard with personnel of approximately 5.000 guards. Also, co-operation has been established between the various police departments, responsible for detecting illegally resident aliens within the country, as well as with those responsible for passport control and the control of sea, land and air borders. Greece has signed readmission agreements with Bulgaria, France, Italy, Croatia, Lithuania, Latvia, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Slovenia. Bilateral agreements have also been signed between Greece and some of the neighbouring Balkan countries (Albania, Bulgaria) regarding seasonal work on the basis of the needs of Greek labour market. Crossborder police co-operation has been established with Bulgaria, FYROM and Albania. Last, Greece has signed with Turkey the Agreement on Combating Crime, Terrorism, Organised Crime, Illicit Drug Trafficking and Illegal Immigration, which came into force on July 17, 2001. The most recent development is the bilateral meeting, which took place in May 2005, between the Greek Minister of Public Order and the Pakistani Minister of Interior, in which several issues of common interest were 4

discussed with regard to the prevention of illegal immigration, drug trafficking, terrorism and organised crime. A bilateral agreement of co-operation was signed between Greece and Pakistan, the specific conditions of which are to be determined in the future. Greek state on the basis of Law 2910/2001 enhanced its measure of domestic control by stiffening the sanctions applied to those employing, carrying or providing any sort of service to illegal immigrants. The only state authority, which has the jurisdiction to check the legality of immigrants and make arrests within Greek territory is police, which has the authority to apprehend and remove illegal immigrants. There is no evidence concerning the number of individuals, either legal or illegal immigrants, returning voluntarily to their countries of origin. Despite the legal provisions concerning forced return, which have been harmonised with those of EU, there is a significant lack of legal provisions to encourage voluntary return. The majority of forced returns in recent years consistently concerns Albanians, while amongst certain other countries of origin, like Iran, Iraq expulsions represent small and declining numbers. The number of removed Albanians is close to the apprehended ones, while for certain Asian countries of origin, such as Iran and Iraq, the number of removed is much lower than the number of apprehended. The difficulty to remove illegal immigrants from the latter countries of origin discourages police authorities to proceed to the apprehensions of these illegal immigrants. In terms of the legal status of illegal immigrants, two programmes of regularisation have taken place in 1998 and 2001. Both these programmes imposed a heavy burden on administrative authorities and immigrants due to the huge number of applications, especially in large cities, and the complex bureaucratic procedure. Nevertheless, these programmes ameliorated the living conditions of illegal immigrants and they provided information regarding the extent of the phenomenon, as well as the profile of illegal immigrants. Also, the programmes paved the way for the drastic decrease of expulsions and reduced the size of illegal employment. On the other hand, it is true that Greece has not yet developed both a long-term and viable immigration policy or a permanent formal admission system of immigrants. In this respect, it is doubtful whether there are any cases of immigrant workers entering the country legally on the basis of the provisions of current legislation (Law 2910/2001).

5

Illegal immigrants are not entitled to any social services with the exception of emergency and child medical treatment. Law 2910 provisions stiff penalties for all those public and private agencies, which provide their services to immigrants who do not produce the required travel and entry documents. In terms of educational facilities, the children of illegal immigrants are entitled to free education, since no formal documents are needed for their enrolment. The total number of foreign pupils (including the so-called ‘homogeneis’) from 44,000 in 1996, increased to 119,000 in 2003. The Ministry of Education has published data for the school year 2002/3, showing some 97,000 non-ethnic Greek children and 31,000 ethnic Greek children in the state school system. These numbers imply that the vast majority of immigrant children are in fact enrolled in public schools and their drop out rate should not be very high. In Greece, it is not possible for an illegal immigrant to work legally. Employment of illegal immigrants seems an attractive option for both the employer and the employee. In a country with high underground economy such an employment is as flexible as the employer needs, while the illegal immigrant is unlikely to complain whereas the legal one or native might. Furthermore, there can be additional benefits for the employer, such as avoiding social security payments completely and ignoring health and safety legislation, while the employee gets a multiple pay of what he/she could get in his/her country of origin. It is worth noting that the temporary immigration system is not widely developed. Illegal immigrants are intentionally kept at a distance from all public authorities. They are mobilised through the existing informal social networks and ethnic associations, as well as non-governmental organisations that operate as mediators between authorities and immigrants. Ethnic shops, special places for the practice of religious duties in particular neighbourhoods of mainly Athens and other large cities are used by the immigrants as places of contact and socialisation with their co-ethnics. Despite these positive aspects, there are sporadic and declining cases reported of maltreatment of illegal immigrants, especially women by their employers. Previous studies, based on the data derived from legalisation processes, have shown that illegal immigrants are generally employed in sectors displaying informal activity and unskilled labour-intensity: construction, small scale or ‘informal’ business (garment), house maintenance and repairs, agriculture, housekeeping and child or elderly care, tourism, catering and street selling. 6

According to the recent Labour Force Survey data, a large proportion of illegal immigrants works in private households (31.27%), followed by those working in construction (29.32%). On the other hand, a rather small proportion of illegal immigrants is employed in agriculture (8.39%) and in manufacturing (9.0%). Thus, illegal immigrants are concentrated in sectors producing internationally non-tradable goods, while they also display relatively high underground activity. Their pay is generally lower compared with the pay of both legal immigrants and moreover that of natives. Despite the fact that the large immigration flows took place at periods of simultaneous rather high or even increasing unemployment of the natives, it is very doubtful whether unemployment is related to immigration especially the illegal one. Most studies conclude that immigrants are employed in jobs for which Greeks are not interested, thus functioning so far as complementary rather than substitute labour to the native one.

Type of Material Collected The material studied and analysed in this report includes publications from the beginning of 1990s onward, which offer an extensive background on illegal immigration in Greece, as it was then when the phenomenon of immigration, and illegal immigration in particular, began to take dramatic proportion in relation to the native population. However, the particular attention of this report is set on the most recent publications from 1998 onwards, when the first regularisation campaign in Greece took place. A set of the published material included in this study are articles and reports published in scientific journals, or presented in conferences and academic meetings, or books and reports published by Research Institutes, such as the Centre for Planning and Economic Research (where the National Contact Point is located). These documents are easily accessible and copies of them are available. Another set of the material used includes reports on illegal immigration published by state bodies, such as Ministries dealing with several dimensions of the issue (e.g. Ministry of Public Order), as well as other organisations (e.g. Labour Institute of the Greek Confederacy of Labour). Many of these reports, especially the older ones, draw data from field research or administrative sources and make useful analyses and inferences on the basis of theory and common sense. 7

One of the most serious problems of research on illegal immigration in Greece, as elsewhere, is the lack of adequate, detailed and reliable data on the phenomenon. Generating data by means of field research is rather expensive while research funds are hard to find. Therefore, many researchers conduct their own surveys and due to the great effort required, they confine themselves to limited samples of doubted representativeness. Another consequence of the lack of statistical data and the limited research resources devoted to illegal immigration is that crucial dimensions of the phenomenon have not yet been examined in depth. A significant part of the material utilised by many researchers is stemming from the two regularisation programmes that have been so far implemented by the Greek state (1998, 2002), focusing on their legislative framework, the actual stage of implementation, as well as the overall review and commentary of the processes and the analysis of their policy implications. In order to avoid the above mentioned deficiencies, in this report we have mainly relied on official and as much as possible reliable data. The statistical data utilised come from the following sources. From the National Censuses, from the past regularisations, from the Ministry of Interior (regarding the number of valid residence permits), and from the Ministry of Public Order (regarding entry refusals, apprehended and removed aliens, as well as data on refused asylum applicants estimated to be still residing in the country). Moreover, the study utilises unpublished data from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) of the National Statistical Service to offer new insights to the study of legal and illegal immigration. Although the available data on migration (legal & illegal) have been enriched in the recent years, it is true that many aspects of illegal immigration are not well documented. Thus, the study of these topics is not always well supported. This allows many researchers to make casual statements, without being possible to prove or disprove these statements on the basis of scientific and accurate evidence.

8

1. LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND POLICY DEVELOPMENTS Even though Greek legislation (L. 2910/2001, entitled “Entry and stay of aliens in Greek territory, acquisition of Greek citizenship by naturalisation and other provisions) does not clearly provide a formal definition of ‘illegal immigrants’, such a definition can be derived in the context of certain articles (arts. 5, 19, 21, 50, 51, 53). As it turns out, the law does not provide a definition different than that applied in the context of Commission. More specifically, current law stipulates that any person shall be allowed to enter Greek territory only through controlled border crossings (Art. 3, para. 1) and shall be submitted to police control conducted by the local police services (Art. 4, paras. 1-2). Art. 5 specifies the documents required for legal entry to Greece for a short-stay (i.e. stay for three months in whole within a time period of six months as from the date of first entry). These documents include passport or other travel documents recognised by international conventions, and if required, a visa. Also, an alien may be allowed to enter the country to work for a particular employer and at a particular employment, if he/she has been granted a work permit by the prefect (Art. 19, para. 1). Thus in this case, work permit is a prerequisite for the legal entry of an alien, who wishes to work in Greece. Once the would-be alien worker enters the country he/she should apply for a residence permit, provided that he/she has an employment agreement and a health certificate (Art. 21). The duration of such a residence permit is up to one year and may be renewed from time to time for a period of up to one year. The stay permit is issued by the Regional Secretary General (appointed by the Ministry of Interior). Art. 51 explicitly defines as illegal immigrants those who generally cannot prove that they reside legally in Greece, meaning those who do not have a passport or other travel document or visa or a valid stay permit. Thus, it is clear that “any person who does not, or no longer, fulfil the conditions for entry to, presence in, or residence on the territory of Greece” is considered an illegal immigrant. In this context, the Ministry of Public Order considers as illegally present aliens those who have been found to have entered illegally (whether this be by avoiding immigration controls altogether, by employing some sort of deception, such as the use of a fraudulent document, in order to gain entry or by failing to comply with a decision to refuse or prohibit the subjects’ entry) and those who may have entered legally but have

9

subsequently remained on an illegal basis (by, for example, overstaying their permission to remain or by taking unauthorised employment). Current Greek legislation on migration does not prescribe any basic and minority rights for illegal immigrants. On the contrary, it prescribes particular sanctions against illegal immigrants (up to three-month imprisonment and a pecuniary penalty), as well as against their employers. Furthermore, the Law prohibits public services, legal entities under public law, local authorities, public benefit organisations and corporations, as well as social security organisations from providing their services to aliens, who cannot prove that they reside legally in the country (Art. 51). Hospitals, infirmaries and clinics are allowed to offer their services in cases of emergency and minor children. It is also worth noting that since 1996, minor children whose parents are illegal immigrants are allowed to be enrolled in Greek public schools and training institutes, since no documents are required for their enrolment. The most important development regarding the status of illegal immigrants in Greece is the conduct of two regularisation programmes, in 1998 and 2002 respectively, while a third one is under way. The first regularisation programme took place in accordance with Presidential Decrees 358/97 and 359/97, whereas the second regularisation took place according to Law 2910/2001. In the first regularisation, approximately 370,000 applications have been submitted, whereas in the second programme the total number of those granted temporary stay permits amounted to 350,000. As discussed in the relevant section, both regularisation programmes, radically decreased the number of illegal immigrants present in the country. At this stage it seems useful to briefly discuss some of the reasons why the first regularisation programme in Greece was introduced as late as 1998 even though a high influx of immigrants started to arrive in Greece at the beginning of 1990s. It should be pointed out that immigration was a rather new phenomenon for the case of Greece, a traditional emigration country. The reserved perception of the Greek society towards immigrants and the poor infrastructure required to cope with a substantial influx of migrants (in majority economic migrants) could not allow an earlier regularisation. In this respect, under certain conditions the optimal policy for a government might not be the immediate legalisation of illegal immigrants. The main issue is the economic impact of migrants on the host society. Certain studies have shown that the economic impact of migrants is in general positive but its distributional effects are negative for a remarkable percentage of the Greek population 10

(Sarris and Zografakis, 1999). The main argument seems to be that the legalisation of immigrants would increase social welfare, if they work in sectors undesirable by the natives. That is when immigrants are considered as complementary to the native workers. This condition considered to be fulfilled when legalisation took place, as a larger proportion of Greek employees were not willing to work any more as unskilled workers in agriculture, construction, and even industry. Another factor that delayed the implementation of the legalisation program was the lack of documentation and labour statistics to allow the necessary assessments. These factors might explain the stance of the Greek government the years before the first legalisation programme of 1998, with sporadic waves of administrative deportations and mass expulsions. A current legal possibility for illegal immigrants to get a residence permit is through the application procedure for the granting of asylum. This is a kind of indirect channel used by many immigrant workers, in order to buy some time of staying in the country while at the same time enjoying a minimum of rights that the status of asylum-seeker will ascribe them. The current asylum legislation provides that ‘an alien who is in any way on Greek territory shall be recognised as a refugee and shall be granted asylum if the conditions of Article 1A of the Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugee are fulfilled’. In practice, this means that any alien, who enters Greek territory without possessing the documents prerequisite for his/her legal entry in the country, has the right to file an application for asylum. After the initial interview of the applicant, he/she is issued the so-called pink card, which provides all the rights ascribed to an asylum-seeker kept until a final decision on his/her status has been reached. These rights include the right to work and the right to get free medical care by the National Health System. Also, once the applicant gets his/her pink card, then he/she can apply for the issue of a work permit. In practice, due to the high number of applicants recently police authorities issue a so-called in-service note once the application has been submitted, which is kept up until the date of the initial interview of the applicant. Due to the overload of applications, the date for the interview is usually set several months after the submission of the application. Such a note actually protects the applicant from expulsion. An asylum seeker who is not granted refugee status can be granted a temporary renewable residence card of oneyear duration on humanitarian grounds. In the case of a positive ruling, the then recognised refugee is given a renewable five-year residence permit. Asylum seekers whose applications have been rejected by a final decision are given a fixed time limit, 11

usually three months, within which they are requested to leave the country voluntarily. After the expiry of this time limit, rejected asylum seekers will be illegally resident in Greece and can be arrested as an illegal resident. We can not imagine other ways through which an illegal immigrant can get legal status in the country. Even through marriage such a possibility seems unlikely. The general provision of law 2910 that public authorities should not offer their services to illegal immigrants implies that they cannot allow marriage of an illegal immigrant with a native. Thus, while Prefectures are responsible for the issuance of marriage permits between legal foreigners and natives; this cannot apply for the case of illegal immigrants.

12

2. STOCKS AND PROFILES The main difficulty in the study of stock and profiles of illegal immigration concerns documentation. Most of the existing methods of estimation regarding illegal immigration make use of various data sets stemming from different sources (administrative sources, such as ministries and local authorities, statistical services, border and police control). However the precision and reliability of such methods are in serious doubt. The difficulties derive from the fact that illegal immigration, due to its clandestinity, can only be measured indirectly through the traces illegal immigrants leave in the labour market, borders control, domestic police controls, etc. Thus, these data sets can be used only as an indication of the extent of illegal immigration and do not account for a precise measurement. The main and sole collector of statistical information related to illegal immigration in Greece is the Ministry of Public Order. However data related in general with migration can be useful when trying to measure illegal migration. The Ministry of Interior, the UNHCR, the National Statistical Service of Greece and the Employment Manpower Organisation are the main collectors of such data. The present study utilises data from the following sources. From the National Censuses, from the past regularisations, from the Ministry of Interior (regarding the number of valid residence permits), and from the Ministry of Public Order (regarding entry refusals, apprehended and removed aliens, as well as data on refused asylum applicants estimated to be still residing in the country). Moreover, the study utilises unpublished data from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) of the National Statistical Service to document the proportion of illegal immigrants. More specifically LFS, as is well known, is a random nation-wide sample survey, which collects information on socio-economic features of surveyed households. Amongst other questions, such as those on country of birth and citizenship, questions on health and pension security are also included in the questionnaire, which allow us to draw information regarding the profile of unsecured or illegal immigrants. In this respect, according to the current legislative framework, legal immigrants are bound to have at least health security or both health and pension insurance. If a third country national replies that he/she is not insured, then one could consider this answer to be a clear indication of his being an illegal immigrant.

13

Therefore, the percentage of third country nationals who are not secured could be identified as the percentage of illegal immigrants. To the extent that this percentage is rather accurate, one can estimate the number of illegal immigrants based on the number of those immigrants holding a residence permit. Even though LFS is a rather large sample survey (about 80.000 households) and by law the contents of questionnaire are strictly confidential, the main weakness of our method is that, due to language difficulties, LFS may not capture the exact number of third country nationals residing in the country. Thus, even though the profile of illegal immigrants is expected to be rather accurate, their estimated percentage is better to be interpreted as their lowest limit. Due to the collapse of the former Communist bloc, from the early 1990s onward, Greece was found in the midst of a massive flow of illegal immigrants. Throughout the nineties subsequent Greek governments had to struggle in two fronts at the same time: first, to formulate and implement a sound immigration policy and second to acquire approximate data on the extent and type of immigration into the country. After several years of mass illegal immigration, mainly from the neighbouring former Communist countries, being the last among its southernEuropean EU counterparts, Greece half-heartedly launched its first legalisation programme, in the aftermath of national elections in 1997. This programme was initiated after a long period of debate among political parties in parliament and generally other social groups. The central characteristics and the actual procedure will be analysed in section 3.4.1, while at this point the profile of the applicants are presented. A. Evidence from administrative official data In order to estimate the number of illegal immigrants that are currently residing in Greece, as well as the development of the stock during the past years we shall present and compare various data sets. As expected there are no official data regarding explicitly the stock of illegal immigrants. However, we would try to make such an estimate based on official data and assuming that the number of illegal immigrants is proportionally related. First, in table 2.1 the total number of aliens residing in Greece by main country of citizenship and sex as recorded in the National Census of 18/3/2001 is 14

presented. These data are considered as the most reliable regarding the total stock of aliens living in Greece at that time. The total number of aliens amounts to 762,191, from which 54.5% are male. Efforts were made by the Statistical Service to record all residents in the country irrespectively of their legal status. In this respect, no distinction is made regarding immigrants’ legal status. Thus, in this number legal as well as illegal immigrants should be included. The predominant group is Albanians (57.5%) with Bulgarians (4.6%) and Georgians (3%) to follow. There is a considerable number of aliens coming from EU-15 countries (6.2%), which should all be considered as legally residing according to Schengen provisions. In table 2.2 the number of applications for temporary residence permits that were submitted during the legalisation program of 1998 are presented. According to the Manpower Employment Agency (OAED), which was the authority responsible for receiving the applications, 371,641 applications were submitted for the so-called white card. The profile of those immigrants who applied for white card has the following structure: The overwhelming majority is of Balkan origin (78.2%), Christians (mainly Greek Orthodox and Catholic). Around 65 percent came from Albania, 7 percent from Bulgaria, 5 percent Romania, while Ukrainians, Poles, Georgians make up to 2-3 percent each. Immigrants coming from Asian countries, such as India, Pakistan, Philippines represent a small percentage of applicants that is, less than 3 percent each. Thus, one can argue that the implementation of appropriate policies on social and economic integration of migrants would not be negatively influenced by significant cultural differences between the native Greek population and immigrants. On the other hand it is noticeable that these countries are remarkably left behind in their economic, social and educational development and thus it is doubtful whether the human capital of their people fits to the needs for modern development and even corresponds to that indicated by their education. The applicants were in the younger age groups (83 percent between 20 and 44 years of age), while half of them were of married status. On the average, female immigrants belong to older age groups than male. Overall, immigrants belong to younger age groups in relation to the native Greek population. Regarding occupational distribution of immigrants, many of the immigrants did not declare in their applications an occupation. However, the majority of those who declared their occupation were ‘unskilled manual workers’ (56%). Many were ‘skilled 15

technicians’ (17%) and a remarkable percentage was ‘skilled agricultural workers’ (10%). The majority (66%) of immigrants was employed in the construction sector, in private households and in manufacturing, while a remarkable percentage (20%) was employed in trade, hotels and restaurants. In terms of gender, it turns out that the percentage amounts to 74 percent of the total. However, for certain countries of origin (Pakistan, India, Bangladesh) the male percentage amounts to over 95 percent. On the other hand, for certain other countries females predominate (Philippines: 83%, Russia 75%, Moldova 74%, Georgia 63% and Bulgaria 57%). In the case of Albanians, which is the dominant immigrant national group, males amount to 82,6 percent. Recent immigrants in Greece display a rather high level of education. Of the total number, 9 percent of the applicants declared that they hold a tertiary education degree, almost one out of two have completed secondary education, whereas no less than 2 percent are illiterate. It seems that the profile of formal education of these immigrants is diversified and does not differ remarkably from that of Greeks. However, additional qualifications like the knowledge of Greek language and acquisition of training and generic skills are considered as necessary for productive employment. In terms of their regional distribution, these immigrants are concentrated in Greater Athens area (44% of the total number), in Thessaloniki and Central Macedonia (17%), meaning areas where there are higher employment opportunities and lower chances of apprehension. However these figures should be considered cautiously in view of the smaller percentage of immigrants residing in the rural areas who got registered. From this profile, one can conclude that most migrants in fact behave as rational actors: most of them are educated youth looking to improve their circumstances and not desperate people running away simply to survive. They are profoundly influenced by information about what to expect in receiving countries. It is tempting at this point to compare data of white card applications with those derived from the 2001 Census. At first sight it seems that the number of white card applicants is remarkably lower than that indicated by Census. However, excluding from the Census, the EU15 citizens (47,000), the children of aliens who are not obliged to apply for residence permit (127,000), as well as the Ethnic Greeks from 16

Albania and Former Soviet Union (roughly 100,000), it seems that about 488,000 third country nationals should have applied for a temporary residence permit. Given that the applications amount to 371,641, there are about 116,500 individuals in 2001 that should have applied for a white card. Approximately, 143,430 of the initial 1998 applicants for the six - month valid white card did not apply for Green cards. As a result, the number of applications for Green cards was only 228,211(Greek Ministry of Labour and Social Security, 2001). Regarding the profile of those immigrants who applied for green cards, no remarkable differences are observed compared with the above-mentioned profile of the white card applicants. A noteworthy exception is the fact that 50 percent of female white card applicants proceeded to green card application. For males this percentage amounts to 60 percent. Furthermore, as Fakiolas (2003) mentions, 219,024 applications for Green cards were approved. Moreover, until April 2001 the number of applications for renewing the annual Green card was 84,621 and the corresponding approvals 45,700. These numbers indicate the high propensity of regularised immigrants to lapse into illegality. The excessively bureaucratic system, as well as the difficulties to secure the 150 required social security stamps, mainly because of their employers’ unwillingness to insure them, is reported as the main reasons for such a propensity. In this context, it is worth mentioning that the social security contributions for the employee amount to between 14 and 38 percent of the nominal wage and for the employer between 19 and 48 percent depending on the kind of job and the social security fund. In construction and mining social security contributions almost double the cost of labour and thus many workers bargain on the basis of their take-home pay. In the second legalisation, which took place with Law 2910/2001, 367,860 immigrants submitted their applications for the six- month temporary residence permit and 361,110 eventually received such a permit. This second opportunity of immigrants to legalise their status was addressed to certain large groups of illegal immigrants residing in the country. In addition to those who were not registered in the first legalisation and those who had lapsed into illegality, new immigrants had entered the country, facilitated by the large informal economy and assisted by the networks established by older immigrants (Fakiolas, 2003, p. 548). However, the Ministry of Interior, who became for the first time responsible for immigration policy and the issue of work and residence permits, faced serious 17

difficulties to carry out within reasonable time the regularisation process. This was due to the overload of applications, mainly in the largest cities, and the heavy bureaucratic procedures required for legalisation in combination with the lack of experienced and well-trained personnel. As a consequence, the Ministry of Interior was not able to provide data on residence permits before the middle of 2004. Moreover, because there are many and long delays in entering the data in the main database, up until recently sporadically published data differed remarkably according to their date of reference. One can conclude that even though both regularisation opportunities have reduced the number of illegal immigrants in the country, they have not solved the problem of illegality. The remarkable reduction of the problem is evident from the fact that the number of expulsions declined drastically after the second regularisation. While in the 1990s more than two hundred thousand immigrants were expelled annually, in the recent years the corresponding figures are drastically lower. On the other hand, it is worth noting that in both legalisation campaigns many immigrants did not register. A main reason for this seems to be the remarkable cost incurred to registered immigrants by the relevant laws, especially the second one. Apart from the rather high social security contributions, for the provisional six months’ residence permit, the law required 147 Euros and the same amount for the one-year regular residence permit. Because of the rather high fees imposed on immigrants some researchers argue that the law introduced the “pay-and-stayprinciple” (Fakiolas 2003). Amongst them were also those who did not qualify (such as those who had penal records), or did not reside illegally in Greece before the specified deadlines, or did not plan to stay in Greece for long or even preferred the flexibility of the informal labour market. The main question that arises is how many illegal immigrants did not apply for regularisation at the second programme; that is, the actual size of illegal immigration in the country in 2002. Taking as benchmark the Census data of 2001, which records the number of foreign population by nationality and subtracting other groups, it is estimated that about 130,000 irregular immigrants did not apply for regularisation in the 2001 regularisation campaign. It is worth noting that other researchers (Fakiolas 2003, Lianos 2003, Baldwin-Edwards 2004) provide higher estimates, over 200,000. However, they do not consider aliens’ children (not obliged to apply for residence permit) in their calculations. 18

The Ministry of Interior provided data concerning the total number of residence permits that were in effect at 31.12.2003 by country of citizenship and sex. Former data are not available from the Ministry, since the database was not adequately developed earlier. These data are presented in table 2.3. The total number of residence permits in effect at the end of 2003 amounts to 721,883. Taking into account that this number corresponds to third country immigrants, it is above the respective number recorded in the National Census of 2001, signalling a significant reduction in the number of illegal immigrants residing in the country at the end of 2003. Furthermore if we observe the number of valid third country residence permits at 31/12/2003 for females (that is 245,857), it is lower than that of the Census (318,564). This result is due mainly to Albanian female immigrants, to whom 108,225 residence permits have been issued, while in the Census 180,887 individuals are recorded. On the other hand, for the case of males the residence permits (476,000) are remarkably higher than that derived from the Census (400,000). The conclusion that the number of illegal immigrants has declined should be taken with reservation. More specifically, more recent data provided by the Ministry of Interior estimate the number of valid residence permits at the beginning of 2004 to about 420,000 persons. Unless the observed extensive decline of the valid residence permits is due to the expiration of residence permits at the end of 2003, our calculations cannot be very reliable. On the other hand, such numbers do not necessarily capture the number of legally residing in the country aliens, because successive laws automatically extended the date of expiration of the residence permits until June 2005. A data source that allows the elaboration on the development of the stock of illegal immigrants comes from the Ministry of Public Order. In tables 2.4, 2.5 and 2.6 in the appendix the number of removed aliens, the number of apprehended aliens and the number of refused aliens at the border, all by main country of citizenship and by type of border, for the period 2002-2004 are presented. The development of these variables through the years examined signals the trend of the stock of illegal immigrants during the same period. Aliens refused at the border have been considered by many studies as the most reliable variable to estimate illegal immigration, on the assumption that illegal immigration is a constant percentage of border refusals. Moreover apprehended aliens have also been considered as a significant variable, since one could assume that a 19

constant percentage of illegal immigrants are usually apprehended. This however is not as straightforward hypothesis, since this proportion is analogous to the police efforts to apprehend illegal aliens. Sources of the Ministry of Public Order argue that such efforts are neither intense nor constant. The main reason for this is the legal and administrative difficulties to carry out removals of those apprehended. Moreover it has changed through time, as a result of the increasing share of illegal immigrants originating mainly from Asian and African countries who is rather difficult to repatriate. Thus, the observed reduction in the number of apprehensions can not serve as evidence for the reduction in the number of illegal immigrants. Furthermore, while removed aliens are a part of those apprehended, they can not be taken as a basis to calculate the stock of illegal immigrants, since their size is mainly affected by administrative expulsion decisions and co-operation with the countries of origin so as to receive back their natives. Refused aliens (table 2.6) show a clear decreasing trend throughout the examined period. From 24,162 in 2002, they declined to 17,642 in 2003 and 14,584 in 2004. This amounts to a reduction of 39.64% in the number of refused aliens within 2 years (from 2002 to 2004). This might be related to the stricter allowance of visas from Greek Consulates in the countries of origin, as well as to the implementation of the Schengen Convention, which implies more careful passport control. Apprehended aliens (table 2.5) are also decreasing from 58,230 in 2002 to 51,031 in 2003 and 44,985 in 2004, a reduction of 22.75% within two years. Furthermore, it is worth noting that the decline of about 13 thousands includes a reduction of apprehended Iraqis by 7.5 thousands and Iranians by 1 thousand. Taking into account the lower number of removals of Iraqis and Iranian nationals, it seems that these apprehensions very probably declined because of the difficulties to remove these particular categories of illegal immigrants and not necessarily because of a reduction in their stock. The total number of removed aliens (table 2.4) is also decreasing from 49,310 in 2002 to 45,112 in 2003 and 39,842 in 2004 (a reduction of 19.2% within 2 years). The downward evolution of these 3 variables, especially of the number of border refusals, allows us to assume that the stock of illegal immigrants is unlikely to increase remarkably during the 2002 – 2004 period. Another important observation derives from the number of rejected asylum applications during the recent years. In table 2.7 the decisions on asylum applications 20

over the period 2000-2004 are presented. The first observation is that the number of applications increased significantly during 2003, while decreased in half in 2004. These fluctuations do not allow us to make any assumption on the trend of this variable. The main characteristic is the rejection of the vast majority of the applications made. During the last 4 years 19,026 applicants were rejected. It is very likely that a large proportion of rejected asylum applicants is still residing in the country illegally, since the expulsion in many cases cannot be implemented due to administrative reasons, costs of transportation and refusal of the countries of origin to accept them back. In order to make roughly an estimation of the stock of illegal immigrants during the period 2001-2004 we proceed as follows. First, on the basis of comparison between the National Census and the applications from the first legalisation programme it turns out that 116,500 illegal immigrants did not apply even for a white card in 1998. If however we consider the much lower number of green card applicants and the fact that those who got such a card did not necessarily renew it, it becomes clear that the number of illegal immigrants in 2001 should be estimated around to 300,000 persons. This number is consistent with the number of applicants of the 2002 regularisation campaign i.e 367,800 applications. Second, by making a similar comparison between 2001 Census and the number of applications for the second legalisation programme, it is estimated that the number of illegal immigrants, who did not apply for legalisation in 2002, is about 130,000, roughly the same to that of the first. It should be pointed out that out of these applications, 361,110 did actually received temporary residence permit. These temporary residence permits, as well as those annual awarded after full examination of required documents, actually extended through successive laws for a much longer period. The main reason for these successive extensions was the inability of responsible authorities, especially in large municipalities, to examine the enormous number of initial or renewal applications. Thus, after the first stages of the second regularisation programme the number of those lapsed to illegality is actually relatively small and the number of illegal immigrants should be around to 130,000 persons. Third, we also know from the Ministry of Public Order that the number of refused aliens decreased by 26.98% from 2002 to 2003 and by 17.33% from 2003 to 2004, that is from 24,162 in 2002 to 14,584 in 2004. On the other hand, the period 2002 – 2004 were preparation years for the Athens Olympic Games, which attracted 21

many immigrant workers in the construction and public works. These workers however were overwhelmingly legal and secured, mainly through the second legalisation. In this respect it is indicative that according to the Labour Force Survey while in 2000 145,000 foreigners were employed in the country, in the first quarter of 2004 the number amounted to nearly 280,000 (table 2.8). While it is not clear whether this increase reflects a genuine increase in the number of immigrants (both legal and illegal) or an effort of the LFS to capture foreigners more accurately, it seems that the stock of immigrants did not decline until 2004. The weakness of the LFS to capture the accurate number of employed foreigners is shown when we consider the number of foreigners insured in the main social funds. In the main social security organisation (IKA) in October 2003 there were 505,000 foreigners insured (out of 1,900,000). Furthermore, 45,000 foreigners are insured in the Agriculture Social Fund (OGA) and around 15,000 in the Merchants Social Fund (TEVE). That is 570,000 foreign workers are secured in Greek social funds, which implies that their status is legal. Thus, foreigners already represent a significant percentage out of total employment, which is estimated to 4,300,000. Furthermore during the period 2001 - 2004 the rejected asylum applications amounted to 19,000. Thus we can infer that the stock of illegal immigrants during the 2002 – 2004 period increased by that number, so the number of illegal immigrants is estimated at 2004 at least 150,000. Moreover, because of the new arrivals of illegal immigrants it seems that the total number of illegal immigrants during the period 2002-2004 is estimated to be up to 200,000. It is common knowledge that after the Olympic Games, with the completion of related public works and the contraction of the construction sector, the number of immigrants, both legal and illegal, declined remarkably. Thus we consider as the upper limit of current illegal immigrants to be that estimated for the previous years that is, 200,000. B. The Profile of Illegal Immigrants The data used in order to present the profile of illegal immigrants come from the Labour Force Surveys of the second trimester of 1999, 2000 and 2002, which records the health and pension insurance fund of each surveyed individual. In order to increase our number of observations we unified the records of the three years. We 22

constrained our sample to the productive ages (men from 15 to 64 and women from 15 to 59). In this way he have got 150,757 observations (that is 150,757 individuals answered) of which 5,026 correspond to individuals with citizenship other than Greek or EU-15, that is third country nationals. We do not include in the analysis immigrants with citizenship of EU-15 countries since they are all legal. Furthermore we have separated the sample of third country nationals into two groups. The first group is immigrants who possess either health security or main security (for pension) and the second group is immigrants who possess neither of them. This means that the second group of immigrants is by definition illegal, since in order to acquire a residence permit for employment reasons one must have employment contract and thus main security. If someone acquires residence permit for other reasons (e.g. studies) he/she should be provided with health security. There is a small number of third county nationals, roughly 2%, who have got pension security and do not have health security. As such a situation is possible in the sense that certain individuals could be mainly secured but have not yet got their health card, we considered them as legal immigrants i.e. we include them in our first group. Thus, the basic distinction here is between secured aliens and unsecured. It is certain that secured aliens are legal, while almost certainly unsecured aliens are illegal1. In this way, we shall provide a comparative analysis of the characteristics of these two groups, as well as the natives in order to capture any significant differences of the profile of illegal immigrants. In this context we first present and briefly analyse some general characteristics of legal (secured), illegal (unsecured) immigrants and natives such as gender, age, family status, employment status, citizenship, level of completed studies, regional concentration, degree of urbanisation and years of residence in Greece. The tables discussed here are presented in the appendix in terms of percentage distribution. This means that in the case of third country legal immigrants where the number of observations (Ν) is 3,659 from whom, those with male gender amount to 52.61%, the latter percentage amounts to 1925 people. A second step would be to restrict further the sample in order to analyse the employment characteristics of these groups. In this way we restrict the sample only to those who are employed, resulting to a total of 87,453 observations out of which 3,351 correspond to immigrants. The employment characteristics would be analysed in chapter 4 and would involve position in the 1

There might be the case where a third country national, who is spouse of unsecured Greek or EU

23

firm/organisation, sector of employment, profession category, full-time or part-time employment, permanent or temporary employment, number of workers in the local unit of the firm/organisation and monthly net pay from main job. The first feature to present is the distribution of the sample between the 3 years of the labour force survey 1999, 2000, 2002 and the groups of individual examined. In table 2.8 the number of observations of each year of survey are presented. The second column shows the percentage distribution of secured third country immigrants, the third column the percentage distribution of unsecured third country immigrants, the fourth column the percentage distribution of natives and the last column the incidence of unsecured, that is the percentage of unsecured with respect to secured. It turns out that the sample is uniformly distributed between the 3 years for natives. This indicates that the survey is conducted in the same way and captures roughly the same percentage of the whole population. This is not however the case for immigrants. The total sample of illegal (unsecured) immigrants for the three years amounts to 1,367 observations, while for secured immigrants amounts to 3,659. This means that at least 37.36% of immigrants examined during the period 1999-2002 are illegal. Nevertheless, this is not the whole story. We observe a significant reduction of the proportion of illegal immigrants to legal immigrants over the 3years. Starting at 1999 illegal immigrants amount to 57.26% of secured immigrants, while in 2000 this proportion falls to 46.33%, resulting to an amazing reduction to 19.77% in 2002. The regularisation programme of 2001, as well as the successive automatic extensions of the residence permits, reduced significantly the number of illegal aliens. We consider that this proportion approximates closely the actual percentage of illegal immigrants (over legal) in the post-legalisation era. Table 2.9 represents the percentage distribution of secured and unsecured, that is illegal, immigrants by country groups of citizenship. The predominant country of citizenship is Albania with a percentage of 59.96% for secured aliens and 63.94% for unsecured. The second largest proportion of immigrants comes from the former U.S.S.R countries, where secured aliens amount to 10.88% and unsecured to 12.66%. Other countries of Eastern & Central Europe as well as Balkan countries (except from Albania) follow with percentages 9.13% and 7.32% respectively for secured aliens and 7.83% and 6.29% for illegal aliens. So we observe that the share of illegal

citizen be also unsecured and legally residing in the country.

24

immigrants from Albania and Former U.S.S.R is higher than that of legal, while for the other countries (except Middle East) the opposite holds. The main conclusion from this table is that countries with high numbers and percentages of illegal immigrants are the same to those with high numbers and percentages of legal ones, i.e. Albania, other Balkan countries, former USSR and countries of Eastern and Central Europe outside EU. On the other hand the share and concentration of illegal, as well as legal, immigration is relatively low from Western Europe outside EU15 and America, Australia and New Zealand. Table 2.10 classifies secured, unsecured third country immigrants and natives by gender. While the 52.61% of secured immigrants are male and 47.39% female, for the case of unsecured these percentages are 47.48% and 52.52% respectively. Thus, male immigrants display slightly higher propensity to be secured. This result seems to be attributed to the increased proportion of unsecured women originating from countries of former U.S.S.R. In table 2.11 the age distribution of the target groups is presented. It is reaffirmed that immigrants are relatively younger than the native population. While natives seem to be rather uniformly distributed between ages 21 to 64 with percentages ranging from 21% to 23.4%, there are significant differences between secured and unsecured third country immigrants. More specifically, unsecured immigrants seem to concentrate in younger ages (15 to 30) and in matured ages (above 51), while secured immigrants are met mainly between ages 31 to 50. This seems to reflect rational behaviour of immigrants, in the sense that young immigrants might not have the chance to be secured while those matured might not be interested to be secured. Table 2.12 represents the family status of the analysed groups. Single immigrants display a relatively higher share to those unsecured (36.87%), than to those secured (27.66%). The opposite holds for married immigrants, where almost 70% of secured are married while 58% of the unsecured are married. As a result we can argue that married immigrants tend to be secured to a higher degree than those single. An interesting table is table 2.13, where the employment status variable is presented. The rate of unemployed unsecured immigrants is almost twice the rate of unemployed secured immigrants (13% versus 6.9%), while unemployed natives amount to 7.26%. Thus, for productive ages unemployment rate of secured 25

immigrants is almost equal to that of natives. On the other hand, the rather high unemployment rate of unsecured raises many questions regarding their opportunities to find a job, but also a relatively higher percentage of voluntary unemployment rate implying involvement in illicit activities. This argument is consistent with the fact that illegal immigrants display a higher proportion of non-active than the secured immigrants (26.85% versus 24%). In other words 6 out of 10 unsecured immigrants are employed, while for secured immigrants almost 7 out of 10 are employed. This means that certain percentage of illegal immigrants residing in the country does not seek for job and thus they can not sign an employment contract and apply for a residence permit. In table 2.14 the educational qualifications of immigrants and natives are presented. Secured immigrants have significantly higher level of education than unsecured. It is indicative that for all levels of completed studies, starting from “completed secondary education” and above, secured immigrants display higher proportions than unsecured (the opposite stands for lower levels of education). Natives seem to have lower qualifications on average than secured aliens and higher than unsecured, since there is very large proportion of natives having completed only primary education (30.66%), while in Master Certificate or Ph.D. degrees, intermediate technical schools and certificate of post-secondary education natives seem to prevail. In table 2.15 the regional concentration of the target groups is presented. The basic observation here regards the massive concentration of immigrants both secured and unsecured (secured more) in the region of Athens. The proportion of secured immigrants residing in the Athens region amounts to 60.81%, while for unsecured 56.47%. The proportion of natives equals to 32.34%. Similar regional distribution of immigrants is met in 2001 General Census. It is also significant to point the larger proportion of illegal immigrants compared to secured, in the regions of Central Macedonia (Thessalonica), Thessaly and Crete. The last two regions are urban areas, where many of illegal immigrants seem to find employment. Thessalonica attracts many of illegal immigrants coming from former U.S.S.R. countries and the Balkans. In accordance with the above results is table 2.16, where the degree of urbanisation is presented. We see that the vast majority of secured and unsecured immigrants (with similar percentages 60.7%-59.2%) reside in municipality with 70,000 residents and above. 26

In table 2.17 the years of residence of immigrants in Greece are presented. As expected, unsecured immigrants have a smaller period of residency in Greece than secured aliens. For all the periods up to 4 years the percentage of unsecured aliens is significantly greater than the one of secured aliens. It is worth noting that about one out of two of unsecured has been in the country for less than four years. On the other hand, a large proportion of secured (18.34%) stay in Greece for more than a decade.

27

3. STATE APPROACHES 3.1 Measures to Prevent Illegal Immigration The rise of inflows of illegal immigrants in the 1990s could be viewed within the changing international context, as well as within the particular domestic context. General factors influenced upwardly the recent trends of illegal immigration. Such factors are the economic collapse of several countries and the impoverishment of their inhabitants, the rise in local and civil conflicts, in undemocratic and suppressive regiments and the rise of globalised criminal networks managing to exploit the imminent needs of these people for a better life. The enhanced employment opportunities (mainly in the informal sector) with a wage level much higher than this in the respective countries of origin are among the domestic factors, which contribute to the rise of illegal immigration in Greece. Another related factor is the particularities of land but most importantly sea borders, which inhibits their effective control. Greek territory, in particular, includes a vast line of seashore (approximately 16.000 klms) and a multitude of greater or lesser islands and rocky islets (over 3.000), the majority of which lies close to the Turkish coasts, so that they constitute the ‘gate of entrance’ of thousands of immigrants and refugees into Europe yearly. Furthermore, along Greece’s land frontiers in the North, huge mountains are interposed, which are for the most part precipitous and inaccessible. As a result any attempt to fully police and control them effectively is a truly gigantic venture, if only for the lack of the necessary electronic equipment of surveillance and the additional recruitment of substantial personnel. The most common route of organised entry into Greece is across the Turkish border. Sometimes the trip is organised from the country of origin and Greece is an intermediate stop towards other European countries, as is often the case for refugees. When a longer trip is planned with multiple stopovers many people are involved in the trafficking and they are of different nationalities, but mainly Turks and Greeks. Albanian borders, on the other hand, are mainly crossed on an individual basis. Crossing those borders is very easy. Thus, deportations do not concern Albanians, who know that returning will not be difficult (E. Reyneri: 2001, 25). The Albanians who constitute the majority of foreigners in Greece and the other Eastern Europeans enter Greece usually through the unguarded parts of the borders. The 28

Kurds, Iranians, Iraqis, Pakistanis arrive illegally, but mostly through making use of migrant traffickers, who against an important price bring them to Greece, mainly by the water roads (sea, or Evros river), putting their lives in considerable risks (A. K. Papantoniou et al, 1998: 128). Migrants can also enter Greece using forged documents: either by cheating the authorities or with the support of networks linked to border police, etc. In Albania, people used to pay in the Greek consulates’ corridors for a visa that is not forged, but not fully authentic, so that it could pass a cursory inspection, but not a stricter one. Through purchasing false identity papers, incoming immigrants manage to secure the right of entry and stay, a false ‘ethnic Greek’ identity, or even Greek identity, or acquire the Greek citizenship, the so-called ‘Hellenisations’ (A. K. Papantoniou et al, 1998: 128). Part of (southern) Albania constitutes part of the former Northern Epirus, the inhabitants of which are to a large part of Greek origin. When in 1991 the borders between Albania and Greece opened, the Greek authorities welcomed the North Epirots of Greek origin to enter Greece. The North Epirots of Greek origin were thus attributed a visa plus certain prerogatives such as work permit, the right to health care, etc., which allowed them to come to Greece. Consequently, if an Albanian in Greece is of Greek origin depends on the kind of papers he/she has been able to get. What had often been the case was that the Albanians in Greece, discovering the privileges linked with appearing to be of Greek origin, but also in order to protect themselves from discrimination, changed their identity and made it into a Greek one. This was pursued through many ways: false papers, visas, changing their names, getting baptised. Sometimes there came a point when their origin became undetectable (A. K. Papantoniou et al, 1998: 210). Moreover, a large proportion of foreigners circulates in Greece with a false name and frequently a false nationality, while they dispose the relative document to substantiate that. Sometimes they dispose of more than one names and nationalities (A. K. Papantoniou et al, 1998: 75). Furthermore, there is a sizeable inflow of asylum seekers. The journey of these people, who mainly come from the Middle East, is very long; it might take months, or even years, including long periods spent in one country, while waiting for an opportunity to pass on to the next (E. Reyneri, 2001: 25). These asylum seekers often overstay illegally as economic migrants when their applications for asylum in Greece are rejected. If they are arrested, they are detained for a maximum of three months by 29

the end of which they are released and supposed to leave the country within a specified period of time. However, what happens is that these actually stay illegally in Greece. There are also cases of authorised entry, with a short-term permit (for tourism, studies, health reasons, etc.) and subsequent unauthorised overstaying after its expiration. Consequently, there are those foreigners, who have entered Greece, either as tourists, or as students, or as businessmen, even as contractual workers, who at a certain moment lost the quality of ‘legal’, through the termination of contract, the completion of the studies, the expiration of the visa or of the time period they were allowed to remain in Greece as tourists and have turned to ‘over-stayers’ and illegals (A. K. Papantoniou et al, 1998: 128). Even currently, wide networks provide such immigrants with the required travel documents and bring them to Greece, especially as ‘tourists’. According to officials from the Ministry of Public Order, it has been the case that, sometimes, illegal immigrants can be easily arrested when entering in large groups through sea borders. They are detained for a maximum of three months and when they are released they can stay in Greece illegally. Also, for various reasons, immigrants coming from Asian countries of origin sometimes destroy deliberately their personal documents. What happens then, is that when police authorities arrest them and when their nationality has been detected, the police authorities ask from the relevant consular authority to issue a travel document so as to expel them to the country of origin. However, as the consular authorities under the pretext of verification of the immigrants’ real nationality, take their time to make their investigation, the three-month detention period expires and police authorities are obliged to release the detainees most of whom from then on stay illegally. According to the recent Report released by the Ministry of Public Order for the year 2004, a large proportion of illegal immigrants originates from the neighbouring Balkan countries (Albania, Bulgaria, FYROM, Romania), as well as countries of Africa and Asia. In particular for the year 2004, the vast proportion of illegal immigrants came from Albania, Bulgaria, Rumania, Afghanistan, Iraq, FYROM, Pakistan, Georgia, Egypt and Palestine. The vast majority of criminal networks that transfer illegal immigrants originate from Greece, Albania, Turkey, Bulgaria, Georgia, Iraq and Egypt. The most active of these networks were Turkish nationals being a part of wide networks or undertaking on their own to transit illegal 30

immigrants to Greek territory. However, except from the Turkish networks, in 2004 Egyptian networks seemed very active in the transit of illegal immigrants, mainly Egyptians, through the use of small boats that carried the immigrants to Greek territory. According to the same report, the main routes followed by illegal immigrants, Albanian nationals mostly, for the year 2004 were via the Greek-Albanian borders (mainly land but also sea borders), as well as via the borders between Greece and FYROM. Nationals of countries of Central and Eastern Europe enter through the borders between Greece, FYROM, Bulgaria and Turkey (River Evros). Nationals of Afro-Asian countries enter mainly via Turkey but also Bulgaria. A large proportion of them enter Greece, so that via the ports of Patras and Igoumenitsas, to get to Italy and then to other European countries. Regarding the specific activity of the networks that transit illegal immigrants, the Report elaborates on the following: In the countries of origin of illegal immigrants, these networks have organised ‘mechanisms of conscription’ of the potential illegal immigrants. The most common method is the advertisements in print, on the daily press and on the internet, which are set by travel agents or job-finding agencies. Contacts with the dealers are made in specific bars, clubs, cafés. The payment of the fare for the transfer is done either in the country of origin or partly in the country of transit-concentration of the illegal immigrants and the destination country. The fare is set in accordance with the type of service provided, the route and the method, as well as the destination. The use of force inflicted by the members of these networks on to the transferred immigrants is very frequent, in order to secure the payment of the agreed amount of money. It is often the case that the networks that transfer illegal immigrants are involved in other types of criminal activity, such as drug trafficking, human trafficking and sexual exploitation, blackmailing, as well as forgery of travel and other types of documents. The transit of illegal immigrants is often conducted with vehicles, such as trucks, tourist busses and caravans. However, during 2004 there was an increase in the transit of illegal immigrants in groups of 4-5 persons with private cars, some of which were rented. In the same year, there were a large number of Greek individuals, mainly traffickers in the interior part of the country, who picked up the immigrants from the borderline areas and drove them to the interior of the country.

31

Last in 2004, there were arrests made by the Greek coast-guard police of individual Turkish traffickers (1-2 persons each time), using small boats with outboard motors to transfer illegal immigrants from the Turkish coastline to the Greek islands. These Turkish traffickers were common boat owners, hired by networks so as to gather all the illegal immigrants near the Turkish coast and having received the prearranged fee to transfer the immigrants on to the Greek coast. Regarding Schengen Agreements, Greece has signed a preliminary agreement as early as November 1992 and the necessary legislation was finalised only in 1997. On June 6,1997 Greek Parliament ratified the Schengen Agreements. However, it took another two years before all procedures were in place and the full implementation of the Schengen aquis occurred from January 1, 2000 (25/3/2000 for air borders). Currently, the Schengen Agreements form a sanctioned law of the Greek State.2 Greece has been connected to the Schengen Central System of Information (C.SIS) and permits of entry in the country are dealt with according to the Schengen system of visas. In terms of visa policy, Greece, as a member-state of the Schengen, issues Schengen uniform visas, as well as national long-stay visas for stays exceeding three months. Schengen visas are issued in accordance with the relevant provisions of the EU acquis, meaning the Schengen Convention, the Schengen Common Consular Instructions and the various EU acts developing the Schengen acquis. The Greek authorities involved are the following: the Greek consular authorities, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Public Order, which is responsible for checking the relevant databases of undesirable persons. National visas are granted according to the provisions of Law 2910/2001, the currently applicable Immigration Act, which establishes in detail the various purposes for entry as well as the procedure and the documents to be submitted with regard to the issuing of the relevant visas. The Greek authorities involved are, the Greek consular authorities, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Public Order on the one hand, and on the other, the Ministry of Interior, as well as the Ministries of Labour or Education, depending on the specific purpose of entry concerned. 2

The transposition of the Schengen Acquis to the Greek legislation took place with the following Laws: a) Ratification by Law 2068/1992 (FEK 118/A/9.7.1992) of the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to automatic processing of personal data; b) Transcription into National Law (Law 2514/27.06.1997/Govern. Gazette FEK 140); c) Transcription into National Law of

32

In its effort to establish a firmer control over its external borders, since the end of 1990s, Greece has set 58 departments of border guard, as part of the Police, developed in three zones at its northern borders with personnel of approximately 5.000 guards. Also, there is a co-operation between the various police departments, responsible for detecting illegally resident aliens within the country, as well as with the authorities of passport control, responsible for checking those entering the land, sea and air borders. The Coast-guard Patrol, a part of the Ministry of Mercantile Marine, is responsible for the inspection and control of the sea borders. The Coastguard authorities are in close co-operation with the Ministry of Interior, Public Administration and Decentralisation, the Ministry of Health and Social Solidarity, the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Public Order for the implementation of the phase that concern the reception and temporary accommodation of the illegal immigrants. Moreover, a close collaboration has been established between the Coastguard Patrol, which is responsible for the surveillance of sea borders and the Customs offices responsible for checking the incoming goods, objects and vehicles. Given its special geographical position, Greece is deeply interested in developments regarding the EU policy on external borders, within the framework of the implementation of the relevant EU plan (Council Decision of 13 June 2002). A permanent Greek position (along with other member-states which face similar high inflows of illegal immigrants, such as Italy and Spain), regarding the economic burden of guarding its external borders, is that all the other member-states should contribute partly to these costs (Κoskinas, ΟΚΕ, 2003: 151-152). Moreover, Greek Police is quite active in the international arena, as it co-operates closely with international organisations, such as the European Union, the United Nations, INTERPOL, EUROPOL, SECI, etc. Greece has signed readmission agreements with Bulgaria, France, Italy, Croatia, Lithuania, Latvia, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Slovenia. It has also signed a Protocol for the implementation of the readmission clause of the police co-operation agreement with Turkey. Readmission clauses are included in a series of police cooperation agreements. Nevertheless, most of the readmission agreements are not extensively used in practice. The ones mostly used are those concluded with neighbouring countries, namely Bulgaria, Italy and Turkey. the European Community Directive on Data Protection (Law 2472/1997, FEK 50/A); d) Harmonisation

33

Bilateral agreements have been signed between Greece and some of the neighbouring Balkan countries with the main objective to control illegal immigration with an added emphasis on the needs of domestic labour market and seasonal work. Along this line, an agreement has been signed at the beginning of the nineties with Albania for the granting of 30.000 seasonal work permits. In 1995, an agreement of co-operation was signed with Bulgaria for the seasonal employment of Bulgarian nationals via the granting of residence and work permits for a three-month time period. However, the agreement was not specified with a convention that would be ratified by the Bulgarian Parliament. Also, in May 1996 an agreement was signed with Albania, which was ratified with Law 2482/1997 for the advent of temporary work for the coverage of the needs on the basis of domestic production. Cross-border police co-operation has been established with Bulgaria, FYROM and Albania. In this context, bilateral meetings have been organised and joint actions and measures have been taken in the sensitive domains of passport control, border control, prevention of illegal immigration, combating of illegal trafficking of drugs, human beings, weapons, etc. In accordance with the Budapest Process, Greek legislation provides a detailed set of penalties for a series of public and private persons who facilitate either the entry or residence of illegal immigrants. Furthermore, special attention is paid to the cases of victims of trafficking and especially those of prostitution networks. Following recent legislative developments, penal sanctions have been substantially increased, assistance is granted to the victims, expulsion orders may be suspended and a residence permit is granted to victims co-operating with authorities. Directive 2001/55/EC on carriers’ liability has been transposed into Greek law via an amendment of the relevant provision of the basic Immigration Act-Article 55 of Law 2910/2001-by Article 37 of Law 3153/2003. In addition, Greece has signed the UN Palermo Protocols on human trafficking. Last, with regard to the combat of illegal migration at its source in conjunction with the countries of origin and transit, two important developments have taken place. The first one, is the signing with Turkey of the Agreement on Combating Crime, terrorism, organised crime, illicit drug trafficking and illegal immigration, which came into force on July 17, 2001. In implementation of this Agreement, a

of Aliens and Migration Legislation to EU standards (Law 2910/2001 and subsequent amendments).

34

Readmission Protocol was signed, providing for co-operation between the Greek Ministry of Public Order and the Turkish Ministry of Interior on readmission of citizens of either country or third country nationals who have illegally entered the territory of either Greece or Turkey. The readmission procedure, which came into force on August 5, 2002, falls under specific rules agreed upon by the two countries. The other and most recent development is the bilateral meeting, which took place in May 2005, between the Greek Minister of Public Order and the Pakistani Minister of Interior. In the context of this meeting several issues of common interest were discussed with regard to the prevention of illegal immigration, drug trafficking, terrorism and organised crime. Furthermore, a summit was decided to take place in the near future with the participation of Greece, Pakistan, Iran and Turkey dealing with the development of joint action for the management of illegal immigration. A bilateral agreement of co-operation was signed between Greece and Pakistan, the specific conditions of which are to be determined in the future. Another dimension of Greek policy, which affects the size of illegal immigration, is related to the efforts made by Greece to the direction of development of the countries of origin (mainly Balkans) of most of immigrants present in the country. Greece offers technical assistance in education, training, public employees and encourages investments of Greek firms in other Balkan countries, thus increasing local employment opportunities. In this respect it is estimated that about 3,500 Greek enterprises have established productive activities in neighbouring Balkan countries, where labour cost is much lower, employing tens of thousands of local workers. 3.2 Measures of Domestic Control Greek state does not have a centrally organised system of monitoring illegal residence. The only state authority, which has the jurisdiction to check the legality of immigrants and make arrests within Greek territory is police authorities, meaning the Ministry of Public Order. According to the current legislative framework police has the authority to apprehend and remove illegal immigrants. There are some sparse legislative provisions found in Law 2910, such as the obligation of public agencies to report to police authorities any case of illegal immigrant they are aware of within the orbit of their competence, as well as not to provide any service to immigrants who fall into the category of ‘illegal’. Also, there is 35

the obligation of reporting to the authorities cases of provision of paid accommodation to immigrants without the legal documents. On the other hand, it is unlikely for various public authorities to exchange information regarding illegal immigrants’ activities. Law 2910/2001 provides sanctions to all those employers who employ illegal immigrants, as well as to those carriers who transport into Greece those immigrants who do not possess the prerequisite documents for their legal entry. In terms of administrative procedures that mostly have to do with the regularisation of illegal immigrants the competent state authorities are the following: the local prefectures, the departments of Aliens and Migration of Municipalities, all of which are under the supervision of the Ministry of Interior, Public Administration and Decentralisation. More specifically, the main role of these state agencies is the admission of applications for the issue or renewal of residence and work permits, and the transference of the application files to other state agencies either for crosschecking or for the issue of the pre-requisite certificates. However, the immigrants get their residence and work permits from the former departments. Throughout the procedure other state services are involved as well. Such are the Ministry of Justice, which is competent for the issue of the penal record of the applicants, the Ministry of Public Order for checking the penal record of the aliens, as well as the Organisation of Manpower (OAED), which is responsible for the control of the labour market. Also, the embassies and consulates of the respective countries of origin play an important role, especially concerning the legal entry of aliens in Greece. 3.3 Voluntary and Forced Return Forced return of immigrants involves two kinds of expulsion, administrative and judicial expulsion, the latter ordered by the courts in criminal cases involving aliens. Administrative expulsion is permitted in three cases. First, in the case where the alien is convicted and deprived of his/her freedom for no less than one year, or, irrespectively of the penalty, in the cases where he/she has committed several crimes enumerated by the immigration law. The police can then decide expulsion, if it has not been ordered by the court in the form of the judicial expulsion (L.2910, art.44, par. 1a). In the second case, expulsion is ordered if the alien has violated the

36

provisions of the immigration law. And in the third, if his/her presence in the country constitutes a risk for national security, public order or public health (Art. 44, par. 2). The alien is given a period of at least forty-eight hours to submit reasons against his/her expulsion. He/she is also given five days to complain against the decision of the police to the regional Secretary-General, who has to decide within three days following the complaint. The act of appeal has the legal effect of suspending the expulsion decision. The regional Secretary-General may provisionally suspend expulsion on his own motion when this is necessary for humanitarian reasons, force majeur, for public interest reasons, or when there are exceptional reasons concerning the life or the health of the alien or of his/her family (Art. 44, par. 6). Also, whenever the immediate expulsion of the alien is not feasible, the regional Secretary-General may permit him/her a provisional stay, but he can limit his/her free movement in the country (Art. 45). An alien cannot be expelled if he/she is a parent of a minor who has Greek citizenship, or if he/she has exceeded his/her 80th year of age. A significant provision of the new law is the one covering cases of illegal immigrants, victims of prostitution networks, who bring charges against Greek citizens or aliens for procurement to prostitution. The new provision foresees that the public prosecutor can decide that the expulsion of the victim should be suspended, until the courts pronounce the final verdict in the criminal case in question. Following the prosecutor’s order, the regional Secretary-General is obliged to grant a residence permit to the immigrant who can appear then as witness in the criminal procedure (Circular F 94345/14612/03.05.2001, p. 65). If the illegal immigrant’s charge is proven false, then expulsion is implemented (Art. 44, par. 7). If some conditions are met, the authorities may decide to detain the alien until he/she is expelled. Police may order the detention of the alien, if he/she is dangerous or risks absconding, but only for a period of time not exceeding three months, and has to inform him/her of its decision in a language he/she understands. The person under expulsion may submit reasons against the legality of his/her detention to the president of the administrative tribunal of first instance, who decides according to the procedure which applies in cases of detention as an enforcement measure for debts owed to the state (Art. 44, par. 3). If the judge considers the detention unlawful, he sets the alien free, but he has to determine a deadline, not exceeding thirty days, within which he/she must depart from the country (Art. 44, par. 4). If the regional SecretaryGeneral provisionally suspends the expulsion order, this does not affect the validity of 37

the detention order for the time of the suspension. In that respect, the law separates clearly the control instances over expulsion and detention, although both decisions are taken initially by the police. As to the detention facilities, the valid law provides that aliens under expulsion are detained in the premises of the local police, until the regional Secretary-General establishes special premises for that purpose (Art. 48). Despite these legal provisions concerning forced return, there is a significant lack of legal provisions to encourage voluntary return. The only relevant exception is the non-imposition of sanctions, apart from economic sanctions, in cases when an alien who has overstayed his/her legitimate period of time presents him/herself voluntarily for exit in a border crossing. Moreover, there is no evidence concerning the number of individuals, either legal or illegal immigrants, returning voluntarily to their countries of origin. Regarding the number of forced returns in the recent years, it amounts to around 40.000, displaying a reduction of about 20 % between 2002 and 2004 (see table 2.4). The vast majority of these removals consistently concern Albanians, while amongst certain other countries of origin, like Iran, Iraq such expulsions represent small and declining numbers. It is worth noting that the number of removed Albanians is close to the apprehended Albanians, while for certain Asian countries of origin, such as Iran and Iraq, the number of removed is much lower than the number of apprehended. The difficulty to remove illegal immigrants from the latter countries of origin discourages police authorities to proceed to the apprehensions of these illegal immigrants. Such police tactics are dictated by the lack and inadequacy of detention facilities in Greece. According to the current law if an illegal immigrant is apprehended, he/she can be detained for up to three months and if within this time span he/she is not removed, he/she should be released. In practice, unlike the case of Albanian illegal immigrants, it turns out difficult to remove aliens from Asian countries within this time period and thus apprehensions are avoided for those nationals.

38

3.4 Measures of Rectification and Remedy 3.4.1 Legal Status Two regularisation campaigns have taken place in Greece in 1998 and 2001, while a third one is expected to start at 1/1/2006. This section deals first with the formal procedure of both regularisation programmes. Secondly, a review of the current bibliography concerning the legalisation processes, as well as their appraisal is attempted. The main motivations behind the legalisation drives could be found in two interconnected factors: first, the radical political changes in Eastern Europe of the late 1980s and the subsequent opening of the borders. Since the beginning of 1990s, a massive number of Albanians in particular began to arrive in Greece. Almost all of these were undocumented. The second factor was the luck of sufficient legislative framework that included no provision for legalisation of foreign workers already in Greece. Up until the beginning of 1990s, the status of foreigners in Greece was regulated by a 1929 law, which had last been revised in 1948. The first attempt to deal with the new situation that emerged out of the influx of immigrants was the enactment of the new ‘Aliens’ Law’ (L. 1975/91). The law sought to provide a legal framework for more efficient control of immigration. However, no provision for legalisation was included. As in the past, the law stipulated that foreign workers should sign employment contracts while still in their homelands. Discussion of legalisation of immigrants in Greece began some years after the enactment of Law 1975/91. The first organisation that asked for the legalisation of illegal immigrants was the General Confederation of Greek Trade Unions, which proposed the measure to the Greek government. The government responded with the announcement in February of 1995 that legalisation legislation was being developed. Law 2434/1996 was implemented in two stages. In the first, aliens would register with Greek authorities and acquire temporary residence permits. In the second, they would receive a limited duration residence permits. Article 16 further provided for the establishment of a special Committee to prepare drafts of two Presidential Decrees, one for each of the two stages, which were to define conditions and procedures for the legalisation. These two Presidential

39

Decrees were promulgated on November 28, 1997. The legalisation process begun on January 1, 1998. The first Presidential Decree, 358/97, addressed those aliens residing illegally in Greece, either employed or seeking employment, who could now register. The process would then get started and, under certain conditions, would lead to legalisation. All illegal aliens residing in Greece on the date of the issuance of the Presidential Decree and who were employed or seeking employment became eligible. Aliens were required to apply and to provide specified documentation: attestations issued by the Ministry of Justice that they did not have criminal records; attestations provided by local police stations, on the basis of a fingerprint check, that they were not on the list of persona non grata kept by the Criminal Investigation Police; certificates from a public hospital that they were not suffering from any contagious disease; documents, such as passports or certificates concerning their family situations which proved their identity. Each applicant was instructed to provide information about his/her address, family situation, educational level, length of stay in Greece and employment situation. Various documents would be used to establish the period of residency, including receipts, electricity and telephone bills, leases or social security stamps. Applications were to be made at local offices of the National Manpower Organisation which were authorised to issue provisional residence permits. Aliens who failed to apply by the closing date of May 31, 1998 were subject to deportation. The aliens who concluded the registration procedure successfully and within the deadline were to be granted temporary residence permits, the so-called white cards. This would enable the alien to enter the second phase of the legalisation process. Moreover, the possession of the white card safeguarded continued residence in Greece for the successful applicant and his/her family. It also authorised employment and certain other employment-related rights. However, the definitive status of white card-holders remained unclear as only successful completion of the first phase, as well as the obtaining of the green card were the prerequisites for the maintenance of residence. The allowance of white cards could be refused or revoked due to reasons of public interest as decided upon by the relevant ministries. Thus, the main aim of the first phase was to register all the illegally resident aliens in Greece and not directly legalise them. The question of conferral of durable residence was to be decided in the second phase.

40

The second Presidential Decree, 359/97, referred to the main conditions according to which the alien could qualify for a limited duration residence permit, the so-called green card. Thus, an alien had to successfully meet the requirements of the first decree and had to work in registered employment from January 1, 1998 until the date of application for the green card. In the second phase the applicants needed to submit documents proving they had earned an income corresponding to at least half that earned by an unqualified worker for 40 days. The application for a green card was also to be submitted to local offices of the National Manpower Organisation (OAED) which were authorised to issue green cards. However, a green card could only be issued after approval of the application committee comprised of local labour authorities and other officials. The duration of the green cards ranges between one and three years and is decided upon labour market and other economic criteria. The permit can be renewed one or more times, each time for a period of two years. But renewals are not automatic as they are subject to the same criteria applied to the green card applications. It is further stipulated that applicants for renewal must have earned an income corresponding to that of a typical unqualified worker for half of the period between application for green card renewal and the date of receipt of the green card. Any green cardholder who can prove that he/she has already lived in Greece for at least five years and who can provide evidence of self-support can apply for a five-year residence permit. The second decree established a national-level committee to hear appeals by those denied green cards. This committee was empowered to grant green cards to aliens on humanitarian grounds if they could not meet all requirements. The green card grants its holder equal rights to those of Greeks in pay, employment conditions and social security. Nevertheless, the first legalisation process did not proceed without problems. First, the deadlines were very short paving the way for work overload for which the relevant administrations were unprepared. Second, the aliens were unfamiliar with public services. Third, the complexity of certain cases were unforeseen by public authorities. The immigrant applicants encountered many difficulties, as they had to spend long hours waiting, while at the same time they had to go to work. Many felt insecure in their dealings with public officials. Many turned to their compatriots for help. With the exception of assistance provided by a few associations, most immigrants had to pay for assistance. Due to the delays in obtaining certificates 41

attesting to their lack of a criminal record and to their health, extension of deadlines became inevitable. These extensions necessitated two further Presidential Decrees amending the initial ones and easing the procedures somewhat. These modifications were necessary since it took a very long period of time for applicants to get their green cards, while during all this time they were in a very precarious and legally insecure situation. As of January 1999, the deadline for applicants to have completed forty days of work and to have earned the necessary level of income to receive a green card had expired after having been extended to the end of 1998. Many aliens found it difficult to find jobs covered by social security and employers willing to declare them to the social security administration and thereby pay payroll taxes. Employers became less interested in employing aliens if they had to meet social security and other legal obligations. Overall, the first regularisation programme is largely considered as not so successful, because large numbers that were regularised fell quickly back into an irregular status as initial permits lasted only six months. Lykovardi and Petroula of the Hellenic League for Human Rights (2003) note that many immigrants were afraid of being expelled if they signed up for the programme, and that overall, Greek administrators proved to be inept in the processing of applications. Another problem was communication between employers and immigrants, which complicated applications, as well as the general unfamiliarity of migrants with public services (Papantoniou-Frangouli and Levanti 2000). Another issue of the legalisation is associated with the prevention or not of the entry of illegal immigrants in Greece. The process of legalisation did not prevent other immigrants from entering illegally in Greece. This is so, not because of the ineffective border controls, but mainly because these immigrants have any way easy access to work in the para-economy (Μ. Hletsos, Ch. Νaksakis, 2002: 33-34). The second legalisation was stipulated in the new law, 2910/2001 which replaced the 1975/1991 aliens law, fixing a two-month registration period (June 5, 2001-August 2, 2001). A ministerial circular on July 19, 2001 extended it to September 7, 2001, provided the interested immigrants submitted a simple application before August 2, 2001. The new law clearly intended to extend legality to as many illegal immigrants as possible by demonstrating the benefits and opportunities out of registration. It also aimed at strengthening border controls and imposing stricter

42

penalties on those who transport, employ or accommodate illegal immigrants (Arts. 51-56). In addition, the law extended until June 30, 2002 the validity of all cards due for renewal by December 31, 2001. Those valid until December 31, 2001 had to be renewed as before (Art. 65). The law is more generous than the prior law 1975/1991 in allowing immigrants to bring (after 2 years of legal residence) dependent family members (spouse and children under 18 years), and also offering the right to work (Arts. 28, 31, 67). It reduces from 15 to 10 the required years of legal residence in order to apply for naturalisation. Moreover, unlike law 1975/1991, it does not associate work permits of the invited foreign workers with specific employers (Art. 22). On the other hand, the new law has made things more difficult for immigrants, as it shortened the registration period to two months, as opposed to five months as in the first legalisation, imposed a substantial financial cost for the applicants, and maintained the following: first, the de-coupling of the residence and work permits; second, the strict regulations in the procedures for obtaining work permits and inviting foreign workers; and third, the regulations for renewing residence permits (five annual renewals before a two-year permit may be issued and 10 years legal residence before an indefinite time permit is issued) (Art. 22). An important new development stipulated by the law was the transferring of responsibility on immigration issues from the Ministry of Labour and the National Manpower Agency (OAED) and its local branches across the country almost entirely to the Ministry of Interior and its municipalities. The law also established employment departments in the regional administrative centres and within the main Greek consulates abroad for inviting workers to migrate to Greece (Art. 19), local migration committees in Greece (Art. 9), and a migration research centre within the Ministry of Interior. During the registration period, the police made no arrests for deportation and expulsion and released all illegal immigrants detained for that purpose. Advertisements in the press and the electronic media on a daily basis encouraged registration, telephone services in ten foreign languages offered information and arranged appointments for registration, and a detailed circular with instructions was disseminated to all registration centres.

43

To register for residence permits, immigrants were expected to have a birth certificate or an identity card or passport (or any other travel document) issued by the country of origin. The immigrants entitled to apply were those who had resided in Greece for at least one year before June 6, 2001 (Art. 66) and could prove it by any official document, or if they paid one year’s worth (250 days) of social insurance stamps which immigrants could buy from the main social security funds. Within the six-month period of validity of a temporary residence permit, an immigrant is expected to apply for a residence and work permit (the duration of which is completely upon the discretion of the authorities). The required documents include a health certificate and a penal code certificate, evidence of full social insurance cover, and a work contract or statutory declaration by an employer willing to employ the immigrant in the relevant municipality (Art. 66). Despite the positive aspects of the second legalisation, its actual implementation stage brought up many problems. First, the main countries of origin of the immigrants in Greece have not signed the Hague Convention, such as Albania, Bulgaria, Iraq, the Philippines, India, Eritrea and many more countries in Asia and Africa. Consequently, for the nationals of these countries there was the obligation of official translation into Greek of the documents to be submitted. Despite the strict, costly and unnecessary provision to translate the documents into Greek in order to certify passports, the Foreign Ministry did not make adequate provisions to meet the additional demand. Therefore, in the first weeks of registration, hundreds of immigrants queued outside the translation departments long before opening hours, exacting a great economic and psychological cost to the applicants and dealing a blow to the prestige of the public administration. Even though the law authorised lawyers and certified translators to help the immigrants, these were few in number and charged up to three times more than the fee of 2,000 Greek Drachmas (approximately 6 euros) per page charged by the Ministry. Moreover, each adult applicant had to pay a registration fee of 147 Euros, out of which 30 percent went to the municipalities to cover their expenses. An additional charge would be necessary for the issuance of the residence and work permits, for which immigrants must apply during the six-month validity of the residence permit received through registration. To this should be added the social insurance stamps of those who could not otherwise prove residence, the translation fees to the Ministry, the fees to lawyers and intermediaries to whom many immigrants resorted for help, 44

and the working hours lost by the applicants in securing the required documents. Consequently, a large-scale redistribution of income occurred through the second regularisation, with income being transferred out of the poorest section of the population, that of the immigrants (Fakiolas, 2003). About 370,000 immigrants applied to acquire legal status within the context of the new programme. Even though the implementation phase had been more carefully planned, organisational issues came up quickly. In the Athens metropolitan area in particular, the four special immigration offices set up by the regional government to receive and process the applications were completely unable to deal with the huge workload they were faced with. Following repeated recommendations by trade unions, NGOs, and the Greek Ombudsman the relevant deadlines extended. Nonetheless, resources were still insufficient as work and stay permits continued to be issued for a year period only. Hence, by the time one immigrant has completed the issuing of his/her papers, he/she had to start all over again to renew it. It was only in January 2004 (Act 3202/2003) that the government decided to issue permits of a twoyear duration, thereby easing the task of both the administration and the immigrant applicants (R. Gropas, A. Triandafyllidou, 2005: 8). What could be pointed out is that the first two regularisation programmes were successful in some respects. They did ameliorate the living conditions of illegal immigrants, they provided information regarding the extent of the phenomenon, as well as the profile of illegal immigrants. Also, the programmes paved the way for the drastic decrease of expulsions and reduced the size of illegal employment. On the other hand, it is true that Greece has not developed either a long-term immigration policy or a formal admission system of immigrants. In this respect, it is doubtful whether there are cases of immigrant workers entering the country legally on the basis of the provisions of Law 2910. 3.4.2 Social Services The current legislative framework regarding the medical admission and treatment of aliens was established on July 13th 2000, by the circular Y4a/8992, published by the then Minister of Health. The title of this circular is ‘Medical and hospital treatment for foreign nationals’, while its main objective was to regulate the prerequisites of accessing the public health services of foreigners in Greece. In the 45

introductory part, the main objective of the circular was the protection of the interests of the Greek taxpayer, at the expense of whom a large part of foreigners was hospitalised, even though they are not entitled to. This fact was considered as aggravating the national budget and damaging the purpose of the National Health System. According to the circular, those people involved in illegal networks are employees of every range and doctors, who provide illegally hospitals of the National Health System with alien patients. In this ‘health smuggling’ the foreigners are supposed to participate in two ways. In the first case, it is about patients who do not live in the country, but having entered Greece as tourists are soon admitted to hospital with the ‘emergency’ procedures for health reasons that in fact do not fall into this category. On the contrary, as is reported in the circular’s introduction, it is about very expensive scheduled operations or hospitalisations even though the lives of the patients are not in immediate danger. The second case included all those foreigners who live in the country, either officially or not, but are unsecured. As was mentioned in the circular, booklets proving financial weakness and booklets of insurance conveyors, with which free medical and nursing attendance is provided by public hospitals of NHS, are forged. According to the circular, regarding cases of foreigners who request entry in the country in order to get free medical and nursing attendance in hospitals of NHS, the prior institutional framework is maintained. This means that what is needed is a former issue of written authorised decision granted by the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare, announced at the responsible Hospital. This decision is pronounced exclusively by the Ministry of Health and is referred to each specific case. The responsible hospital personnel owe to inform the police, in case they have doubts about the legitimacy of the foreigners’ stay or in case a financial weakness booklet is demonstrated. Regarding cases of aliens who are illegally in the country, the necessary medical services are provided only for emergencies and until the stabilisation of their condition. If the case is not considered an emergency the aliens of this category are not to be admitted. Also, in this case the competent police authorities should be notified in order to take the necessary legal action. The same applies to cases when a booklet that proves poor financial means is produced, since its issue is not provisioned for unregistered immigrants.

46

This circular provoked a lot of reactions on the part of the doctors who refused to undertake the responsibility of policing and checking these cases of immigrants. Moreover, during the implementation of the new stricter legislation, the largest proportion of the unregistered aliens would be prevented from visiting the hospitals out of fear of arrest. Consequently, the real risk for the whole Greek population became very obvious. These factors mean that there is a clear danger of transmission of contagious diseases. The NGO ‘Doctors without Borders’ in an open letter addressed to the Minister of Health (11/8/2000) protested against the distinction between emergency and regular incidents. This distinction, as argued, is a priori precarious, since it is rather hard to answer a question, such as, ‘can a respiratory disease, which without treatment could at any time be evolved into a fatal acute respiratory failure, be characterised as an acute or a stabilised but chronic incident?’ Consequently, the obligation of hospitals to refrain from offering medical care to those suffering from chronic illness, which are not regarded as emergencies, may engender irreversible damage to health and threaten the life of patients in such a way as to constitute a violation of the right to life or as inhuman and degrading treatment. Due to the reactions of the public, a new circular in December 2002 issued by the Ministry of Health abolished the responsibility of doctors to notify the police in cases of illegal immigrants. Notwithstanding the abolishment of the circular, all those strict measures that are taken at the expense of the unregistered immigrants are kept unchanged, such as the provision according to which unregistered immigrants are not to be admitted for non-emergency cases. Furthermore, the current immigration law provides for equality of treatment between Greeks and immigrants legally residing in Greece, as far as social security and protection is concerned (Art. 39, pars. 1-2). As to the illegal immigrants however, this law sanctions the provision of services to these immigrants by all public authorities and legal persons under public law, the local self-administration authorities, public utilities ventures and social security fund organisations (Art. 51, par.1, first sentence), as well as notaries (Art. 52, par. 1). This obligation is also extended to hospitals, sanatoriums and clinics, unless there is an emergency or children need medical care (Art. 51, par.1, second sentence). According to the law, ‘the managers of all hotels, resorts, clinics and health institutions owe to inform the police or the Aliens’ Department about the arrival and departure of foreigners to whom they provide accommodation’ (Art. 54, par. 2). 47

For a large proportion of foreign workers in Greece, it takes a long time to renew their expired residence and working permits due to the complicated and time consuming bureaucratic formalities. A health booklet is required in order to receive free medical and nursing care and this booklet is issued or renewed upon the condition of issue or renewal of working and residence permits. Thus, the delay that takes place from the date that supporting documents are submitted until the final issue of the permits may have incalculable consequences on the access to public health services. During that period of time, which sometimes lasts up to six months, the insurance conveyors do not secure the concerned foreigners, because of the absence of the legal work permit. To face this problem the Ministry of Interior, Public Administration and Decentralisation has issued a circular (Greek Supreme Court 63574/1525 on 22.01.2001), according to which the Establishment of Social Security (IKA) owes to insure all those foreigners within three months after their permits are expired. Nevertheless, as is reported in the suggestions of the Ombudsman, concerning the amendment of the law 2910/2001, the establishment in question has never complied with these instructions. The insurance coverage, though, constitutes one of the many required conditions for obtaining a residence and work permit. As a result, obtaining permits is extremely difficult and furthermore, patients are being excluded from medical services on an annual basis for a long time period (A. Kapsalis, 2003: 26). Last, illegal immigrants according to the current law are not entitled to any sort of legal support. Law 2910 provisions stiff penalties for all those public and private agencies (including notaries, legal entities under public law, organisations of local self-governance, organisations and companies of public utility, as well as organisations of social security, hotels, hospitals, etc.), which provide their services to immigrants who do not produce the required travel and entry documents. 3.4.3 Educational Facilities Unlike the case of adult illegal immigrants, who generally have not access to public educational facilities, their children since the middle 1990s are registered to Greek educational institutes. According to the Greek legislative framework (law 2413/1996) all children, who belong to vulnerable social groups, irrespectively of their citizenship or origin and irrespectively of their legal status of residence in

48

Greece, are accepted in the Greek schools. This should be the case even if they do not submit all the required documents for their registration. As reported in a recent study of IMEPO (Nov. 2004), in the initial phase of mass immigration into Greece in the early 1990s, there seemed to be few immigrant children. Certainly, those children who arrived were not generally admitted into the state schooling system, because of their parents’ illegal status. Since the mid-1990s, there has been a highly visible increase in the number of immigrant children recorded in state schools. This was partly due to more social tolerance of the undocumented status of their parents (as required by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child), which was enhanced by the above mentioned legislation in 1996. Furthermore, the legalisation programmes since 1997 and the advent of family reunification measures implemented by the Greek state contributed to this development. Thus, Greece has started to move into a new phase of immigration, where family settlement is becoming evident – and most especially of Albanian families. Of course, since the influx of ethnic Greeks in 1980s, along with “returning Greeks” from the former USSR and elsewhere, the Ministry of Education organised programmes for language learning in the so-called Intercultural Schools. According to official data, there has been a rapid increase in total foreign student numbers (including the so-called ‘homogeneis’) from 44,000 in primary and secondary education in 1996, through 86,000 in 2000, and reaching 119,000 in 2003. With declining numbers of Greek children, this has meant an even bigger increase in the proportion of foreign students in the schooling system. The Ministry of Education has published data for the school year 2002/3, showing some 97,000 non-ethnic Greek children and 31,000 ethnic Greek children in the state school system. These numbers imply that the vast majority of immigrants’ children are in fact enrolled in public schools and their drop out rate should not be very high. In 2003, 27 schools of intercultural education were operating in whole Greece, 13 of which are schools of primary education. In these schools Greek language is being taught as a secondary or foreign language. Furthermore, with a ministerial decision (FEK 1789/B/28-9-99) Greek language is being taught in Reception Classes and Tutorial Lessons that operate within the ordinary schools. In 2003, 422 Reception Classes and 556 Tutorial Lessons existed. For this purpose 500 extra teachers have been employed. Last, there are several special programmes implemented during the last years in numerous schools focusing on immigrant children (Source: Ministry of 49

National Education and Religions, 2003). However, certain researchers (Glytsos (2005)) argue that Greek educational system is still “unwilling or unprepared to recognize the cultural diversity in modern Greece”. 3.4.4 Work In Greece, it is not possible for an illegal immigrant to work legally. Rather it is often the other way round, meaning that it is usually the case that large numbers of immigrants continue to work at irregular jobs despite having obtained a residence permit (largely through legalisation) that entitles them to take a registered job. Some immigrants move from one category to another. Even though the Labour Inspectorate, which is a part of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security, is the official state authorised body to combat the employment of illegal immigrants, due to the large informal sector in the country employers have the opportunity to employ even legal immigrants to unregistered work. The working of such informal labour markets is facilitated by the existing informal networks of immigrants (legal and illegal), as well as by the local native networks, and even the private employment agencies. Moreover, a widespread way of finding a job for an illegal immigrant is by putting ads in the daily press mentioning as a contact point simply a card mobile number. Even immigrants, who hold a residence permit for working reasons, through a legalisation scheme, are usually working as not registered employees. Thus, their irregular status prevents them from renewing their residence permits, so that for many of them the authorised residence status is not achieved forever and a vicious cycle starts, as immigrants who lose their authorised residence status take irregular jobs. Moreover, the residence permit for working reasons is usually one or two years and its renewal is subject to the condition that the immigrant either holds a regular job or can prove an income that is sufficient to feed him/herself and his/her family, if present. That condition is not easy for those immigrants holding occasional or irregular jobs. Also, among immigrants who manage to renew their residence permit, several are not always working in the regular economy. They, in fact, can ‘arrange’ a fixed term registered work contract only to acquire or renew their residence permit and then lapse back into their usual irregular status. In many cases, immigrants have scarce opportunity of getting a perspective for a long-term settlement and of being well inserted in the receiving economy. As immigrants frequently change jobs, they 50

are often faced with a choice between the relative ease of finding an irregular job and the great difficulty of finding a registered one. As immigrants are usually not covered by unemployment benefits and are poorly sustained by family or friends, they are ill equipped to face extended periods of job seeking. Illegal employment of either legal or illegal immigrants seems an attractive option for either the employer or the employee. First, in a country with high underground economy it is not easy for the state to combat such an employment. Secondly, the employment can be as flexible as the employer needs, since not only labour standards do not apply, but also the illegal immigrant is unlikely to complain whereas the legal one or native might. Thirdly, there can be additional benefits for the employer, such as avoiding social security payments completely and ignoring health and safety legislation, etc. In Greece the need for migrant labour is met in many cases through illegal channels rather than regular ones. Regarding the temporary immigration system, it is not widely developed. Even though there are bilateral conventions with Albania and Bulgaria, in few cases and few immigrants enter the country via this system. The usual bureaucratic procedures apply in this case as well. An application of the interested employer should be approved by local prefecture and transferred to Greek consulate of the country of origin that awards temporary visa for seasonal employment. Moreover, the number of temporary visas daily awarded by Greek consulates is usually small (up to 20 persons). This system has been applied to agriculture, hotels and restaurants, but the number of immigrants involved is rather small. Thus its consequences are in any way rather small, leaving however space to cover such labour needs through informal channels.

51

4.

SOCIAL

AND

ECONOMIC

SITUATION,

POLITICAL

PARTICIPATION 4.1 Social Situation Many immigrants so far use public services reluctantly. They hesitate to approach many of these services because they are insecure regarding their legal status or they lack information on their rights. Legal immigrants contact municipal offices mainly, in order to issue or renew work permits and perform civil marriages. For the case of illegal immigrants things are worse, as they are intentionally kept at a distance from all public authorities. The mobilisation of illegal immigrants in Greece takes the following main forms: Through the existing informal social networks and ethnic associations, as well as non-governmental organisations that operate as mediators between authorities and immigrants. An interesting study, incorporating social aspects of immigrants’ life, has been conducted by the Research Institute of General Confederation of Greek Workers during the summer of 2004, with a sample of 532 immigrants in Attica region. In this study the basic social characteristics of the sample of immigrants are analysed, as well as the factors that determine the integration of immigrants in the Greek society. Some of its findings are presented below. The majority of immigrants in the region of Attica, where their majority is concentrated, came in order to reside on a permanent basis. It seems that their decision to stay in Greece is conscious and has been taken well before their arrival. The majority of them reside in the same place and house for a rather long period of time (more than 3 years). From the sample examined about 17% did not have either residence permit or work permit. Nevertheless, a high majority of them (81.5%) declared that they were in the process of obtaining one of these documents. About 88.6% of the sample answered that their social situation and living conditions have been improved after receiving a residence permit. It is important to note that about 38% found it rather difficult and time consuming to receive a residence permit, while about 28% was informed about the procedures needed to get the residence permit from friends. 9.4% of the sample has never come in contact with any social agencies. About 58% have a negative experience in their transactions with

52

public authorities, mainly because of lack of organisation and the demanding bureaucratic procedures. 71% of the sample believes that the social services do not help in the integration of immigrants. The answers to the question “what where the main difficulties you encountered during your settlement in Greece” are rather informative. The first answer is difficulties in family reunion, followed by difficulties in finding residence and difficulties to adjust in an unfamiliar society. 84.9% of the immigrants answer that they were not employed in sectors in which they were specialised in their country. 65.42% were not satisfied with their current occupation, while the majority of the immigrants (about 60%) came to Greece for economic reasons. Another question concerns xenophobia, where immigrants are asked whether the native population entrusts aliens in their country. About 54% of the sample answered negatively. The main problem immigrants seem to encounter currently in Greece is obtaining a residence permit (about 63% of the sample had this as its prime answer), followed by economic problems and employment. There are not recent systematic studies on the social situation of illegal immigrants. However, as will be analysed in the section on political participation, illegal immigrants are involved in the activities of the respective ethnic associations. Moreover, in large cities and mainly in Athens in recent years small ethnic shops (selling ethnic products, cafés, barber shops, pay phone centres, etc.) have been established in mostly urban neighbourhoods concentrating large numbers of immigrants.

Also, special places (mainly apartments in old buildings mainly in

declining areas of Athens) are used for the exercise of their religious duties. Such venues, apart from providing immigrants with the necessary goods and services, are places of contact and socialisation for the members of the respective ethnic groups of immigrants. Especially, during weekends and bank holidays the vast majority of the immigrants are gathered in such places and the nearby squares (such as Omonoia and Koumoundourou Squares at the centre of Athens). Even immigrant women working as internal household helpers at their day off frequent in these places. Immigrant groups, which are ethnically active in these respects, manage to maintain some of their ethnic customs and cultural characteristics. Despite these positive aspects, there are sporadic and declining cases reported of maltreatment of illegal immigrants, especially women by their employers.

53

4.2 Economic Situation Previous studies, based on the data derived from legalisation processes, have shown that illegal immigrants are generally employed in sectors displaying informal activity and unskilled labour-intensity: construction, small scale or ‘informal’ factories (garment), house maintenance and repairs, agriculture, housekeeping and family care, tourism, catering and street selling. Many migrants work as day labourers, frequently changing employers and manual occupations. Due to their illegal status, they are prepared to accept any job they are offered. They usually hold dirty, dangerous and servile jobs, although many of them have either technical training or a formal education beyond the primary school (E. Reyneri: 2001, 37). In the case of Albanian immigrants, their easy entry in the country encourages temporary residence, whereby many of illegal immigrants are employed when seasonal work is needed (tourism, agriculture) and return home in the off season. In order to analyse the employment characteristics of illegal immigrants we use data from the Labour Force Survey, described in section 2. For this purpose we have restricted our analysis to those who are employed and make use of the distinction between secured and unsecured third country nationals. As presented in table 2.13, the employment rate is 69.12% for secured third country nationals (legal immigrants), 60.13% for unsecured third country nationals (illegal immigrants), and 57.71% for natives. In table 4.1 these groups are classified by their occupational status. We do not observe any significant differences between secured and illegal immigrants except for a slightly higher proportion of self-employed for the case of illegal immigrants. The main difference is between immigrants in general and natives, where immigrants have a rather low proportion of self employed (1.46% of secured and 0.49% of unsecured immigrants are employers, compared to 8.06% for natives. The corresponding proportions for self-employed are 5.02% and 6.69% compared to 24.89%). In table 4.2 the percentage distribution of secured, unsecured immigrants and natives by sector of employment are presented. Comparing secured immigrants with natives we observe that the former group displays a higher proportion in sectors such as manufacturing, construction, hotels, restaurants and private households. Regarding the employment of illegal immigrants by economic sector, it turns out that a large proportion of them works in private households (unsecured immigrants 31.27%, 54

secured immigrants 13.88% and natives 0.54%). The second sector where unsecured immigrants work is construction, where their proportion is almost the same with the secured ones (29.32% versus 28.51%). Finally, comparing unsecured immigrants with secured we see that unsecured are employed in the agriculture and livestock sector with remarkably larger proportion (8.39%) than the secured (3.4%). It is worth noting that these sectors display a rather high underground activity. Table 4.3 presents the occupational distribution of the examined groups. In general, both immigrant groups seem to concentrate more, compared to natives, in professions such as “specialised craftsmen and related workers” and “non-specialised workers and small tradesmen”. The latter profession is the one where unsecured immigrants concentrate heavily compared to secured (46.84% versus 28.83%). In all other occupational categories (except specialised farmers, loggers and related workers (4.74% versus 2.33%)) secured immigrants have a larger proportion than unsecured. This means that the occupational category of “non-specialised workers and small tradesmen” is the one where illegal employment is more intensive and by comparing this result with table 4.2, is evident that illegal immigrants tend to find employment mainly as non-specialised workers in construction and private households. Table 4.4 represents the target groups by full-time or part-time employment. The basic observation here is that a larger proportion of unsecured immigrants (compared to secured and natives) are working as part-time employees because they cannot find full-time employment. The respective proportions are 5.02% for secured immigrants, 13.87% for unsecured immigrants and 2.08% for natives. The full-time employment amounts to 92.92% for secured immigrants, 82.85% for unsecured and 95.5% for natives. Similar are the results concerning the permanent or temporary employment of the analysed groups (table 4.5). Unsecured immigrants are employed in temporary jobs because they cannot find permanent in significantly larger proportions than secured and natives (unsecured 29.56% versus 13% for secured, versus 5% for natives). In table 4.6 the groups under study are presented by the number of workers of the local unit. The basic observation concerns unsecured immigrants who work in organisations - firms - households which occupy only 1 person. The respective percentages are 38.81% for unsecured immigrants, versus 18.23% for secured and 17.42% for natives. This is in accordance with the fact that the main sector of employment for unsecured immigrants is the private households. Generally more than 55

8 out of 10 illegal immigrants work in small economic units (of size less than 10 persons), while for legal immigrants and even natives this number is about 6 out of 10. Finally, in table 4.7 immigrants and natives are classified by the monthly net pay from their main job. It is evident that secured immigrants receive lower payment than natives are and unsecured even less than secured. In particular 16.1% of natives belong to the two lower wage scales (up to 587 Euros), while for secured immigrants this proportion amounts to 50.65% and for unsecured immigrants 68.37%. These numbers explain to a large extent the attractive option of employing immigrants by the Greek employers. It is worth mentioning that according to Glytsos (2005), over the years, immigrant wages have been rising and their living conditions and social status have been improving. A pre-legalization wages survey (in 1996) interviewing Albanians, Egyptians and Philippinos, show the average monthly wages of immigrants fall between half and two-thirds the wages of Greeks for the same type of work (Iosifides, 1997). For the same year, the wages of Bulgarians were found to be 40 per cent lower than the wages of their Greek counterparts, reflecting partly lower productivity and partly discrimination (Markova and Sarris, 1997). In contrast, the post-legalization survey in Thessaloniki shows that the wages of Albanians were very close to the wages of Greeks with the same occupation. About 27 per cent of Albanian males got at least the same wage as the Greeks working in the same employer and doing the same kind of job (Labrianidis and Lyberaki, 2001). Albanian females were however paid lower wages compared to their Greek counterparts for the same job with the same employer. These figures indicate that post-legalization wages are at least better than pre-legalization wages, whereas in several cases they are close to or identical with the wages of native workers. An important aspect of employment in Greece is the fact that the employment of immigrants in the underground economy has been accompanied by an important shift from family labour to wage-labour. Various economic activities previously carried out by family labour are now carried out by hired wage-labour (Cavounides, 2002). The availability of cheap migrant labour has facilitated the transfer of this type of work to the paid sector. The substitution of migrant labour for family labour has occurred mostly in agriculture. The large supply of migrant labour willing to work at rates below the minimum daily wage made the hiring of wage-labour possible at a 56

time when family labour was increasingly difficult to draw on, since Greek youths shun agriculture and aspire to urban jobs. The substitution of migrant wage-labour for family labour has occurred, as well as in non-agricultural family enterprises, that is in small enterprises in the manufacturing sector. 4. 3 Political Participation In Greece, immigrant participation in public life has been seriously hampered by the longstanding undocumented or insecure status of most immigrants. On top of that, most immigrants are too concerned with making ends meet, as well as not being arrested by the police so as to find the time and energy to organise in their respective ethnic associations (R. Gropas & A. Triandafyllidou, 2005: 16). One of the first public expressions of an informal immigrant movement took place in October 1999, following a series of racist murders by a young Greek. Undocumented migrants then rallied in the centre of Athens to protest against racism and xenophobia in Greek society. There were few, if any, Greeks marching alongside the immigrants on this occasion. Nevertheless, public activities mainly organised by Greeks with the occasional co-operation of immigrants are recently somewhat growing in numbers. For instance, left-wing political parties, youth and student associations have been involved in anti-racism campaigns; the Festival against racism and xenophobia that is organised by left-wing coalitions in one of the Athens’ central parks has become established as an annual activity (R. Gropas & A. Triandafyllidou, 2005: 20). The sort of ethnic immigrant associations analysed in this section include a range of activities, preponderant amongst which is the provision of assistance to illegal immigrants. Added to that, membership to these associations is not restricted to legal immigrants but is extended to immigrants who do not have the necessary documents. Illegal immigrants due to their lack of social and political rights have a limited opportunity to express their political will. They resort to alternative ways of participation, mainly in the platform of their respective ethnic associations. What is also worth noting is the fact that in the context of the complications, restrictions and bureaucracy in the regularisation processes, achieving legal status is a main priority for any immigrant in Greece. Hence, it does not come to a surprise that the main activities of immigrant associations focus on the provision of information, advice and 57

facilitation for the acquisition of legal status for the members of their community. In effect, most illegal immigrants tend to turn to their community for support and information regarding the regularisation process. Activities aimed at enhancing social inclusion and cultural representation are of secondary priority. Consequently, this section provides a thorough analysis of these ethnic associations as channels of political participation for both legal and illegal immigrants. An important point drawn is that the overall institutional and legal framework of migration in Greece has so far provided legal immigrants, let alone the illegal ones, with very limited opportunities to participate in public life. More specifically, Section II of the Greek Constitution (2001), referring to Individual and Social Rights, sets out eighteen sets of rights applicable to all individuals living in Greece, eight of which are reserved to Greek citizens only. Thus, immigrants who are legal residents do not have the right to rally (art. 11) nor to enter into associations (art. 12). Second, law 2910/2001 and Circular 32089/10641/26.05.1993 issued by the Ministry of Interior, discriminate against immigrants with regard to the processing of and response to naturalisation applications.3 Consequently, such provisions do not impede political participation as such, but generally feed a climate of distrust between the state and the immigrant aspiring to become a national and to be fully integrated into the host society. With regard to formal political participation, voting and standing for elections is still fully restricted to Greek citizens only. Even EU citizens are excluded from national elections. Given the fact that non-Greeks do not have political rights it follows that they can not become official party members (with the exception of Greek Cypriots). In the context of a research carried out by R. Gropas and A. Triandafyllidou (2005), it came out that there is some kind of informal participation of immigrants in the political sphere. In recent years there is a number of parliamentarians that include immigrants in their team, and all political parties refer to immigrants that are informally closely associated with the party or that participate (generally as observers) in party conventions as ‘friends of the party.’ This sort of 3

Law 2910/2001 (arts. 58-64) renders the conditions and procedure quite cumbersome: a high fee is to be paid by the applicant (over 1,300 Euros) and the decision is discretionary. Moreover authorities are not required to reply within a specified period of time and need not justify a negative decision to the applicant. Added to these, the circular of the Ministry of Interior states that such obligations are not valid when the matters treated refer to acquisition, recognition, loss or reacquisition of the Greek nationality, rendering thus the whole issue truly exceptional and outside the normal work proceedings of state administration.

58

informal networks and affiliations facilitate a flow of information and rapport between the immigrant communities and the political leadership (R. Gropas, A. Triandafyllidou, 2005: 17). What has been the case in Greece is that even though usually a foreign worker without a work permit can not be a member of a labour union, some unions, for instance the construction workers union, offer them membership (N. Glytsos, 1995: 169). An overview of the current research on immigration in Greece allows for serious information gaps to be found in the literature concerning political participation of immigrants in the host society. Even though the extensive literature that exists on migration in Greece focus on the evolution of the phenomenon in the past two decades, there is limited information regarding immigrant active political participation. This lack of information could be very well understood within the context of the immigrants’ prolonged undocumented status, informal and often insecure jobs, temporary staying, lack of institutional and legal channels to voice their problems. Given the fact that a large part of the immigrant population is undocumented, and that even for the legal ones, subsequent renewals of stay and work permits are not an easy task, the time perspective of their stay is not definite. Thus, a limited interest on their part to participate in the political process does not come as a surprise. The first study was published by Marina Petronoti, an anthropologist, in 2001 and focus on migrant networks in Athens. According to Petronoti, there is a large number (about 50) of immigrant associations in the greater Athens area and a few more immigrant organisations in Thessaloniki, as well as in few other medium sized cities. These associations vary in size (from 300 to 4,000 members), in composition, and also with regard to their aims and effectiveness in achieving these. Petronoti notes that groups are often internally fragmented and set up different associations with contradicting ideological and political views and objectives. Groups are distinguished between those that have predominantly political goals, like restoring peace and freedom in the country of origin, and those involved in cultural, social and political issues with regard to their life in the host country. Associations tend to elect large executive boards (4-25 members) that are male-dominated and emphasise their members’ educational and social qualifications, length of residence in the country and their fluency in Greek language. Petronoti also provides some information regarding the profile of ethnic leaders. Overall, she argues, immigrant associations are focal 59

points in immigrants’ lives, providing for positive identity construction, transmitting community values and facilitating adjustment in the host society through the circulation of material and symbolic goods. However, what remains unclear is the number of immigrants involved in ethnic associations. Overall, the study notes that these associations are numerous concentrated in Athens and are active in providing assistance for both individual and collective needs of the immigrants. They do not form closed organisations, or acting as ethnic enclaves but rather seek to act as mediators between immigrants and Greek society. As this study was conducted at a time when the status of many illegal immigrants had not yet been regularised, it revealed that most of them-even the leaders of immigrant communities- were in positions of serious disadvantage when in Greece, partly due to their irregular status, but also because of the widespread ethnic prejudice and exploitation they faced. Therefore, associations predominantly dealt with practical (and often routine) problems, such as contacts with Greek authorities, filling up applications, but also accomplishing collective aims, such as establishing community schools or nurseries, as well as other matters. As Petronoti argues in the absence of formal political rights, ethnic associations have few means to negotiate their needs and claims with the Greek authorities, while eventually they end up employing personalised and clientelistic tactics to achieve their aims. Another thorough research paper on immigrant active civic participation is a Master’s Thesis carried out by Lisa Soubert (2004). Soubert confirms Petronoti’s argument regarding the disproportionate geographical distribution of immigrant organisations/associations across Greece. More specifically according to her account, there are 57 official immigrant associations in Greece; 47 of these are in Athens, only 6 in Thessalonica and 4 in other two main towns (2 in Rethymno, one in Hania and one in Herakleion in the island of Crete). This distribution clearly suggests that in their overwhelming majority, immigrant associations have been formally set up in urban areas. The reasons for this distribution put forward by Soubert are the following. First, social structures in the rural areas are less tolerant towards diversity; therefore, the immigrants’ inclusion in the local society is more difficult. Second, the sparser concentration of immigrants in villages and smaller towns does not allow them a significant numerical presence so as to facilitate the formation of associations. Certain problems related closely to immigration (namely unemployment, poverty, and 60

exclusion) are predominant in urban centres, thus the urgent need for some organisations to be set up. Last, the concentration of Greek bureaucracy is such that immigrants wishing to regularise/legalise their status in Greece generally have to contact the public bodies, relevant Ministries and administrations in Athens. In addition, all embassies and consulates are located in Athens. Thus, it makes sense for most organisations to be concentrated in the wider Athens area. Regarding the role of national (e.g. Philallilia, Citizens Mobilisation Against Racism, Network for Social Support to Immigrants and Refugees, etc.) and international NGOs (such as the UNHCR, the Greek Council for Refugees, Caritas Hellas, etc.), Petronoti underlines the important support that these organisations provide, however she notes that this support is paternalistic. She, moreover, focuses on the importance of immigrant mobilisation from a bottom-up perspective and their involvement with Greek or international NGOs. Such NGOS cater for immigrants’ basic needs such as medical aid, counselling, help with finding accommodation, and providing food. These organisations often have unstable financial resources and rely on voluntary work. Nevertheless, the activities of these NGOs are important in opening channels of dialogue and policy making, through lobbying with decisionmakers, and through the networks they develop with the media and their role as speakers for immigrants in public forums. Another role they fulfil involves informing immigrants on ongoing discussions among the officials, about policies and other issues, which pave the way for a mediated access of immigrants to Greek public and political life. Concerning the role of the NGOs in support of the immigrants, Soubert makes the following interesting point. The existing legal framework recognises the immigrant associations solely as ‘communities’ and not as ‘unions’. Thus, this legal distinction does not allow the immigrant associations’ involvement in a formal dialogue with the state authorities. However, given the increasing number of issues concerning immigrants, there exists a growing need for formal dialogue with the state authorities. Consequently, it is the NGOs that have tried to fill in this gap and act as lobbies or support groups for immigrants. At this point, it seems interesting to elaborate on the particular features that affect the visibility and political participation of immigrants in their respective associations in Greece. In this respect, the size of the group seems not to be an important element affecting immigrant civic participation. It seems that the degree and types of participation depend upon the political and civic culture that the 61

immigrants bring with them from their country of origin. In this context, even though the Albanian population is by far the largest immigrant group in Greece, it has displayed very low levels of self-organisation and civic activism. The Forum of Albanian Workers is perhaps the most active association of Albanians in Greece and has been particularly concerned with issues of regularisation of Albanian immigrants, bureaucratic problems, as well as with the discrimination and prejudice that Albanians suffer from. Another association for Greek-Albanian friendship named ‘Sokrates’ has activities with very limited visibility (R. Gropas, A. Triandafyllidou, 2005: 21). A similar low visibility exists in the cases of Bulgarians and Ukrainians. This sort of trends amongst these groups could be understood within the context of their similar political experiences under Communism in the post-war era. Thus, the low level of political activism of immigrants coming from these countries may be explained by their mistrust towards the state in general (and the Greek State in particular). Moreover, as noted, associations of immigrants from the former Soviet Republics and the Balkans tend to be distinguished by greater discipline in their procedures, in the hierarchy of roles, and in the determination of members’ obligations (R. Gropas, A. Triandafyllidou, 2005: 26). On the other hand, small groups with a long term presence in Greece, like the Filipinos or the Poles are relatively more active in political issues and in setting up organisations that cater for their needs and represent them to the Greek state. One of the most prominent associations is the association of Filipinos in Greece, called KASAPI, which is one of the longest lived and better established immigrant associations (Petronoti 2001; Αth. Μarvakis, D. Parsanoglou, Μ. Paulou 2001). The association provides extensive assistance to undocumented immigrants, irrespective of nationality, while most of its members are undocumented. The Filipino group engages in dual mobilisation, both in the country of origin and the receiving country. They develop broad interactions with their compatriots, as well as other immigrants and Greeks. KASAPI has also established a strong transnational network and is one of the founding members of the Immigrant Forum, in the context of the European Parliament. Along similar lines, the Poles appear to be the only ones to have professional associations, and also a women association. As has been argued, they seem to be the most ‘sophisticated’ in terms of their organisation and association, mainly due to their civic culture in their country of origin, in conjunction with the fact that their status is now different compared with the other immigrant populations, since 62

they are from EU accession/ now a new member state so their presence in Greece is less temporary and vulnerable (R. Gropas, A. Triandafyllidou, 2005: 32). Last, most Africans and Asians display some associational activity even if they form small numerical groups. These associations are characterised by greater flexibility and looseness with regard to membership obligations or procedures (R. Gropas, A. Triandafyllidou, 2005: 26).

63

5. THE IMPACT OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION ON THE HOST COUNTRY As described previously a recent study conducted in Attica region showed that about 54% of the sample of immigrants answered that Greeks do not seem to want immigrants in their country. According to other analysts, the preconditions for the birth and rise of xenophobia in Greece, that was more intense during the decade 19902000, derived from the following reasons. a) Immigrant ghettos generated around or inside urban centres; b) Unemployment rise and employment insecurity of natives; c) The homogeneity characteristics of the Greek society compared to other multiethnic societies, where the ethno-genealogical principle of nationality leads to exclusion of “others”; d) The fact that immigration took place over short periods of time and the number of immigrants was as large as to be “visible” to the bulk of society (Triandafyllidou A., Mikrakis A. (1994)). The racist behaviour towards immigrants was many times reinforced by the media and the police, which contributed to the development of the idea that immigrants are mainly responsible for the growth of criminality in the country (Paulou M. (2001)). According to Fakiolas R. and R. King (1996) a central debate concerning the Greek political parties is the extent of liberalisation of the migration policy. The main concerns with liberalising immigration policy in Greece are two-fold. While Greek society has traditionally been very open and receptive of small number of foreigners, mass immigration of people from different cultures and religions may lead to lack of integration and inter-ethnic discord. The second concern is that legalizing employment and residence status will lead to family reunion and associated increases in demands for education, health care and social services. This would decrease the social benefits of cheap migrant labour, upon which much of the social tolerance of Greeks towards immigration is based. According to Linos K. (2001) hostility towards immigrants increased in the period between the 1991 and 1996 laws, due to the continuation of large numbers of immigrant arrivals, and the concurrent rise in criminality, which was blamed on immigrants. As Mitropoulos argues, the media contributed to a worsening of public opinion of immigrants: “Almost every violent crime committed by foreigners was

64

granted prime-time coverage, complete with ominous music, re-enactments and special effects” (Mitropoulos 1999, 36-37). Dodos et al (1992) study Greek attitudes towards immigration from 1988 to 1992 and conclude that Greeks were more hostile to immigrants than other Europeans. Hostility increased over the four-year period studied. Two surveys containing questions on immigration policy were conducted in Greece in 1996-1998. The first one was organised by Kappa Research and financed by the Athens Work Centre (EKA), a labour union institute, while the second was conducted within the Eurobarometer for the European Commission. A question of the first survey asked, “what do you believe with respect to illegal immigrants staying in Greece?” 50.5% answered “they should be expelled.” 37.3% answered “Only those necessary to the Greek economy should be legalised.” Only 9.4% of the sample replied that “all should be legalised soon,” (Kappa Research 1996). According to a 1998 survey, 58.5% of Greeks opposed the legalisation (VPRC 1999, 402). The 1997 Eurobarometer data presents an even more dramatic picture. 72% of Greeks “tend[ed] to agree” with the statement that “all illegal immigrants should be sent back to their country of origin without exception.” Of the 15 EU countries surveyed, Greece had the highest percentage of respondents agreeing to this statement. Greece retains the title of the most xenophobic EU country according to the 2000 Eurobarometer, with 38% of Greeks - as opposed to 15% of European averagebothered by the presence of people of a different ethnicity in their country (Ta Nea, 1 Nov. 2000). However, since the late 1990s two-legalisation programmes have taken place and certainly Greek society has been more perceptive towards immigrants. In this respect, as Greeks are getting gradually accustomed to immigrants, there is the perception that Greek society has developed a rather high degree of tolerance (Baldwin-Edwards, 2002). On the part of immigrants themselves, the message is encouraging. A survey (MRB Hellas, 2002) has shown that 83 per cent of the 491 interviewees in Athens claim to have been adjusted to Greece. This proportion concerns mostly those with a good grasp of the Greek language, living several years in the country, aged over 45, living with the family. Seventy-nine per cent of the immigrants interviewed, claimed to enjoy a complete religious freedom. Better adjusted are the Albanians and the comers from other Central and Eastern European countries and less adjusted are the Arabs, Africans and Asians. Those who declare adjusted feel the Greeks ‘close’ and have Greek friends (Glytsos (2005)). 65

The conventional institutional argument on immigration politics emphasises the role of the courts, which, shielded from public opinion pressures, can implement liberal policy (Soysal, 1994; Guiraudon, 1998). In Greece however the power of the judiciary is small in comparison to that of the legislative, which is in turn directly influenced by the administration. The existence of strong parties in the country helps explain the then observed socialist administration shift towards a liberal immigration policy, despite the reluctant public opinion. On the other hand, while the Conservative Party repeatedly blamed the socialist government for uncontrolled borders and rising criminality, it did not offer a very different alternative proposal. Immigration does not fit neatly into the traditional left-right political spectrum. Consequently, party affiliation is not a very good predictor of whether delegates will have pro- or antiimmigrant views. In terms of the economic impact of illegal immigration, some researchers focus on the wedge of non-wage costs of labour (social contributions and income tax) and its effects on the employment structure (i.e. concentration of illegal immigrants on small firms and other informal employment activities thus enhancing underground economy). Moreover, the underground economy is based on personal networks. First, it is only through a ‘word of mouth’ recruitment system that firms can find workers willing to take irregular jobs and irregular self-employed workers can find their customers. Second, connivance guarantees against complaints to either labour offices or other state authorities. The usual prerequisites for entering the underground economy are mutual trust between the employer and the worker, kinship and community networks, or belonging to a reference group. The working contribution of migrants to the economy and the social system is far less evident than it could occur if they were working in the formal economy. Greek society, as most of the receiving societies under these conditions, usually has mixed feeling concerning illegal immigrants’ insertion in the underground economy. On the one hand, this confirms the idea that there is a scarce competition with local jobless. On the other, immigrants working in the underground economy may seem redundant, because it is difficult to admit that unregistered activities are necessary. More generally, most of the irregular jobs performed by immigrants are scarcely visible. This is the case of housemaids, agricultural workers and other jobs in personal services, which are the working activities most ‘useful’ for local societies. In contrast, activities that appear unnecessary, such as street selling, are very visible. The fact that 66

illegal immigrants are prone to taking the most ‘undesirable’ jobs reinforces the idea that they are all poor people in need of assistance. Even though local people working in the underground economy are quite legitimised by social consensus, immigrants, instead, are highly stigmatised for doing so. This could be due to the fact that in-group free riders are more tolerated than out-group ones. The underlying idea is that immigrants would be accepted only if they are working in the registered economy. Undocumented immigrants have both positive and negative impacts on the Greek economy. As Fakiolas R. (1999) and Glytsos (2005) among others mention, on the positive side, illegal immigrants introduce increased labour mobility and wage flexibility, and broaden the artificially narrow wage differential between unskilled and skilled labour maintained since the late 1970s by trade union pressures and minimum wage policy. Therefore they tend to raise economic efficiency which is indispensable for meeting the present challenges of economic competition. In Greece, as well as in other countries, there is empirical evidence that immigration increases total prosperity, without corresponding increases in the official statistics on registered income. Furthermore, most studies based on a wide variety of data sources and methodological approaches show that in general immigrant (legal & illegal) labour is complementary to rather than a substitute for that of Greek nationals. Therefore the effect of immigration employment on the economy seems positive in general, although some low-skilled national groups stand to lose by it. For Greece, the few relevant econometric studies estimate that immigration has favoured the employment and income of the more qualified section of the Greek labour force, but has negatively affected the unskilled workers. They have further estimated that immigrants contribute to the generation of about 1% of GDP, although part of it is remitted abroad, widening the already large current account deficit of Greece. For the case of illegal immigrants, Sarris and Zografakis (1999) compile positive income effects but different effects on wages by labour category. Unskilled workers and hired agricultural workers are among those severely disadvantaged, while agricultural households of all income classes are beneficiaries of immigration. The poor and middle-income urban households headed by unskilled workers experience a net decline of their net disposable income, while urban households headed by skilled workers or by inactive individuals such as pensioners appear to benefit. It is worth noting that this study also argues that illegal immigration leads to a decline in the real wages of unskilled labour and an increase in the real wages of the skilled. 67

On the negative side, illegal immigrants in Greece expand further the relative large size of the underground economy or more exactly the size of informal economy, which helps them to find jobs. According to various studies, informal economic activities that is, those undertaken outside the valid legislative framework, amount to over 30% of the GDP, while between 16% and 20% of the labour supplied and employed in the country is unregistered (see Kanellopoulos et al., 1995). However informal economy in Greece is also influenced by many other structural factors, such as large compulsory social insurance contributions, socially unfair distribution of public benefits, labour market rigidities, weakness in public administration etc. Remittance abroad is another important factor reinforced by illegal immigration. For Albanians alone (legal & illegal) this remittance transfer out of Greece is put at US$400 million per year. Taken as a whole, the above-alleged costs can be contextualised within the argument that the short-term interests of Greek employers, seeking cheap labour, are not so easily accommodated by the long-term interests of the state welfare system. In the fiscal context, Tapinos (2000) argues that undocumented foreign workers and their families cannot be said to be a drain on national budgets. The only true cost associated with illegality is that of services provided regardless of status, such as schooling. But the contention that free welfare services are an inducement to illegal immigration is debatable, mainly because in most countries illegal immigrants cannot easily access those services. Nor can illegal immigration be held accountable for all the costs associated with controlling border flows (Tapinos, 2000). By contributing to social security funds and paying taxes, the legally employed immigrants contribute to their health care and use of the subsidised part of the social infrastructure (e.g. schools, urban transportation). However, certainly this is not the case with illegal ones, who are only subject to indirect taxation (VAT, valueadded tax). On the other hand, there is empirical evidence that very few legal immigrants pay income tax because of their low income. Furthermore, illegal immigrants on the average have lower net income than that of legal ones. This enables us to argue that a very small proportion of income taxes is lost because of illegal immigration. This argument leads us to the conclusion that the main negative effect of illegal immigration on public revenues comes from the fact that they do not contribute to the social security funds. However it is difficult to estimate the size of the lost payments. The Labour Force Survey data analysed in previous section, show that over 68

and above the 10 legal immigrants there also exist about two illegal ones. Furthermore, only 60% of illegal immigrants are employed, 44.5% of which on temporary basis. Thus, a rough estimate is that social security funds lose from illegal immigration an amount around to 10% - 20% of those contributions paid by legal immigrants. Regarding educational expenses it seems that adult illegal immigrants as a rule do not attend educational courses. This is not however the case with their children, who are allowed to be registered and in practice usually are enrolled in public schools. From the LFS data we estimate that a very low percentage of illegal immigrants, who are in productive ages (16-64), is still in education. For the case of the children of illegal immigrants it turns out that over 95% of them are enrolled in schools. Comparing illegal third country immigrant children with those natives, they amount to the 1% of the latter. Observing that 96% of them live in Greece for more than 1 year, we may argue that these children generally take the opportunity given by law and attend Greek schools. Thus, one can argue that, assuming a constant per pupil education cost, the 1% of education public expenses are attributed to children of illegal immigrants. The greatest cost of illegal immigration for the social welfare seems to be related with public order. It is indicative that the Greek police has 58 departments of border control with about 5,000 bushrangers and a large number of policemen who have as a basic occupation of tracing illegal immigrants inside the Greek territory. Furthermore, the Ministry of Mercantile Marine spends large amounts in order to cover the sea borders and prevent entrance form the sea of illegal immigrants. For this reason in 2003 were occupied about 6,251 people with 4 choppers, 319 terrestrial vehicles, about 200 picket boats and 7 plains. It is indicative that the cost of a picket boat can range from 1.5 million Euro to 30 million Euro. It is also worth noting that there are additional expenses undertaken by the Ministry of Public Order for keeping illegal immigrants in the detention rooms (usually up to three months) and for expulsions. However there are no available statistical data enabling us to estimate all above referred costs for the public order, which undoubtedly are significant. In Greece recently, there has been a process of ethnification of the illegal activities, meaning the fact that the increase of the number of people in prison is linked to the rise in the proportion of immigrants. Thus, one could argue that foreigners have replaced locals as the objects of law enforcement efforts. However, 69

the rise in the deviant behaviour amongst immigrants could be partly and indirectly attributed to their insertion in the underground economy. From a strict labour market perspective, an easy opportunity of finding work in the underground economy may have conflicting impacts on risks of deviant behaviour. On the one hand, this opportunity may reduce the risk, as immigrants not eligible for regular jobs should be forced to commit crimes if they could not make money in the underground economy. On the other hand however, when they lose an irregular job, migrants are not eligible for any public support; thus, if they do not find help from their country-fellows, they could be prone to get money for surviving at any cost, even stealing or drug dealing. This is a precarious balance that is based on a large availability of irregular jobs; otherwise the second effect would prevail. According to Fakiolas (1999), the negative social effects of the increased criminality among some foreigners are high. They emanate from the fact that, although most of the recently increased unlawful activities among the foreigners are caused by individuals or organised gangs, who enter Greece in order to commit crimes, many Greeks believe that economic immigrants are among the main causes. As early as 1993, 52% of those responding to a Eurostat opinion poll held the view that there were too many foreigners in their respective countries. Similar results came out from opinion polls in Greece (EKA, 1995, 1997). Although Greeks have been accustomed to foreigners through shipping, tourism and emigration-repatriation, many believe that there are too many foreigners in Greece and fear that even integration may work both ways and influence morals in the country. The fact is that most of the foreigners involved in unlawful activities have had nothing to do with the economic immigrants or the refugees. Some are religious fanatics or belong to extreme political movements, but the majority is ex-convicts or individuals and members of organised criminal gangs, who come to Greece to commit crimes (Fakiolas 1999). In full support of the regularisation applied, one may also add that personal resistance against unlawful acts is more difficult in conditions of insecurity and congested living of the undocumented immigrants. Jahn and Straubhaar (1999) argue that ‘in their punitive role in the underground economy, immigrants are more ready to take risks-even to the extent of criminal acts, leading directly to increasing criminality and affecting natives and legal immigrants alike. A recent study by Lianos and Benos (2003) analysed statistical data on criminal activities provided by the Ministry of Public Order, considering 8 serious 70

categories of crimes (thefts, rapes, drugs, guns, murders, etc.). The reason for concentrating in these crimes is that Greeks tend to commit in a larger degree crimes such as violation of traffic rules, uncovered checks, unpaid taxes etc. The conclusion of the study is that aliens have a remarkably higher rate of committing serious crimes than Greeks. For example, in 1990 the number of serious crimes per thousand people was 6.14 for aliens and 5.72 for Greeks. The respective figures for 1995 were 6.21 and 5.64, for 1999 10.95 versus 5.64 and finally for 2001 8.3 and 5.83. According to Fakiolas (1999) on arrival few illegal immigrants have a job found through relatives, friends and other agents. The rest are looking for low-status and, in the view of many Greeks, socially demeaning jobs, which they find sooner or later. This is because the local supply for these jobs has decreased significantly, for many reasons. Among them are the expansion of the educational system, which has delayed labour market entry and raised educational attainments, as well as the rather generous welfare benefits to households with above-poverty income earning capacity. Most of those jobs are increasingly avoided by the indigenous workers, or are undertaken by them at wages, which would price the corresponding output out of the market. Pressed by economic exigencies, new illegal immigrants take up any job, but become more selective when they learn about the market, accumulate some savings, have alternative job opportunities and their opportunity costs increase. By learning the rudiments of the Greek language some move-on to self-employment and subcontracting, often conflicting with their employment agents or former employers (information supplied by regional Labour Inspectors). A large part of the increased criminality in the country in 1998 was attributed to Albanian immigrants, causing serious anti-Albanian protests and even violence. There was also an official protest of the Albanian Embassy in Athens on 25 March 1998 against “the xenophobic and racist climate created in Greece”. Drug trafficking has multiplied. Drug loads of over one tone have been seized repeatedly by the police on the borders, and foreigners have been involved in armed clashes and robberies in banks, private homes and even buses on inter-city routes, and night attacks against taxis and petrol stations. Hence a criminal minority’s exploitation of an unregulated situation has damaged the entire immigrant community’s standing. However, despite the widespread concern and anxiety about the increased criminality of both locals and aliens, the overwhelming majority of the population has reacted calmly by employing immigrants and associating with them as before. 71

The urbanisation degree of immigrants in general as well as illegal immigrants seems rather high in Greece. Evidence is provided by the Labour Force Survey data analysed in section 2. It is evident (table 2.15) that from the 1,367 unsecured third country immigrants of productive ages recorded in the LFS 56.5% of them reside in Athens and suburbs, while 15.5% in Thessalonica and suburbs. Thus, 72% of unrecorded immigrants seems to live in the major two cities of Greece. The only other region that seems to have a percentage above 5% is Crete, where immigrants are occupied largely in the agricultural sector. The high degree of urbanisation is confirmed by table 2.16, where about 60% of illegal immigrants declare that they reside in municipality with 70,000 residents and above. The same picture derives if we concentrate in the sample of employed illegal immigrants (822 persons). About 60% of them reside in the region of Attica and, slightly less compared to the total, 12.5% in the region of Central Macedonia. Again in Crete is concentrated about the 5.85% of employed illegal immigrants. It is important to notice that in the other regions there are no serious differences between the concentration ratio of employed illegal immigrants and the total. The above results indicate that illegal immigrants have equal employment opportunities in urban areas as well as rural areas. It is important in this point to notice however the really large regional concentration of immigrants legal and illegal in Athens. More specifically as stated above while illegal immigrants reside in a percentage of 56.5% in Athens, this percentage for legal ones amounts to 60.8%, while for natives it is only 32.3%. This is not the case with Thessalonica where the percentage of natives amounts to 17.2%, while for legal immigrants 11.5% and for illegal as shown 15.5%. It is evident that such an accumulation of foreign population within the capital may create conflicts with the natives who might feel threatened by this phenomenon. Local authorities dealing with immigration especially in Athens have expanded regarding the number of police and administrative personnel and the equipment and facilities used. This was necessary to service a larger number of residents, a proportion of them residing under illegal status.

72

6. CONCLUSION The emergence and rise of illegal immigration coincided with the transformation of Greece from an emigrating country to a receiver of immigrants and to a permanent immigration destination in early 1990s. Since then the problem of illegal immigrants, despite the two regularisation campaigns in 1998 and 2001 (a third one is already under way), remains unsolved. The bulk of illegal immigrants come from neighbouring (mainly Ablania) and Eastern Europe countries, while the share of people from Asia (particularly Iraq, Pakistan and India) in the total number of new illegal immigrants has been increasing in the recent years. The causes accounting for the persistence of illegal immigration refer to internal factors, such as the complex geographical terrain which renders effective control of external borders a painstaking venture, as well as to the relatively large informal sector in the country, which absorbs a large number of illegal immigrants. Furthermore, it is clear that the employment and income opportunities of illegal immigrants are multiple to those in the countries of origin. Within these circumstances, the Greek State has attempted to minimise illegal immigration through regularisation programmes and the re-enforcement of external border controls. Moreover, Greece has already fully implemented the Schengen Agreements and has signed readmission agreements with various countries and bilateral agreements with neighbouring countries. In this respect, it is certain that the number of illegal immigrants has been reduced drastically and the stock of illegal immigrants currently (before the third regularisation) is estimated around to 200.000. It is widely accepted that illegal immigration has short-term beneficial economic effects by improving the labour market functioning, offering labour that is complementary to rather than substitute for that of Greek nationals and flexible in terms of employment and pay, thus combating inflation and improving productivity. However, the long-term effects of illegal immigration are rather doubtful. It may retard the reorganisation of production and the substitution of capital and new technology for labour, which constitute preconditions for sustainable long-term development. It may also retard the necessary changes in the inflexible labour market legal framework and change the attitudes of Greek nationals towards certain works. One could also mention that even though it is certain that illegal immigrant workers

73

are not involved in unlawful activities, many Greeks connect illegal immigrants to criminality. There are studies, which focus on the linkage between the rise of illegal immigration and the rise of criminality and deviant behaviour in the host society, partly and indirectly attributed to the insertion of illegal immigrants in the underground economy. While the issue is still debated, it seems that unlawful activities have had nothing to do with immigrants in general, but the convicts are mainly religious fanatics or members of extreme political movements. Mostly exconvicts or individuals and members of organised criminal gangs, who come to Greece with the intention to commit crimes. Thus, the challenge is to implement an immigration policy that would reduce as much as possible illegal immigration taking into account its current extent and causes. Such a policy presumably should include on the one hand measures of legalisation and integration of illegally residing third country aliens in the country, and on the other hand set and enforce conditions for the entry and residence of foreigners.

74

REFERENCES Foreign language •

Baldwin-Edwards, M. and Arango, J. (1999) (eds.), “Immigrants in the Informal Economy in Southern Europe”, London: Frank Cass.



Baldwin-Edwards, M. and Fakiolas, R. (1999), “Greece: The Contours of a Fragmented Policy Response”, in M. Baldwin-Edwards – J. Arango (eds), Immigrants and the Informal Economy in Southern Europe, London: Frank Cass.



Baldwin-Edwards, M., (2001), “An Analytic Commentary on the Greek Regularisation Bill”, MMO Working Paper No.1 [on line], Athens: Mediterranean Migration Observatory, www.uehr.panteion.gr.



Baldwin-Edwards, M., (2001), “Semi-Reluctant Hosts: Southern Europe’s Ambivalent Response to Immigration”, Working Paper, No. 3 [on line], November, Athens: Mediterranean Migration Observatory (MMO), www.uehr.panteion.gr.



Baldwin-Edwards, M. (2002). “Immigration, Immigrants and Socialisation in Southern Europe: Patterns, Problems and Contradistinctions”. Netherlands Institute of Athens (2004). Immigration and Integration in Northern versus Southern Europe, Netherlands Institute of Athens, Athens.



Baldwin-Edwards, M. (2004), Immigration into Greece, 1990-2003: A Southern European Paradigm?, Presentation for Panel: “International Migration: Promoting Management and Integration”

[online].

Athens:

Mediterranean

Migration

Observatory.

www.mmo.gr/pdf/publications/publications_by_mmo_staff/UNECE%20paperV3.pdf. •

Cavounidis, J. (1998), “The Immigrant Labour Force in the Informal Economy in Greece, paper, Third International Metropolis Conference”, Israel, November.



Cavounidis, J. (2002), “Migration in Southern Europe and the Case of Greece”, International Migration, 40(1), pp.45-70.



Chletsos M. and Karassavoglou (1997), “The Impact of Illegal Immigrants on Regional Level-Evidence from Kavala”, CEPR Workshop, Athens 14-15 February 1997.



Droukas, E. (1998), “Albanians in the Greek Informal Economy”, in Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, April 1998.



EKA (Athens Labour Centre) (1995-8) various publications.

75



European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance, (2004), Third Report on Greece [online], Strasbourg: Council of Europe, www.coe.int.



Fakiolas, R., (1997), “Recent Efforts to Regularise Undocumented Immigrants in Greece”, WP/97/40, European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions.



Fakiolas, R. (1998), “Socio-economic Effects of Immigration in Greece”, paper, MigCities, Third Conference, Milan, November.



Fakiolas R. (2000), “Immigration and unregistered labor in the Greek labour market”, in King R. / Lazaridis G., / Tsardanidis B. (eds), Eldorado or Fortress, Macmillan, London.



Fakiolas, R., (2003), “Regularizing undocumented immigrants in Greece: procedures and effects”, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies Vol. 29, May, No. 3: 535-561.



Fakiolas, R. and R. King (1996), “Emigration, Return, Immigration: A Review and Evaluation of Greece’s Postwar Experience of International Migration”, International Journal of Population Geography, Vol.2, pp.171-190.



Glytsos N. (1995), “Problems and policies regarding the socioeconomic integration of returnees and foreign workers in Greece”. International Migration, Vol. XXXIII-2, Autumn, p. 155.



Glytsos, Nicholas, P. (2002a), “Dynamic Effects of Migrant Remittances on Growth: An Econometric Model with an Application to Mediterranean Countries”. Discussion Paper, No. 74, Centre of Planning and Economic Research, April.



Glytsos Nicholas (2005), “Stepping from Illegality to Legality and Advancing towards Integration: The Case of Immigrants in Greece”, Centre of Planning and Economic Research, Athens, Greece, January.



Glytsos, Nicholas, P. and Katseli, Louka T. (2003), “Greek Migration: The Two Faces of Janus”. European Migration: What do we know?, Edited by K. Zimmermann, Oxford University Press, June.



Gropas, R. and Triandafyllidou, A. (2005), “Active Civic Participation of Immigrants in Greece”, Country Report prepared for the European Research Project POLITIS, Oldenburg.



Guiraudon, Virginie Florence, (1998), “International human rights norms and their incorporation: the protection of aliens in Europe”, San Domenico (FI) Italy: European University Institute.



Iosifides, T. and King, R. (1999), “Socio-spatial Dynamics and Exclusion of the Immigrant Groups in the Athens Conurbation”, in Baldwin-Edwards, M. and Arango, J. (1999).

76



Iosifidis, Th., (1997), “Immigrants in the Athens Labour Market: A Comparative Survey of Albanians, Egyptians and Filipinos”, King R. and R. Black, Southern Europe and the New Immigrations, U.K., Brighton: Sussex Academic Press.



Jahn, A. E. and Straubhaar, T. (1999) “The Economics of Illegal Migration”, in BaldwinEdwards and Arango (eds), Immigrants and the Informal Economy in Southern Europe, Special Issue of South-European Society and Politics.



Jandl Μ. (2004), “The Estimation of Illegal Migration in Europe”, Migration Studies, vol. XLI, No. 153, p. 2.



Kanellopoulos Costas in cooperation with Athanasios Petralias and Maria Gregou (2005), “Annual Report on Statistics on Migration, Asylum and Return in Greece (Reference year 2002)”, Centre of Planning and Economic Research, January.



Kapsalis, A., (2003), European Network For Co-operation and Exchanges on Social Exclusion and Health Issues for Migrants, Greek National Report.



Karydis, V., (1998), “Criminality or criminalization of migrants in Greece? An attempt at synthesis”, in Ruggiero, V., South, N. and Taylor, I. (eds.) The New European Criminology: Crime and Social Order in Europe. London: Routledge, 250-367.



Kasimis Ch., Papadopoulos Ap., Zacopoulou Er., (2003), “Migrants in Rural Greece”, Sociologia Ruralls, Vol. 43 (2), April, Blackwell Publishing.



Katrougalos, G., (1996), “Social rights of illegal immigrants: the case of Greece”, paper presented at the conference “Social research and social policy in Southern Europe”, September, Athens.



Katrougalos, G., (1997), “Refugees, illegal immigrants and citizenship rights in the European South”, paper presented at the conference “Non-military aspects of security in Southern Europe: migration, employment, and labour market” organised by the Institute of International Economic Relations and the Regional Network on Southern European Societies (ESA), 19-21 September.



Lazaridis, G., (1996), “Immigration to Greece: A Critical Evaluation of Greek Policy”, New Community, 335-348.



Lazaridis, g. and Poyago-Theotoky, (1999), “Undocumented Migrants in Greece: Issues of Regularisation”, International Migration, Vol. 37, no. 4: 715-738. King, R., Lazaridis, G. and Tsardanidis, C. (eds.) (2000) “Eldorado or Fortress? Migration in Southern Europe”. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

77



Lazaridis – I. Psimmenos (2000), “Migrant Flows from Albania to Greece: Economic, Social and Spatial Exclusion” in R. King – G. Lazarides – G. Tsardanidis (eds), Eldorado or Fortress? Migration in Southern Europe. Basingstoke: MacMillan Press, pp. 170-185.



Lazaridis, G., and Ronamiszyn, K., (1998), “Albanian and Polish Undocumented Workers in Greece: A Comparative Analysis”, Journal of European Social Policy, vol.8/1, pp.5-22.



Linos, K., (2001), “Understanding Greek Immigration Policy”, Working Paper, Kokkalis Graduate Student Workshop.



Lianos T.P. and J. Cavounidis (2004), “Immigrant Remittances, Stability of Employments and Relative Depriviation”, unpublished paper, Athens.



Lianos T.P. and J. Cavounidis (2004), “Propensities to Remit”, unpublished paper, Athens.



Lianos T.P. in Cooperation with A. Petralias and Chr. Boussoulas (2004), “Report on Immigration to Greece”, Centre of Planning and Economic Research, September.



Lianos, Th., Sarris, A. H. & Katseli, L. (1996), “Illegal Immigration and Local Labour Markets: The Case of Northern Greece”, International Migration, Vol. 34, pp. 449-483.



Lykovardi, K., (2002), “General Overview of Discrimination in Greece” [online], Geneva: International

Organization

for

Migration:

www.iom.fi/anti-

discrimination/pdf/Greece%20II%20january%202003.pdf. •

Lykovardi, K., Petroula, E. (2003), “EU and US Approaches to the Management of Migration: Greece” [online]. Jan Niessen et. al. (eds.), Brussels: Migration Policy Group: www.migpolgroup.com/uploadstore/Greece.pdf.



Markova, E., Sarris, Α., (1997), “The performance of Bulgarian Illegal Immigrants in the Greek Labor Market”, South-European Society and Politics, Vol.2, pp.57-77.



Mitropoulos, Dimitris, (1999), “Immigrants ignite a media maelstrom in Greece.” Nieman Reports 53, no. 2, p. 36-40.



Papantoniou A., Papantoniou-Frangouli M. and Kalavanou A. (1998), “Illegal Migration in Greece and the Problem of Crime”, Research report in the frame of the TSER project: MIGRINF, August.



Papantoniou - Fragouli M. and Leventi K.M. (2000), “The Legalisation of Aliens in Greece”, International Migration Review, 34(3): 950-5.



Petronoti M. (1996), “Greece as a Place for Refugees. An Anthropological Approach to Constraints Pertaining to Religious Practices”, War, Exile, Everyday life. Cultural Perspectives, Institute of Ethnology and Folklore Research, Zagreb.

78



Petronoti M.(2001), “Ethnic Mobilisation in Athens: Steps and Initiatives towards Integration”, Multicultural Policies and Models of Citizenship in European Cities, Ashgate



Reyneri, E. (2001), “Migrants’ Involvement in Irregular Employment in the Mediterranean Countries of the European Union” [on line], Geneva: International Labour Organisation, www.ilo.org/public/english/protection/migrant/download/imp/imp41.pdf.



Reynery, E. (2003), “Illegal Immigration and the Underground Economy”, National Europe Centre Paper No. 68.



Samokhalov, V. (2004), “Greece and Migrants: The Process of Integration”, Working Paper, Athens: International Center for Black Sea Studies.



Sarris, A. H. & Zografakis, S. (1999), “A Computable General Equilibrium Assessment of Illegal Immigration on the Greek Economy”, Journal of Population Economics, Vol. 12, pp. 155-182.



Skordas, A., (2002), “The new immigration law in Greece: Modernization on the wrong track”, European Journal of Migration and Law, 4(1): 23-48.



Soubert L., (2004), Dissertation submitted for the degree Master’s in International and European Studies at the University of Athens, Department of Political Science and public Administration, “Immigrant associations in Greece: Self-help groups or interest groups?”.



Soysal, Yasemin Nuhoglu, (1994), “Limits of Citizenship: Migrants and Postnational Membership in Europe”, Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.



Tapinos, G. (1999), “Clandestine Immigration: Economic and Political Issues”, in Sopemi (1999).



Tapinos, G. (2000), “Illegal Immigrants and the Labour Market”, OECD Observer.



Triandafyllidou A., Mikrakis A. (1994), “Greece: the “others” within”, Social Science Information, London: SAGE.



Triandafyllidou, A. & Veikou, M. (2002), “The Hierarchy of Greekness. Ethnic and National Identity Consideration in Greek Immigration Policy”, Ethnicities Publications, London: Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi, Vol. 2(2): 189-208.



Vidali M., (1999), “Living in a Policy Vacuum: The Plight of Albanian Immigrants in Greece”, Central European Review, 1/21.

79

Greek language •

Αθανασίου Λ. (2003), “Εισροή Μεταναστών και Αναπτυξιακή ∆ιαδικασία στην Ελλάδα”, στο Οικονοµικές Εξελίξεις, τεύχος 3, Σεπτέµβριος, ΚΕΠΕ, Αθήνα.



Αµίτσης, Γ. και Λαζαρίδης, Γ., επ. (2001), “Νοµικές και Κοινωνικοπολιτικές ∆ιαστάσεις της Μετανάστευσης στην Ελλάδα”, Αθήνα: Παπαζήσης.



Baldwin Edwards, M. (2001), “Εγκληµατικότητα και Μετανάστευση: Μύθοι και Πραγµατικότητες”, Αστυνοµική Επιθεώρηση, Ιούλιος/Αύγουστος, σελ. 440-444.



Βεϊκου, Μ. (2001), “Μετανάστευση και Πρακτικές Ένταξης” στον τόµο Νοµικές και Κοινωνικοπολιτικές ∆ιαστάσεις της Μετανάστευσης στης Ελλάδα, Επιµ. Γ. Αµίτση και Γ. Λαζαρίδη, Εκδ. Παπαζήση, σ. 113-128.



Γεωργούλας, Στρ. (2001), “Η Νέα Μεταναστευτική Κοινωνική Πολιτική στην Ελλάδα και η Νοµιµοποίησή της”, Μετανάστες στην Ελλάδα, Επιµ. Μαρβάκη Αθ., Παρσάνογλου ∆., και Παύλου Μ., Αθήνα: Εκδ. Ελληνικά Γράµµατα.



∆ώδος, ∆. et al. “Ξενοφοβία και ρατσισµός στην Ελλάδα, 1988-1992: Μια συγκριτική προσέγγιση και ορισµένες υποθέσεις µε βάση τα δεδοµένα του Ευροβαρόµετρου”, Πάντειον Πανεπιστήµιο.



Ζωγραφάκης Σταύρος και Θεόδωρος Μητράκος (2005), “Κοινωνικοί δείκτες και µετανάστευση στην Ελλάδα”, ΕΚΚΕ, Μάρτιος.



Θεοφιλόπουλος Αθ., (1999), “Λαθροµετανάστες: Επιπτώσεις στην Ασφάλεια και Oικονοµική -Κοινωνική Ζωή της Χώρας”, Αστυνοµική Επιθεώρηση, Νοέµβριος, 696-698.



Ινστιτούτο

Εργασίας

ΓΣΕΕ-Α.∆.Ε.∆.Υ.(ΙΝΕ)

(2003),

“Ευρωπαϊκή

Μεταναστευτική

Πολιτική”, Τεύχος 92, Φεβρουάριος. •

Ινστιτούτο Εργασίας ΓΣΕΕ-Α.∆.Ε.∆.Υ.(ΙΝΕ), (2004), “Μεταναστευτική Πολιτική”, Τεύχος 104, Μάρτιος.



Ινστιτούτο Εργασίας ΓΣΕΕ-Α.∆.Ε.∆.Υ.(ΙΝΕ), (2004), “Αναπτυξιακός Νόµος: Προτάσεις της ΓΣΕΕ”, Τεύχος 112, ∆εκέµβριος.



Ινστιτούτο Εργασίας ΓΣΕΕ-Α.∆.Ε.∆.Υ.(ΙΝΕ), (2005), “Μετανάστευση και Αγορά Εργασίας”, Τεύχος 115, Μάρτιος.



Καβουνίδη Τζ. (2002), “Χαρακτηριστικά Μεταναστών: Το Ελληνικό Πρόγραµµα Νοµιµοποίησης του 1998”, Εθνικό Ινστιτούτο Εργασίας, Αθήνα: Εκδ. Σακκούλα.



Κανελλόπουλος Κ., Κουσσουλάκος Ι. και Ράπανος Β., (1995), “Παραοικονοµία και Φοροδιαφυγή: Μετρήσεις και Οικονοµικές Επιπτώσεις”, Κέντρο Προγραµµατισµού και Οικονοµικών Ερευνών, Εκθέσεις 15. 80



Καρύδης Β., (1996), “Η εγκληµατικότητα των Μεταναστών στην Ελλάδα”, Αθήνα: Εκδ. Παπαζήση.



Καρύδης, Β., (2001), “Μετανάστευση και Έγκληµα στην Ελλάδα στην δεκαετία του 1990”, Νοµικές και Κοινωνικοπολιτικές ∆ιαστάσεις της Μετανάστευσης στην Ελλάδα, Επιµ. Γ. Αµίτση και Γ. Λαζαρίδη, σελ. 287-302, Αθήνα: Εκδ. Παπαζήση.



Kappa Research, (1996), “Τα συµπεράσµατα των δύο παράλληλων ερευνών (στους οικονοµικούς µετανάστες και στους Έλληνες)”, Athens: Athens Work Center.



Κασιµάτη, Κ. Και Ψηµµένος, Ι., (2003), “Μεταναστευτικές Ροές και Άτυπες Πολιτικές Μετανάστευσης”, Αθήνα: Gutenberg.



Κόντης

Α.Ι.,

(1997),

“Νοµιµοποίηση

Παράνοµων

Οικονοµικών

Μεταναστών”,

Πανεπιστήµιο Αθηνών, Σχολή Νοµικών Οικονοµικών και Πολιτικών Επιστηµών, Aθήνα: Τµήµα Πολιτικής Επιστήµης και ∆ηµόσιας ∆ιοίκησης, Νοέµβριος. •

Κοσκινάς, Κ. (2003), “Η Ενιαία Ευρωπαϊκή Πολιτική”, Μετανάστευση-Οικονοµική και Κοινωνική Ενσωµάτωση των Μεταναστών, Πρακτικά ∆ιεθνούς Συνδιάσκεψης, Αθήνα: Οικονοµική & Κοινωνική Επιτροπή της Ελλάδος (ΟΚΕ), 27-28 Φεβρουαρίου.



Λαµπριανίδης, Λ. και Α. Λυµπεράκη (2001), “Αλβανοί Μετανάστες στη Θεσσαλονίκη”, Παρατηρητής, Θεσσαλονίκη.



Λιανός Θ. Π. (2003), “Σύγχρονη Μετανάστευση στην Ελλάδα: Οικονοµική ∆ιερέυνηση, Κέντρο Προγραµµατισµού και Οικονοµικών Ερευνών, Αθήνα.



Λιανός Θ., Μπένος Θ., (2003), “Η Εγκληµατικότητα των Αλλοδαπών: Τα στατιστικά δεδοµένα”, Κέντρο Προγραµµατισµού και Οικονοµικών Ερευνών, Εκθέσεις 41, Αθήνα



Μαρβάκης, Α., Παρσάνογλου, ∆., Παύλου, Μ., επ., (2001), “Μετανάστες στην Ελλάδα”, Αθήνα: Ελληνικά Γράµµατα.



Μπάγκαβος, Χ., Παπαδοπούλου ∆. (2003), “Μεταναστευτικές Τάσεις και Ευρωπαϊκή Μεταναστευτική Πολιτική”, Μελέτες, Αθήνα: Ινστιτούτο Εργασίας ΓΣΕΕ-Α.∆.Ε.∆.Υ.(ΙΝΕ).



Ναξάκης, Χ. Και Χλέτσος, Μ., επ., (2001), “Μετανάστες και Μετανάστευση: Οικονοµικές, Πολιτικές και Κοινωνικές Πτυχές”, Αθήνα: Πατάκης.



Πανούσης Ιωάν., ∆ηµόπουλος Λ. και Καρύδης Β. (1994), “Αλβανοί Λαθροµετανάστες: ∆ράστες ή Θύµατα;”, Θυµατολογικά Κείµενα, , Αθήνα: Εκδ. Σάκκουλα, σελ.74-86.



Παύλου, Μ., (2001), “Οι Λαθρέµποροι του Φόβου: Ρατσιστικός Λόγος και Μετανάστες στον Τύπο µιας Υποψήφιας Μητρόπολης”, Μετανάστες στην Ελλάδα, Ελληνικά Γράµµατα, σελ. 127-163.

81



Σιταρόπουλος, Ν., (2003), “Παρατηρήσεις για Ορισµένα Κρίσιµα Ζητήµατα της Ελληνικής Πρακτικής και Νοµοθεσίας περί Προσφύγων και Μεταναστών”, Ύπατη Αρµοστεία των Ηνωµένων Εθνών για τους πρόσφυγες, Ενηµερωτικό ∆ελτίο, Αθήνα, Μάιος.



Τριανταφυλλίδου, A., (1999), “Η Πολιτική Μετανάστευσης της Ελλάδας ως Χώρας Υποδοχής µεταναστών στο Νέο ∆ιεθνές Περιβάλλον”, ΒΗΜΑ ∆ΙΕΘΝΩΝ ΣΧΕΣΕΩΝ, έκδοση της Student Association for International Affairs (SAFIA), τεύχος 9, εκδόσεις Παπαζήση, Χειµώνας.



Υπουργείο ∆ηµοσίας Τάξης (2004), “Έκθεση για το οργανωµένο έγκληµα”.



Χλέτσος Μ., (1996), “Μετανάστευση, αγορά εργασίας και ρατσισµός: Μια εναλλακτική προσέγγιση”, Ουτοπία, Νο 21, Ιούλιος-Αύγουστος.



Ψηµµένος, Ιορδ. (1995), “Μετανάστευση από τα Βαλκάνια”, Αθήνα: Εκδ. Παπαζήση.



V-Project Research Consulting (1999), “H κοινή γνώµη στην Ελλάδα”, Athens: Livanis.

82

WEB-SOURCES Immigration Policy Institute www.imepo.gr Antigone www.antigone.gr Greek Council for Refugees www.gcr.gr Greek Forum for Migrants www.migrant.gr Migrants in Greece www.migrants.gr Migration Information Source www.migrationinformation.org Mediterranean Migration Observatory www.mmo.gr UNHCR Greece www.unhcr.gr National Statistical Service of Greece www.statistics.gr Hellenic Parliament www.parliament.gr Ministry of Interior, Public Administration and Decentralization www.ypes.gr Ministry of Public Order www.ydt.gr Ministry of External Affairs www.ypex.gr Ministry of Employment & Social Protection www.ypakp.gr

83

ANNEX I: TABLES ANALYSED IN THE STUDY

A. Official Statistics Table 2.1: Migrants by main country of citizenship and sex Population census of 18th March 2001

Citizenship Total Male Total 762,191 415,552 Albania 438,036 257,149 Bulgaria 35,104 13,888 Georgia 22,875 9,839 Roumania 21,994 12,447 Russia Republic 17,535 6,545 Ukraine 13,616 3,342 Pakistan 11,130 10,654 Egypt 7,448 5,693 Moldavia 5,716 1,709 EU-15 46,869 18,794 Other 141,868 75,492 Source: National Statistic Service of Greece

Female 346,639 180,887 21,216 13,036 9,547 10,990 10,274 476 1,755 4,007 28,075 66,376

Table 2.2: Distribution of Aliens by citizenship (Legalization program of 1998) Citizenship Number of aliens % Men aliens % Women aliens % Albania 241,342 64.94% 195,108 72.51% 46,234 45.08% Bulgaria 25,121 6.76% 10,472 3.89% 14,649 14.28% Roumania 16,901 4.55% 11,401 4.24% 5,500 5.36% Pakistan 10,861 2.92% 10,367 3.85% 494 0.48% Ukraine 9,807 2.64% 1,878 0.70% 7,929 7.73% Poland 8,628 2.32% 4,762 1.77% 3,866 3.77% Georgia 7,541 2.03% 2,738 1.02% 4,803 4.68% India 6,388 1.72% 6,053 2.25% 335 0.33% Egypt 6,202 1.67% 5,682 2.11% 520 0.51% Philippines 5,379 1.45% 904 0.34% 4,475 4.36% Moldova 4,386 1.18% 1,132 0.42% 3,254 3.17% Syria 3,428 0.92% 3,142 1.17% 286 0.28% Russia 3,089 0.83% 737 0.27% 2,352 2.29% Bangladesh 3,006 0.81% 2,874 1.07% 132 0.13% Iraq 2,818 0.76% 2,352 0.87% 466 0.45% Armenia 2,730 0.73% 1,351 0.50% 1,379 1.34% Nigeria 1,742 0.47% 1,354 0.50% 388 0.38% Yugoslavia 1,493 0.40% 818 0.30% 675 0.66% Not declared 1,484 0.40% 953 0.35% 531 0.52% Other 9,295 2.50% 4,997 1.86% 4,298 4.19% 371,641 100.00% 269,075 100.00% 102,566 100.00% Total

84

Table 2.3: Residence Permits (of all types) currently in effect (31/12/2003) Nationality Migrants % Men % Women % Albania 433,509 60.05% 325,284 75.04% 108,225 24.96% Bulgaria 72,606 10.06% 28,308 38.99% 44,298 61.01% Romania 33,700 4.67% 20,617 61.18% 13,083 38.82% Ukraine 26,187 3.63% 4,957 18.93% 21,230 81.07% Pakistan 20,487 2.84% 20,350 99.33% 137 0.67% Georgia 16,687 2.31% 5,751 34.46% 10,936 65.54% Republic of Moldova 13,968 1.93% 4,227 30.26% 9,741 69.74% India 13,844 1.92% 12,944 93.50% 900 6.50% Egypt 12,750 1.77% 11,827 92.76% 923 7.24% Russian Federation 10,265 1.42% 1,971 19.20% 8,294 80.80% Bangladesh 9,669 1.34% 9,571 98.99% 98 1.01% Philippines 7,461 1.03% 1,462 19.60% 5,999 80.40% Syrian Arab Republic 7,161 0.99% 6,513 90.95% 648 9.05% Armenia 5,968 0.83% 2,744 45.98% 3,224 54.02% Poland 5,360 0.74% 2,486 46.38% 2,874 53.62% Yugoslavia 4,910 0.68% 2,358 48.02% 2,552 51.98% China 3,361 0.47% 2,240 66.65% 1,121 33.35% United States 2,065 0.29% 1,087 52.64% 978 47.36% Nigeria 1,923 0.27% 1,468 76.34% 455 23.66% The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 1,571 0.22% 974 62.00% 597 38.00% Lebanon 1,155 0.16% 807 69.87% 348 30.13% Sri Lanka 1,113 0.15% 384 34.50% 729 65.50% Ethiopia 1,055 0.15% 386 36.59% 669 63.41% Other nationalities 15,108 2.09% 7,305 48.35% 7,798 51.6150% Total number of 34.06% residence permits 721,883 100.00% 476,021 65.94% 245,857 Source: Ministry of Interior

85

Table 2.4: Removed aliens by citizenship and type of border

2002 Country of Citizenship

TYPE OF BORDER Total

2003 Land

Sea

Air

Country of Citizenship

TOTAL

49310

49310

0

0

TOTAL

Albania Bulgaria Iraq

37987 2549 1895

37987 2549 1895

0 0 0

0 0 0

976

976

0

0

Albania Bulgaria Romania the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

Russian Federation Iran (Islamic Republic of) Moldova, Republic of Turkey

784 527 499 402 372

784 527 499 402 372

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

Ukraine

371

371

0

0

Pakistan Yugoslavia, Federal Republic of Poland Georgia

326

326

0

279 278 273

279 278 273

India Afghanistan

255 242

Bangladesh Nigeria China (excluding Hong Kong) Syrian Arab Republic Uzbekistan Other country of citizenship Stateless Unknown Source: Ministry of Public Order

Romania the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

TYPE OF BORDER Total

2004 Land

Sea

Air

Country of Citizenship

TYPE OF BORDER Total

Land

Sea

Air

39842

39720

122

0

32467 1942 1247

32351 1942 1247

116 0 0

0 0 0

803

803

0

0

726 446 382 290 254

726 446 382 290 254

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

182

182

0

0

102

96

6

0

45112

45110

2

0

TOTAL

35412 2821 1480

35412 2821 1480

0 0 0

0 0 0

Albania Bulgaria Romania

1121

1121

0

0

Russian Federation Poland Ukraine Turkey Georgia

650 617 515 486 327

650 617 515 486 327

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

Egypt the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

289

289

0

0

0

Moldova, Republic of Yugoslavia, Federal Republic of

Turkey Russian Federation Ukraine Georgia Yugoslavia, Federal Republic of

259

259

0

0

Afghanistan

0 0 0

0 0 0

Iran (Islamic Republic of) Iraq Belarus

130 117 101

130 117 101

0 0 0

0 0 0

75 58 46

75 58 46

0 0 0

0 0 0

255 242

0 0

0 0

Pakistan India

89 65

89 65

0 0

0 0

45 45

45 45

0 0

0 0

124 114

124 114

0 0

0 0

Egypt Uzbekistan

59 50

59 50

0 0

0 0

Pakistan Belarus India Iran (Islamic Republic of) Syrian Arab Republic China (excluding Hong Kong) Armenia

42 38

42 38

0 0

0 0

97 91 77

97 91 77

0 0 0

0 0 0

42 38 27

42 38 27

0 0 0

0 0 0

30 28 22

0 0 0

0 0 0

713 79 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

389 22 6

387 22 6

2 0 0

0 0 0

Moldova, Republic of Bangladesh Nigeria Other country of citizenship Stateless Unknown

30 28 22

713 79 0

Syrian Arab Republic Armenia Lithuania Other country of citizenship Stateless Unknown

213 134 225

213 134 225

0 0 0

0 0 0

86

Table 2.5: Apprehended aliens illegally present by citizenship and illegal point of entry by type of border

2002

TYPE OF BORDER Total Land Sea Air 58230

54845

3384

36827 8455 2234

36827 7845 622

Iran (Islamic Republic of)

1383

Bulgaria Pakistan

2003

2004

Country of Citizenship

TYPE OF BORDER Total Land Sea Air

Country of Citizenship

TYPE OF BORDER Total Land Sea Air

1

TOTAL

51031

48112

2910

9

TOTAL

44985

39184

5797

4

0 609 1612

0 1 0

Albania Bulgaria Iraq

35789 1889 1402

35789 1889 1279

0 0 123

0 0 0

Albania Afghanistan Bulgaria

31637 1802 1553

30922 205 1129

715 1597 424

0 0 0

936

447

0

1391

486

905

0

Iraq

988

809

179

0

1262 918

1262 796

0 122

0 0

Afghanistan the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Somalia

1088 934

1088 302

0 632

0 0

951 801

702 275

249 526

0 0

728

684

44

0

Romania

775

775

0

0

Romania Egypt the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

711

699

12

0

Romania Bangladesh Georgia Turkey Moldova, Republic of

722 517 471 437 434 313

719 517 469 434 373 313

3 0 2 3 61 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

Iran (Islamic Republic of) Turkey Georgia Pakistan Russian Federation Sudan

736 669 571 517 371 343

528 610 550 396 371 78

208 59 18 121 0 265

0 0 3 0 0 0

687 527 471 436 418 416

656 489 368 122 404 377

31 38 103 314 12 39

0 0 0 0 2 0

Russian Federation Somalia Sierra Leone

311 248 228

311 99 228

0 149 0

0 0 0

313 298 287

311 296 263

0 2 24

2 0 0

321 299 293

131 39 204

190 260 89

0 0 0

Sudan China (excluding Hong Kong) Ukraine

227

95

132

0

Ukraine Nigeria India China (excluding Hong Kong)

Pakistan Georgia Turkey Somalia Bangladesh India Iran (Islamic Republic of) Sudan Russian Federation

252

250

2

0

Cote d'Ivoire

238

4

234

0

219 210

209 210

10 0

0 0

223 210

223 183

0 27

0 0

Ukraine Syrian Arab Republic

233 137

192 65

41 72

0 0

Nigeria 193 Yugoslavia, Federal Republic of 191 Other country of citizenship 1316 Stateless 366 Unknown 20 Source: Ministry of Public Order

193

0

0

Poland Moldova, Republic of Yugoslavia, Federal Republic of

183

183

0

0

133

110

23

0

191

0

0

Algeria

173

169

4

0

128

117

11

0

1195 304 13

121 62 7

0 0 0

Other country of citizenship Stateless Unknown

1724 788 105

1497 491 105

223 297 0

4 0 0

Moldova, Republic of Yugoslavia, Federal Republic of Other country of citizenship Stateless Unknown

800 740 265

539 362 264

259 378 1

2 0 0

Country of Citizenship

TOTAL Albania Iraq Afghanistan

India the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

87

Table 2.6: Refused aliens by citizenship and type of border

2002

TYPE OF BORDER Total Land Sea Air

TOTAL

24162

19828

1496

2838

Bulgaria Romania Albania

11672 3705 3415

11427 2909 2987

52 43 237

193 753 191

862 662

847 12

2 623

13 27

400 347

373 85

10 46

17 216

Turkey Ukraine

294 263

145 109

107 29

Poland Egypt

240 178

211 7

Georgia 146 China (excluding Hong Kong) 116 Slovak Republic 109 Uzbekistan 106 Czech Republic 103 Bosnia and Herzegovina 86 Iran (Islamic Republic of) 85 Nigeria 78 Pakistan 75 South Africa 71 Other country of citizenship 989 Stateless 139 Unknown 21 Source: Ministry of Public Order

Country of Citizenship

the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Syrian Arab Republic Yugoslavia, Federal Republic of Russian Federation

2003

2004

Country of Citizenship

TYPE OF BORDER Total Land Sea Air

Country of Citizenship

TYPE OF BORDER Total Land Sea Air

TOTAL

17642

14146

975

2521

TOTAL

14584

11704

754

2126

8217 2822 1796

7826 2240 1601

93 22 116

298 560 79

5407 2878 1916

5095 2762 1573

57 53 4

255 63 339

1027 483

1022 285

1 104

4 94

1269 433

1265 234

0 91

4 108

460 364

93 17

18 311

349 36

Syrian Arab Republic Georgia

332 263

16 214

287 19

29 30

42 125

Russian Federation Syrian Arab Republic Yugoslavia, Federal Republic of Georgia

339 212

295 112

10 68

34 32

254 246

22 3

42 0

190 243

0 14

29 157

Poland Ukraine

200 174

141 60

3 46

56 68

209 116

188 7

6 6

15 103

54

68

24

Egypt

136

8

39

89

Russian Federation Nigeria Yugoslavia, Federal Republic of Egypt China (excluding Hong Kong)

107

0

0

107

34 60 3 72 85 14 11 2 0

30 1 0 1 0 24 0 1 18

52 48 103 30 1 47 67 72 53

94 82 78 72 61 59 48 48 47

48 38 40 0 1 2 24 8 46

0 7 0 3 0 12 7 5 0

46 37 38 69 60 45 17 35 1

104 65 62 54 53 50 46 39 38

38 0 13 15 5 1 0 2 6

24 3 9 9 39 5 23 8 0

42 62 40 30 9 44 23 29 32

277 94 10

180 10 0

532 35 11

710 105 8

179 57 3

104 4 2

427 44 3

Ukraine Pakistan Iran (Islamic Republic of) Moldova, Republic of Israel India South Africa Philippines Malaysia Other country of citizenship Stateless Unknown

558 80 5

197 45 3

68 0 1

293 35 1

Bulgaria Romania Albania the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Turkey

Czech Republic Moldova, Republic of Slovak Republic India Nigeria Pakistan Azerbaijan Iran (Islamic Republic of) Bosnia and Herzegovina Other country of citizenship Stateless Unknown

Bulgaria Albania Romania The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Turkey

88

Table 2.7: Decisions on Asylum Applications Year 2001 2002 2003 Applications 5499 5664 8178 Accepted 147 36 4 Rejected 1165 9342 4775 Source: Ministry of Public Order

2004 4469 11 3744

Table 2.8: Employment status of foreigners according to the LFS Year Foreigners (in thousands) Employed Unemployed Non active Total 1998 1st semester 143.7 24.3 60.9 228.9 1998 146.2 22.9 60.2 229.3 1999 143.2 22.3 63.0 228.5 2000 143.9 20.4 68.5 232.8 2001 172.6 22.6 77.9 273.1 2002 221.9 24.1 89.8 335.8 2003 248.2 25 104.5 377.7 2004 1st semester 277.8 30.7 130.4 438.9 Source: Labour Force Survey, National Statistic Service of Greece

B.1 General Characteristics (LFS)

Table 2.8: Year of Survey 1999 2000 2002 Total N

Percentage distribution of secured third country immigrants 27.11% 27.96% 44.93% 100.00% 3,659

Table 2.9: Citizenship (in groups) of third country immigrants Western Europe outside EOC Albania Balkan countries (except Albania) Former U.S.S.R. countries Other countries of Eastern & Central Europe Africa America(North&South),Australia, New Zealand Middle East South & Eastern Asia Other citizenships Total N

Percentage distribution of unsecured third country immigrants 41.55% 34.67% 23.77% 100.00% 1,367

Percentage distribution of natives 34.82% 33.77% 31.40% 100.00% 145,731

Percentage distribution of secured third country immigrants 0.33% 59.96% 7.32% 10.88%

Percentage distribution of unsecured third country immigrants 0.15% 63.94% 6.29% 12.66%

Incidence of unsecured to secured 16.67% 39.84% 32.09% 43.47%

9.13% 3.58%

7.83% 1.61%

32.04% 16.79%

2.79% 2.51% 3.14% 0.36% 100.00% 3,659

1.24% 3.15% 3.00% 0.15% 100.00% 1,367

16.67% 46.74% 35.65% 15.38% 37.36%

Incidence of unsecured to secured 57.26% 46.33% 19.77% 37.36%

89

Table 2.10: Gender Male Female Total N

Table 2.11: Age 15 to 20 21 to 30 31 to 40 41 to 50 above 51 Total N

Percentage distribution of secured third country immigrants 12.03% 30.61% 32.06% 18.86% 6.45% 100.00% 3,659

Table 2.12: Family Status not married married widowed divorced Total N

Percentage distribution of secured third country immigrants 52.61% 47.39% 100.00% 3,659

Employed Unemployed Non active Total N

Percentage distribution of unsecured third country immigrants 15.44% 32.92% 23.77% 17.70% 10.17% 100.00% 1,367

Percentage distribution of secured third country immigrants 27.66% 69.77% 0.87% 1.69% 100.00% 3,659

Table 2.13: Employment Status

Percentage distribution of unsecured third country immigrants 47.48% 52.52% 100.00% 1,367

Percentage distribution of natives 12.33% 20.97% 21.49% 21.80% 23.41% 100.00% 145,731

Percentage distribution of unsecured third country immigrants 36.87% 57.79% 2.49% 2.85% 100.00% 1,367

Percentage distribution of secured third country immigrants 69.12% 6.91% 23.97% 100.00% 3,659

Percentage distribution of natives 51.46% 48.54% 100.00% 145,731

Percentage distribution of natives 34.55% 61.46% 1.90% 2.09% 100.00% 145,731

Percentage distribution of unsecured third country immigrants 60.13% 13.02% 26.85% 100.00% 1,367

Percentage distribution of natives 57.71% 7.26% 35.03% 100.00% 145,731

90

Table 2.14: Level of completed studies Master Certificate or Phd with diploma of higher educational schools with certificate of intermidiate technical schools with certificate of post-secondary education have completed secondary education with certificate of threegrade High School Have completed primary education Have not completed primary education but attended Illiterate education for persons wih special needs Total N

Table 2.15: Region East Macedonia-Thraki Central Macedonia West Macedona Ipeiros Thessaly Ionia Nisia West Greece Central Greece Athens,rest of Attica Peloponnisos Lesbos,Samos,Chios Kiklades,Dodekanisos Crete Total N

Percentage distribution of secured third country immigrants 0.19%

Percentage distribution of unsecured third country immigrants 0.00%

Percentage distribution of natives 0.39%

12.44%

10.97%

10.98%

1.50%

0.88%

2.76%

4.43%

2.78%

6.13%

35.42%

29.26%

31.14%

24.30% 19.73%

25.53% 28.02%

15.58% 30.66%

0.77% 1.23%

0.88% 1.68%

1.31% 1.01%

0.00% 100.00% 3,659

0.00% 100.00% 1,367

0.05% 100.00% 145,731

Percentage distribution of secured third country immigrants 2.68% 11.51% 1.50% 2.51% 1.94% 1.45% 3.69% 3.06% 60.81% 4.02% 0.87% 2.16% 3.80% 100.00% 3,659

Percentage distribution of unsecured third country immigrants 2.19% 15.51% 0.73% 2.27% 3.51% 1.98% 3.95% 4.10% 56.47% 3.22% 0.51% 0.44% 5.12% 100.00% 1,367

Percentage distribution of natives 6.18% 17.16% 3.34% 4.97% 5.44% 2.01% 6.40% 5.48% 32.34% 5.42% 2.46% 3.03% 5.77% 100.00% 145,731

91

Table 2.16: Degree of Urbanization

Percentage distribution of secured third country immigrants

Percentage distribution of unsecured third country immigrants

Percentage distribution of natives

60.73%

59.18%

36.53%

9.43%

8.78%

11.14%

3.36%

4.75%

7.38%

10.82%

11.41%

9.66%

5.68%

5.71%

5.34%

4.84%

4.68%

7.49%

2.62%

1.90%

6.93%

1.09%

1.61%

7.77%

1.42% 100.00% 3,659

1.98% 100.00% 1,367

7.77% 100.00% 145,731

municipality with 70,000 residents and above municipality with 50,000 residents to 69,999 municipality with 30,000 to 49,999 residents municipality with 10,000 to 29,999 residents municipality or community with 5,000 to 9,999 residents municipality or community with 2,000 to 4,999 residents municipality or community with 1000 to 1,999 residents municipality or community with 500 to 999 residents municipality or community with 499 residents and below Total N

Table 2.17: Years of Residence in Greece 1 year or less 2 years 3 years 4 years 5 years 6 years 7 years 8 years 9 years 10 years stay 10 years or more live permanently in Greece Total N

Percentage distribution of secured third country immigrants 3.20% 6.40% 8.25% 9.40% 10.77% 9.26% 9.29% 9.16% 6.97% 8.96% 18.34% 0.00% 100.00% 3,659

Percentage distribution of unsecured third country immigrants 10.02% 14.78% 12.66% 12.51% 9.95% 7.46% 8.92% 7.83% 6.29% 3.15% 6.44% 0.00% 100.00% 1,367

Percentage distribution of natives 0.39% 0.05% 0.07% 0.08% 0.13% 0.10% 0.13% 0.15% 0.15% 0.15% 1.24% 97.38% 100.00% 145,731

92

B.2 Employment Characteristics (LFS)

Table 4.1: Position in the firm/organization that works self employeed with personnel self employeed without personnel wage earner, salaried assisting the family business Total N

Table 4.2: one-digit sector of employment Agriculture,livestock,hunting,forestry Fishing Mining,quarrying Manufacturing Electricity,gas and water supply Construction Trade, repair Hotels,restaurants Transport,storage,communications Financial intermediation Real estate,renting and business activities Public administration and defense,compulsory social security Education Health,social work Other business activities Private households with employed persons Extraterritorial organizations and bodies Total N

Table 4.3: one-digit profession category Members of parliament,executive and managerial workers Professional,artistic and related workers Technical and related workers and their assistants Clerical and related workers Service workers and salesman in stores and open-air markets Specialized farmers,loggers and

Percentage distribution of secured third country immigrants 1.46% 5.02% 92.13% 1.38% 100.00% 2,529

Percentage distribution of unsecured third country immigrants 0.49% 6.69% 91.97% 0.85% 100.00% 822

Percentage distribution of natives 8.06% 24.89% 57.88% 9.18% 100.00% 84,102

Percentage distribution of secured third country immigrants 3.40% 0.08% 0.24% 21.04% 0.12% 28.51% 10.32% 10.48% 2.25% 0.47%

Percentage distribution of unsecured third country immigrants 8.39% 0.36% 0.00% 9.00% 0.00% 29.32% 8.88% 7.06% 1.82% 0.00%

Percentage distribution of natives 16.04% 0.35% 0.57% 14.01% 1.05% 6.92% 17.30% 6.88% 6.33% 2.41%

2.69%

0.97%

5.10%

0.47% 1.50% 1.70% 2.69%

0.00% 0.61% 0.36% 1.95%

7.70% 6.55% 4.75% 3.48%

13.88%

31.27%

0.54%

0.16% 100.00% 2,529

0.00% 100.00% 822

0.01% 100.00% 84,102

Percentage distribution of secured third country immigrants

Percentage distribution of unsecured third country immigrants

Percentage distribution of natives

2.14%

0.24%

10.49%

2.81%

1.09%

12.32%

2.06% 2.29%

0.73% 0.24%

6.80% 11.07%

14.08% 2.33%

11.56% 4.74%

13.29% 16.14%

93

related workers Specialized craftsmen and related workers Operators of machinery in stable industry installments Non-specialized workers and small tradesmen Other professions Total N

Table 4.4: employment full-time or part-time full-time employment part-time employment because of studies part-time employment because of illness part-time because couldn't find fulltime didn't want full-time employment other reasons not declared the reason Total N

Table 4.5: employment permanent or temporary is permanent or with an infinite time contract is temporary of definite time because he/she is a trainee is temporary because couldn't find permanent is temporary because doesn't want permanent is temporary because it covers a trial period is temporary and didn't specify the reason self employed and flow Total N

38.71%

32.36%

15.90%

6.76%

2.19%

7.93%

28.83% 0.00% 100.00% 2,529

46.84% 0.00% 100.00% 822

5.04% 1.01% 100.00% 84,102

Percentage distribution of secured third country immigrants 92.92%

Percentage distribution of unsecured third country immigrants 82.85%

Percentage distribution of natives 95.50%

0.12%

0.12%

0.30%

0.00%

0.24%

0.10%

5.02% 1.38% 0.43% 0.12% 100.00% 2,529

13.87% 1.46% 1.34% 0.12% 100.00% 822

2.08% 1.21% 0.75% 0.07% 100.00% 84,102

Percentage distribution of secured third country immigrants

Percentage distribution of unsecured third country immigrants

Percentage distribution of natives

74.10%

55.60%

50.65%

0.59%

0.61%

0.57%

13.09%

29.56%

5.03%

0.51%

0.36%

0.29%

0.24%

0.12%

0.25%

3.60% 7.87% 100.00% 2,529

5.72% 8.03% 100.00% 822

1.09% 42.12% 100.00% 84,102

94

Table 4.6: Number of workers in the local unit of the firm/organisation 1 person 2 persons 3 persons 4 persons 5 persons 6 persons 7 persons 8 persons 9 persons 10 persons 11 to 19 persons 20 to 49 persons 50 and above persons unknown but below 11 persons unknown but above 10 persons Total N

Percentage distribution of secured third country immigrants 18.23% 6.92% 9.13% 7.43% 8.66% 4.07% 3.44% 2.49% 0.63% 2.53% 10.95% 4.51% 5.54% 9.85% 5.61% 100.00% 2,529

Percentage distribution of unsecured third country immigrants 38.81% 7.91% 9.37% 9.00% 6.20% 3.65% 1.82% 2.19% 0.61% 1.82% 5.23% 1.34% 1.22% 8.27% 2.55% 100.00% 822

Percentage distribution of natives 17.42% 16.99% 9.38% 5.57% 4.17% 2.15% 1.36% 1.44% 0.59% 1.83% 10.65% 7.73% 10.22% 4.16% 6.35% 100.00% 84,102

Table 4.7: Monthly net pay from main job below 100.000 drs. 100.000 to 199.000 drs 200.000 to 299.000 drs. 300.000 to 399.000 drs. 400.000 to 499.000 drs. above 500.000 drs. did not give answer self-employed-flow Total N

Percentage distribution of secured third country immigrants 4.19% 46.46% 27.88% 2.77% 0.43% 0.43% 9.96% 7.87% 100.00% 2,529

Percentage distribution of unsecured third country immigrants 12.53% 55.84% 11.44% 0.61% 0.00% 0.00% 11.56% 8.03% 100.00% 822

Percentage distribution of natives 1.34% 14.75% 23.07% 9.58% 1.82% 0.83% 6.48% 42.12% 100.00% 84,102

95

ANNEX

II:

INSTITUTIONS

AND

ORGANISATIONS

ADDRESSING THE ISSUE OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

1. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

MINISTRY OF INTERIOR, PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND DECENTRALIZATION Stadiou 31 Athens 10559 Tel.: +3-210-32.23.521 Website: www.ypes.gr E-mail: [email protected] DG Foreign Nationals and Immigration (3rd Floor): Direction Immigration Policy Stadiou 31 Mrs. Tzortzaki Maria Tel. : +3-210-32.29.937 Fax : +3-210-32.23.335 E-mail : [email protected] Mrs. Kontouli Katerina-Dept. Manager Tel.: +3-210-32.29.589 Fax : +3-210-32.23.335 E-mail : [email protected] Department of computerisation and electronic process of data Evaggelistrias 2, 101 83 Athens Mr. Zannetopoulos Ioannis-Chairman Tel: +3-210-32.21.196 Fax: +3-210-32.42.523 Legal Department Tel.: +3-210-33.11.965 (Citizenship) +3-210-32.33.438 +3-210-32.21.277 Mrs. Nikolaos Mavrikas Legal Counsel Nationality Department A Mrs. Vlachou – Dept. Manager Tel.: +3-210-32.44.806 +3-210-33.11.965 Nationality Department B Mrs. Tzitzioumi – Dept. Manager

96

Tel.: +3-210-32.45.634 According to the immigration law L2910/2001 (effect 2.6.2001), the Ministry of Interior has the jurisdiction in immigration matters jointly with the 13 Regions. DG Immigration was instituted according to article 56 L2910. It coordinates all regional Immigration services. Exceptional residence permit applications of article 37, namely for humanitarian reasons, public interest and force majeure, may in derogation to the general rule be lodged with and issued directly by DG Immigration of the Ministry of Interior. Residence Permits for work, humanitarian reasons and public interest are held in the Ministry of Interior. The Ministry of Interior provides data on work and residence permits. MINISTRY OF PUBLIC ORDER DG Foreign Nationals P. Kanellopoulou 4 Athens 10177 Tel.: +3-210-69.22.680 Website: www.ydt.gr DG Immigration and Asylum Tel.: +3-210-69.77000 Mr. Lourantos Dimitrios Tel.: +3-210-69.15.544 Fax: +3-210-69.27.166 E-mail : [email protected] Mr. Nikos Stavrakakis Tel.: +3-210-69.19.069 Fax: +3-210-69.90.827 E-mail: [email protected] Mr. Kostaris Menelaos – Expulsion Office Tel.: +3-210-69.77.125 Fax: +3-210-69.29.516 The MoPo is the responsible authority for the recognition of refugees and asylum applicants. It has developed a detailed database with all the associated statistical information for asylum and refugees. It is also the authority that possesses data on illegal immigration, like apprehensions, removals and refusals at the border. According to former law L1975/1991 abolished by law L2910/2001, the Ministry of Public Order had jurisdiction in both immigration and asylum matters. L2910 transferred jurisdiction in immigration matters away from the MoPO which is henceforth competent in asylum matters. The MoPO is also the issue authority of the special identity card (SIC) of law L2790/2000 recognising the Greek origin of nationals from Republics of the former Soviet Union, such as Kazackstan and Ukraine, which do not allow for multinationals. SIC issue is not equivalent to the acquisition of the Greek nationality; holders are entitled to work in Greece but are deprived from political rights.

97

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS Γ4 Direction Justice, Internal Affairs and Schengen Mrs. Mara Marinaki – Director (and SCIFA) Tel.: +3-210-36.84.515 Fax.: +3-210-36.84.196 E-mail: [email protected] Department for the Receptione Removal Immigrants Mrs. Georgia Papayanni Tel.: +3-210-36.84.185-9 General Secretariat of Greek Emigrants – Γ.Γ.Α.Ε. Acharnon 417 Athens 11143 Mr. Dimitrios Dollis – General Secretary Mr. Stavros Kalandranis Tel.: +3-210-25.97.530 Fax: +3-210-25.85.739 The Ministry of External Affairs is in charge of Immigration, Frontiers and Asylum in the context of the Common Security and Foreign Policy – CSFP (2nd Pillar, article J TUE) and Judicial Cooperation and Home Affaires – JHA (3rd Pillar, art. K TUE). According to the Maastricht Treaty of 7.2.1992 as modified by the Amsterdam Treaty of 10.11.1997, decision-making in the fields of both CSFP and JHA occurs at the intergovernmental level (IG) eg the JHA Council in JHA matters. The Strategic Committee of Immigrants, Frontiers and Asylum (SCIFA) is competent for issues of major political importance, whereas the Working Groups (WGs) are competent for technical and in substance issues, such as the reception or removal of immigrants, asylum and VISAs. The SCIFA was instituted in the aftermath of the Amsterdam Treaty, replacing the former K4 Committee in immigration and asylum matters; it is a horisontal intermediary between the CO.RE.PER. and the WGs. The CO.RE.PER. is the Committee of Permanent Representatives in charge of preparing the JHA Council decisions. The JHA Council should make a unanimous decision (point a); otherwise, the issue is rolled back to the CO.RE.PER. (point b). The High Level Working Group (HLWG) and the Council of General Affairs are competent in with respect to bilateral treaties between the European Union and third countries, such as Hong-Kong, in the field of immigration. MINISTRY OF EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL PROTECTION Pireos 40 Athens 10182 Tel.: +3-210-52.95.000 Website: www.ypergka.gr DG Employment Mr. Xrisinis Konstantinos Tel.: +3-210-52.95.173 Fax: +3-210-52.42.942 E-mail: www.lab-con8.gr

98

DG Foreign Nationals Mr. Konstantinos Chrissinis Tel.: +3-210-52.95.173 Fax: +3-210-52.42.942 Direction “Employment Terms” Mrs. Maria Saravanou Tel.: +3-210-52.95.402 Vocational Training Agisilaou 23-25 Athens 1082 Tel.: +3-210-52.71.100/.300/.400 Website: www.labor-ministry.gr The Ministry of Labor is in charge for: (a) Programme for the Social Integration of Socially Vulnerable Groups (b) Greek Language Programme GREEK MANPOWER EMPLOYMENT ORGANIZATION – OAED Ethnikis Antistaseos 8 Alimos 16610 Tel.: +3-210-99.89.000 +3-210-99.89.149 Website: www.oaed.gr Mrs. Sousourogianni Aggeliki Tel.: 210-99.89.856 Fax: 210-99.89.147 E-mail: [email protected] DG Employment (former Foreign Nationals) Mrs. Bouloubassi (Office no. 42) Tel.: +3-210-99.89.149 Information Technology – Unemployment Register Mr. Margaritis Tel.: +3-210-99.89.756 The task of OAED is completed by a) the acquisition or/and improvement of the vocational skills of the manpower through training and its support with employment programmes, so that it will correspond to the continuously changing conditions of the Labour Market and b) the Social Security Benefits and Allowances granted to the social groups that have already been mentioned. The Organisation contributes in the best way possible, to the protection of the citizens’ right for employment and social welfare given by the Constitution, contributing to the co-existence of development and social cohesion by taking care for finding the proper work placement for each unemployed person and by delivering Social Security Services to the various groups of population.

99

NATIONAL STATISTICAL SERVICE OF GREECE – NSSG Peireos 46 Mrs. Chara Zikou – Department Manager Tel.: +3-210-48.52.172 E-mail: [email protected] Mrs. Vakalopoulou Konstantina Tel: 210-48.52.880 Provides general statistical information on migration issues and data from the National Census (2001). MINISTRY OF MERCANTILE MARINE Department of Security Gr.Labraki 150, Peireas Mr. Ntounis A.-Lieutenant Tel.: +3-210-41.91.140 E-mail: [email protected] Mr. Zaimis A.-Master Chief Petty Officer Tel: +3-210-41.91.140 Provides information for illegal entrance and measures taken at the sea borders.

MINISTRY OF NATIONAL EDUCATION AND RELIGIONS Mitropoleos 15 Athens 10185 Tel.: +3-210-32.30.862-4 Fax: +3-210-32.49.915 Website: www.ypepth.gr Mrs. Priovolou Tel: +3-210-32.46.471 Mrs. Savva (4rth Floor, Office no. 424) - Requests Fax: +3-210-32.26.313 MINISTRY OF MACEDONIA – THRACE Residency 541 23 Thessaloniki Tel.: +3-2310-379000 Fax: +3-2310-263332 (Minister’s Office) E-mail: [email protected] Office for repatriated Greeks from the former Soviet Union Mr. Konstantinos Avramidis – Associate Tel.: +3-2310-379401-4 (x169)

100

Mr. Athanaïlidis – Associate Tel.: +3-2310-379397 +3-2310-379406 (Secretary) The Ministry of Macedonia - Thrace is a part of the state near the periphery. For that purpose it can seise, assimilate and isolate problems and give solutions, especially in nationally sensitive areas, which for many years have been away from the central administration.The Ministry's role is to coordinate and contribute to politics the Government foresees for Northern Greece.

2. LOCAL GOVERNMENTS E.E.T.A.A. A.E. Greek Company for the Local Development and Self-Governance S.A. Website: www.eetaa.gr Central Register Theatrou 6 Athens Mrs. Kaliva – Director Tel.: +3-210-33.18.994/.995/.997 Fax: +3-210-33.18.994 Structure and operation of local and regional democracy in Greece: The Constitution of 1975/1986 contains in its sixth section two articles concerning the administration of the country: The articles 101 and 102.The article 101 refers to the organisation of the administration according to the decentralised system and contains the constitutional principle of decentralisation and regional administration. The article 102 is an outline of the constitutional frame of local government and describes its functional guaranties as an independent unit of administration. Today there are two levels of local government: Municipalities and communities (demos, kinotita) form the first level and the prefectural administration (nomarchiaki autodioikisi) the second level of self governing local authorities. It is also to be mentioned that since 1989 the European Chart of Local Autonomy has been adopted as domestic law and ratified by law 1850/89.In Greece there are currently 13 Regions, 50 Prefectural Administration, 441 Municipalities and 5382 Communes.

ACHARNON MUNICIPALITY Address : Filadelfias & Bosda, Acharnes Phone : 210-2415400 FAX : 210-2464022 Email : [email protected] Contact : Representative: Konstantinos Govilias

AGIA PARASKEVI MUNICIPALITY ALIENS' BUREAU Address : Mesogion 463, Agia Paraskevi

101

Phone : 210-6080223 FAX : 210-6080183 Contact : Representative: Maria Kakari

AGIA VARVARA MUNICIPALITY ALIENS' BUREAU Address : Αgias Eleousas 6, Agia Varvara Phone : 210-5402410 Phone 2 : 210-5402319 FAX : 210-5402410 Email : [email protected] Contact : President: Stella Liarou Contact 2 : Anna Spiropoulou

AGION ANARGIRON MUNICIPALITY ALIENS' BUREAU Address : Leof. Dimokratias & Ioannou Merla, Agii Anargiri Phone : 210-2691820 FAX : 210-2616444 Email : [email protected] Contact : Representative: Gioula Paikou

AGIOS DIMITRIOS MUNICIPALITY ALIENS' BUREAU Address : Xenofontos 10, Agios Dimitrios Phone : 210-9764673 FAX : 210-9733345 Email : [email protected] Contact : Representative: Titika Anagnostopoulou

AGIOS IOANNIS MUNICIPALITY ALIENS' BUREAU Address : Bihaki 8, Renti Phone : 210-4838846 FAX : 210-4838814 Contact : Representative: Maria Zafiropoulou

AGIOS STEFANOS MUNICIPALITY ALIENS' BUREAU Address : Penjeridou 3, Agios Stefanos Phone : 210-8140030 FAX : 210-8141421 Contact : Representative: Fanouria Barjoglou

ALIENS AND IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT - CENTRAL GREECE REGION Address : 38 Kyprou, 351 00 Lamia Phone : 22310-30932-4 FAX : 22310-30932-4 Contact : Mrs Stavroula Papageorgiou

ALIENS AND IMMIGRATION DIRECTORATE - EASTERN MACEDONIA & THRACE REGION Address : 3rd Km Komotinis-Alexandroupolis Road, 691 00 Komotini Phone : 25310-37190 FAX : 25310-37387 Contact : Mr Nikolaos Karanikoloulis

102

ALIENS AND IMMIGRATION DIRECTORATE - NORTH AEGEAN REGION Address : 77 Koundouriotou, 811 00 Mitilini Phone : 22510-25354 FAX : 22510-37267 Contact : Mrs Olga Gerou

ALIENS AND IMMIGRATION DIRECTORATE OF ATHENS - ATTICA REGION Address : Theatrou Square, 105 52 Athens Phone : 210-3318994, 3247721 FAX : 3247752 Contact : Mrs Maria Kalyva

ALIENS AND IMMIGRATION DIRECTORATE OF EASTERN ATTICA - ATTICA REGION Address : Psarron 19, 153 51 Pallini Phone : 210-6033022 FAX : 210-6032991 Contact : Mrs. Eleni Pepa

ALIENS AND IMMIGRATION DIRECTORATE OF WESTERN ATTICA AND PIREUS ATTICA REGION Address : Evripidou 50, 185 32 Pireus Phone : 210-4123467 FAX : 210-4971233 Contact : Mrs Viki Kordatou

ALIENS' EMPLOYMENT DIRECTORATE - EVROS - RODOPI PREFECTURE Address : 1 Dimokratia, 691 00 Rodopi Phone : 25310-29146 FAX : 25310-28577, 24422 Contact : Mr Vassilis Petanidi

ALIENS' EMPLOYMENT DIRECTORATE - VIOTIA PREFECTURE Address : Antigone 6, 321 00 Livadeia Phone : 22610-29756 FAX : 22610-29756 Contact : Mrs Alexandra Kiriakou

ALIENS' EMPLOYMENT DIRECTORATE - WESTERN ATTICA PREFECTURE Address : Persefoni 19 & Chatzidaki, 192 00 Elefsina Phone : 210-5562456-8, 5561240, 5546048 FAX : 210-5562456-8, 5561240, 5546048 Contact : Mrs Martha Kosmidou

ALIENS' EMPLOYMENT DIRECTORATE - EASTERN ATTICA PREFECTURE Address : Ethnikis Antistaseos & Thrakis, 153 44 Gerakas Phone : 210-6046844, 6032807, 6046844 FAX : 210-6046844, 6032807, 6046844 Contact : George Kanellopoulos

ALIENS' EMPLOYMENT DIRECTORATE - LESBOS PREFECTURE Address : 1 Koundourioti, 811 00 Mitilini Phone : 22510-46654

103

FAX : 22510-27813 Contact : Mrs Soula Passaveli

ALIENS' EMPLOYMENT DIRECTORATE - PIREUS Address : 14-16 Akti Poseidonos, 12 Grigoris Lambrakis , 185 31 Pireus Phone : 210-4128335 FAX : 210-4116625 Contact : E. Kollia

ALIENS' EMPLOYMENT DIRECTORATE - PREFECTURE OF CHANIA Address : 1 Eleftheria Square, 731 36 Chania Phone : 28210-30185, -8 FAX : 28210-30189 Contact : Mr Athanassios Karifillis

ALIENS' EMPLOYMENT DIRECTORATE OF ATHENS - PIREUS Address : 2 Voulgari & Pireos Str. 104 37 Athens Phone : 210-5229264, 5247860, 5249761, 5238268 FAX : 210-5227897 Contact : Vasilis Ntougias 210-5238268

ALIMOS MUNICIPALITY ALIENS' BUREAU Address : Aristotelous 53, Alimos Phone : 210-98500009 FAX : 210-9888162 Email : [email protected] Contact : Representative: Flora Kostadinidou

ANO LIOSIA MUNICIPALITY ALIENS' BUREAU Address : Pl. Iroon 1, Ano Liosia Phone : 210-2480400 FAX : 210-2470156 Email : [email protected] Contact : Representative: Nancy Koliou

ATHENS MUNICIPALITY - DEVELOPMENT AGENCY Address : Favierou 5 & Magier, Athens Phone : 210-5221403 FAX : 210-5221140 Email : [email protected] Contact : Representative: Stamatoula Tranaka

ATHENS MUNICIPALITY ALIENS' BUREAU Address : Sofokleous 70 & Pireos, Athens Phone : 210 - 5239465 FAX : 210 - 5235671 Email : [email protected] Contact : Representative: Pota (Panagiota) Roubou Contact 2 : Stamatoula Tranaka, 210-5221403

104

CITIZENS' RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS DIRECTORATE - ATTICA REGION Address : 6 Ypatis, 115 26 Athens Phone : 210-3258340, -2 FAX : 210-3258341 Contact : Mr. Alexandros Delis

EGALEO MUNICIPALITY ALIENS' BUREAU Address : Iera Odos 364, Egaleo Phone : 210-5315913 FAX : 210-5311536 Email : [email protected] Contact : Representative: Giannis Hajigeorgioy

MAROUSSI MUNICIPALITY ALIENS' BUREAU Address : Vas. Sofias & Dimitrioy Moshas 9, Marousi Phone : 210-8760000 FAX : 210-8760500 Email : [email protected] Contact : Representative: Ioanna Xifara

3. NGOs AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL Address : Sina 30, Athens / Delmouzou 7, Thessalonica Phone : 210-3600628 / 2310- 3631532 Phone 2 : 2310-286583 / 2310-257276 FAX : 210-3638016 / 2310-286583 Email : [email protected] Contact : President: Kostis Papagioannou Contact 2 : Member: Elli Papadopoulou Contact 3 : Member: Aristeidi Maurogianni

ANTIGONE The Information & Documentation Center on Racism, Ecology, Peace and Non Violence "ANTIGONE" is a non governmental organisation based in Thessalonica with offices in Athens. Since 1995 it is active in issues concerning human rights, ecology, peace and nonviolent conflict resolution in close cooperation with the Ecological Movement of Thessaloniki. ANTIGONE is the National Focal Point of the European Monitoring centre on Racism, Xenophobia and Anti-Semitism - (EUMC) an independent body of the European Union funded by the European Parliament) as part of its RAXEN network. According to its founding regulation the EUMC has created and coordinates a European Racism and Xenophobia Network (RAXEN). The core task of RAXEN is to provide the European Union and its Member States with objective, reliable and comparable data at the European level on the phenomena of racism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism in order to help them take measures and formulate policies and courses of action. Phone : 210 67 11 349 FAX : +30 210 67 11 343 Email : [email protected] Contact : Director: Nasos Theodoridis Email : [email protected] Contact 3 : Thessaloniki: Mihalis Tremopoulos, Management Board

105

ECUMENICAL REFUGEE PROGRAMME/ HOLY SYNOD OF THE CHURCH OF GREECE Address : Iridanos 4Α, 115 28 Athens Phone : 210-7295926, 7295927, 7213296 FAX : 210-7295928

EUROPEAN MIGRATION DIALOGUE « European Migration Dialogue » is a project that is being funded by the European Commission and it is being coordinated by the European Non-Governmental organisation Migration Policy Group (MPG). Corresponding organisations and research institutes that focus on migration issues are accomplishing the implementation of the project within several European counties. The Greek partners are Τhe Hellenic League for Human Rights (HLHR) and the research institute KEMO. The aims of the EMD project is to create a European network of civil society organisations working on immigration and integration, which fosters the development of a European dialogue on EU and National migration policies and provides with a platform for exchange of information. Phone : 210 7289718 Phone 2 : 210 2289854 Email : [email protected] Contact : Miltos Paulou Contact 2 : Eirini Abramopoulou Contact 3 : Leonidas Karakatsanis

EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVE The Development, Humanitarian and Education Center in Greece. Plans and implements integrated activities with the objective to promote sustainable development, provide humanitarian and emergency assistance and contribute to the establishment of democratic institutions in the developing countries. Address : Kimolou 3, 113 62 Athens Phone : 210-8237192 Phone 2 : 210-8233089 FAX : 210-8237184 Email : [email protected]

GREEK CITIZENS UNION Address : Balaoritou 12 (2nd floor), Athens Phone : 210-3626888 Phone 2 : 210-3613117 FAX : 210-3631631 Contact : President: Νiko Αlivizato

GREEK COUNCIL FOR REFUGEES Address : Solomou 25, Exarcheia Phone : 210-3802508 Phone 2 : 210-3805029 FAX : 210-3803774 Email : [email protected] Contact : President: Harris Brisimis Contact 2 : Manager: Marina miriathopoulou Contact 3 : Member: S. Sikiotou

GREEK HELSINKI MONITOR Address : Kostantinoupoleos 82, Athens, P.O.BOX 60820, Glika Nera Phone : 210-3472259 Phone 2 : 210-6200120

106

FAX : 210-3426267 Email : [email protected] Contact : Panagiotis Dimitras

HELLENIC RED CROSS Address : Likavitou 1, Athens Phone : 210-3629842 Phone 2 : 210-3639538 FAX : 210-3629842 Email : [email protected] Contact : President: A. Martinis Contact 2 : Member: Elli Dimitriou

HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENCE CENTRE Is a non governmental, non profit organisation. Established in 1998 from a people’s group with knowledge and experience in the field of social rights, aiming to defend the human rights in Greece and the wider region. Address : 3 Lempessi Street, Makrygianni, 117 42 Athens Greece Phone : (30210) 92 10 977 FAX : (30210) 92 46 056 Email : [email protected]

INTERNATIONAL ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN CHARITIES (IOCC) Address : Peloponnisou 59-61, 153 41 Ag. Paraskeui Phone : 210-6009700 FAX : 210-6009700

MARANGOPOULOS FOUNDATION FOR HUMAN RIGHTS The MARANGOPOULOS FOUNDATION FOR HUMAN RIGHTS (MFHR) came into being in December 1977, when the will of GEORGE N. MARANGOPOULOS, President of the Supreme Administrative Court of Greece (Council of State), took effect. The basic aims and objectives of the Marangopoulos Foundation for Human Rights are the research, study, defence, protection and promotion of the generally recognized fundamental human rights and freedoms. Within this framework, the Foundation takes a special interest in the advancement of human rights education and training and the raising of public awareness in all matters affecting human rights, peace and the development of democratic institutions. Address : 1, Lykavittou St.. 106 72 Athens Phone : 210-3637455 Phone 2 : 210-3613527 FAX : 210-3622454 Email : [email protected] Contact : President: Prof. Alice Yotopoulos-Marangopoulos Contact 2 : Director: Prof. L.-A. Sicilianos

MEDECINS DU MONDE Address : Leof. Alexandras 207, Athens Phone : 210-6440300 FAX : 210-6440310 Contact : President: Hro Varsami

MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES Address : Stournari 57 & 3rd Septemvriou, Athens Phone : 210-5200500

107

FAX : 210-5200503 Email : [email protected] Contact : General Manager: George Fotiades Contact 2 : Pesident: Kostas Papagioannou Contact 3 : Mission Manager: Ganetos Antipas

MINORITY RIGHTS GROUP - GREECE Address : Kostantinoupoleos 82, Athens, P.O.BOX 60820, Glika Nera Phone : 210-3472259 Phone 2 : 210-6200120 FAX : 210-3426267 Email : [email protected] Contact : Representative: Nausika Papanikolatou

MISSIONARIES OF CHARITY Address : 69,Aimonos str, Akadimias Platonos, 104 42 Athens Phone : 210-5142219 Phone 2 : 210-8254770 Contact : Sister Grace

NETWORK FOR SOCIAL SUPPORT OF REFUGEES AND IMMIGRANTS Address : Valtetsiou 35, Athens Phone : 210-3304901, 3813928 FAX : 210-3840390 Email : [email protected] Contact : Representative: Ioanna Kourtovik Contact 2 : Member: Kostas Argaliotis, 6944-277516

INTERNATIONAL CATHOLIC MIGRATION COMMISSION Address : Kapodistriou 52, Athens Email : [email protected] Contact : Representative: Margarita Lidoriki

SOS RACISM Address : Charilaou Trikoupi 88, 106 80 Athens; PO Box 3724, 102 10 Athens Phone : 210-3619164 FAX : 210-3647669 Email : [email protected] Contact : President: Adriana Mardaki Contact 2 : Member: Dimitris Levantis

VOLUNTARY WORK OF ATHENS A non profit organisation established in 1990. Addresses the problems of social excluded population groups (refugees, migrants, illiterate children, patients etc.) Address : Solomou 27, Athens Phone : 210-3302182 Phone 2 : 210 3802773 FAX : 210-3301686 Email : [email protected] Contact : President: Spyros Wyxas

SOCIAL WORK FOUNDATION (Ι.Κ.Ε.) Address : Ηροδότου 1, 144 51 Μεταµόρφωση Phone : 210-2825622 FAX : 210-2825053

108

Contact : President: Athina Paliggiti Contact 2 : Aleksandra Tauri

SOCIAL WORK FOUNDATION (REFUGEES) Address : Viktoria square 11, 104 34 Athens Phone : 210-8221013, 8221591 FAX : 210-8226545 Email : [email protected] Contact : Eui Poulelli

HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTRE Address : Lempesi 3, 117 42 Athens Phone : 210-9853621 FAX : 210-9853621 Contact : Maria Vasileiou

CITIZEN MOVEMENT AGAINST RACISM Address : Efranoros 12, 116 35 Athens / Eufroniou 37-39, 161 21 Kaisariani Phone : 210-8222096, 7652213 FAX : 210-7652373 Email : [email protected] Contact : President: Savvas Aggouridis 210-7015379

MINORITY MOVEMENT FOR HUMAN AND MINORITY RIGHTS Address : Othonos 5, 691 00, Komotini Phone : 25310-20660 Phone 2 : 6944-518360 FAX : 25310-37759 Contact : Amptoulxalim Ntente

ECUMENICAL PROGRAM FOR REFUGEES Address : Iridianou (1) 4Α, 115 28 Athens Phone : 210-7238671 FAX : 210-7295928 Contact : Antoni Papantoniou Contact 2 : Euthalia Pappa

GREEK OMBUDSMAN Address : Xatzigianni Meksi 5, 115 28 Athens Phone : 210-7289767 FAX : 210-7289700

ΤHE EUROPEAN MONITORING CENTRE ON RACISM AND XENOPHOBIA (EUMC) The primary task of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) is to provide the Community and its Member States with objective, reliable and comparable information and data on racism, xenophobia, islamophobia and anti-Semitism at the European level in order to help the EU and its Member States to establish measures or formulate courses actions against racism and xenophobia. Address : Rahlgasse 3 A – 1060 Vienna Austria Organisation : Αn independent body of the European Union established by Council Regulation (EC) 1035/97.

109

4. MIGRANT ASSOCIATIONS

IMMIGRANTS CENTER The Immigrants Centre is an Cretean Organization with many activities. The main goal is to improve the immigrant's position in greek society. In addition they want to cultivate peace and cooperation among the immigrant communities. Address : Stamathioudaki 25, Rethymno, Crete, 74100 Phone : 28310-36008 Phone 2 : 28310- 58763, 25223 Email : [email protected]

AFRICA GENERAL

THE INDIGENOUS AFRICANS DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, GREECE (IADAG) Created in April 2004 to promote cooperation and solidarity between African immigrants and their children born and raised in Greece. Phone : 210-8672394 Phone 2 : 6945-992815, or 6972-978131 Contact : President Santos Kamaras CONGO

CONGO COMMUNITY Phone : 210-8640005 FAX : 210-8640005 Contact : President: Boliassa Engale Contact 2 : Member: Arnold 210-8654169

CONGOLESE COMMUNITY IN GREECE Address : 314 Patision St, 111 41, Athens Phone : 210-2023713 Phone 2 : 6932-096732 Contact : President: Solotshi Kalambay, 210-6465257 Contact 2 : Member: Theotimo Tsala

ERITREA

ERYTHREAN COMMUNITY IN GREECE Address : 4 B. Konstantinou Ave, 116 35, Athens Phone : 210-7015870 FAX : 210-7015833 Contact : Representative: Daniel, 6937-569013 Contact 2 : Member: Tekle Kidane, 6942-014318

ETHIOPIA

ETHIOPIAN COMMUNITY OF ATHENS Address : 16 Imvrou St, 113 61, Amerikis Sq Phone : 210-8656911 Phone 2 : 6939135360 FAX : 210-8656911 Email : [email protected] Contact : President: Getachew Belay

ETHIOPIAN LABOUR UNION IN GREECE

110

Ethiopian Labour Union in Greece. Office Hours: Every Monday 5-8. Icq 213122985 Address : Chalkokondili 37 5th floor, Omonia square Phone : 6938789513, 6939227791 Phone 2 : 2105233346 FAX : 2105233508 Email : [email protected] Contact : Eshtie Dereje

GAMBIA

GAMBIA COMMUNITY Phone : 210-8811719 Phone 2 : 6945-619189 FAX : 210-4294495 Contact : Representative: Malamin Silex, 6944-773153

THE GAMBIA ASSOCIATION Phone : 210-7553892

GHANA

GHANA COMMUNITY Address : 19 Messinias 19,115 26, Athens Phone : 210-7510355 Phone 2 : 6946-939152 FAX : 210-3619164 Contact : President: Kenneth Boamah, 6938-990152 Contact 2 : Samsintin Intrisou, 210-8238667

GUINEA

GUINEAN COMMUNITY Address : 44 Rodou St, 104 46, Kato Patisia Phone : 6945-783284 FAX : 210-6990143 Contact : President: Lamin Koba, 6945-783284 Contact 2 : Member: Diallo Mohammad, 6972-562958

IVORY COAST

ASSOCIATION OF IVORY COAST CITIZENS IN GREECE Address : 115 03, Ampelokipoi Phone : 6938-255720 Contact : President: Antama Ntoumpia

KENYA

KENYAN ASSOCIATION Address : 3 Mithimnis St, 112 10, Athens (Pl. Amerikis) Phone : 210-2017049

KENYAN COMMUNITY Address : 3 Mithimnis St, 112 10, Athens (Pl. Amerikis) Phone : 210-2017049 Contact : President: Goerge Koyienyah, 6937-828981

LIBERIA

LIBERIAN CULTURAL ASSOCIATION

111

Phone : 6945-561468 Contact : Representative: Leonidas Zisis

MADAGASCAR

COMMITTEE OF MIGRANTS FROM MADAGASCAR Address : 2 Koleti St, 106 81, Athens Phone : 210-3300465 Contact : President: Ikiady Andriantsikoto, 6946-156532

NIGERIA

NIGERIAN COMMUNITY Address : 14 Geraniou St, 105 52, Athens Phone : 210-5247598 FAX : 210-5247598 Contact : President: Tonye Briggs, 6932-550086 Contact 2 : Member: Patrick Odeh

SENEGAL

SENEGALESE COMMUNITY "SENAAT" Address : 24 Zinidotou St, 116 35, Pagrati Phone : 210-7212627 Contact : President: David Sania

SIERRA LEONE

SIERRA LEONE COMMUNITY Address : 25 Arianou St, 116 35, Pagrati Phone : 210-8672394 FAX : 210-3219013 Contact : Representative: Kamara Santos, 6977-916036,6945-714130

SOUTH AFRICA

GREEK-SOUTH AFRICAN ASSOCIATION Contact : Representative: Christine Bonoris, 210-9359356

AFRICA SUDAN

SUDANESE COMMUNITY IN GREECE Address : 2a Kefalinias St, 113 61, Athens Phone : 210-8232446 Phone 2 : 210-8254264 Email : [email protected] Contact : Representative: Moavia Ahmet Contact 2 : Member: Ibrahim Bahes

TANZANIA

TANZANIA COMMUNITY Contact : Representative: Suleiman Nassib, 6932-016082

EUROPE ALBANIA

ALBANIAN ASSOCIATION "LOUSNIA"

112

Phone : 210-8672932 Contact : Representative: Giovan Mehilli

ALBANIAN ASSOCIATION OF ATHENS Phone : 6974-175389 Phone 2 : 6972-140698 Contact : Representative: Feti

ALBANIAN ASSOCIATION OF THESSALONIKI Phone : 2310-624191 Phone 2 : 6945-273035 Contact : President: Mimoza Ntako

ALBANIAN COMMUNITY OF ATHENS Contact : Representative: Dionysis Kekai, 6972-140698 Contact 2 : Member: Fein Osman

ALBANIAN CULTURAL ASSOCIATION "AETOS" Phone : 6942-992866 Contact : Representative: Ntiamant Kontra

ALBANIAN MIGRANT WRITERS CLUB "DRITA" Phone : 210-9582538 Contact : Representative: Nase Gianni

ALBANIAN MIGRANTS ASSOCIATION "VELAZERIMI" Phone : 210-2719271 Contact : Repersentative: Dimitri Mentanis Contact 2 : Member: Novruz Abileca

ALBANIAN MIGRANTS CULTURAL CLUB Address : 121 Irakleous St, 176 72, Kallithea Phone : 210-9571224 Phone 2 : 6932-595215 Email : [email protected] Contact : Representative: Gazmend Kaplani Contact 2 : Member: Enda Gemi

FORUM OF ALBANIAN MIGRANTS IN GREECE Address : 35 Valtetsiou St, 106 81, Exarcheia Phone : 210-3304901 Phone 2 : 210-3813928 Contact : President: Ervin Sehou 6936-408045

GREEK-ALBANIAN ASSOCIATION "PROODOS" Phone : 2310-767242 Contact : Representative: Alex. Giannakis

GREEK-ALBANIAN FRIENDSHIP ASSOCIATION "SOCRATES" Address : 39 Ipeirou & Aharnon Ave, 104 39, Athens Phone : 210-8218497

113

FAX : 210-8254065 Contact : Representative: Pyrros Fotiadis

ARMENIA

"AGIOS AGOP" ORTHODOX CHURCH Address : Armenikis Orthodoxis Ekklisias & Florinis St, Kokinia Phone : 210-4915823

"AGIOS GEORGIOS" ORTHODOX CHURCH Address : Patriarhou Dionisiou St, 680 00, Didimotikho Phone : 25310-27451

"ARMENIA" PUBLIC CULTURAL CENTER Address : 12 Soulioton St, 117 44, Athens (Ag. Sostis) Phone : 210-9359982 Email : [email protected]

"HAMAZKAYIN" ARMENIAN CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL UNION Address : 220 Sigrou Ave, 176 72, Athens Phone : 210-9575011 FAX : 2109319451 Email : [email protected]

"HOLY CROSS" ARMENIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH Address : 4 Ioakim Sgourou St, 653 02, Kavala

ARMENIAN BLUE CROSS OF GREECE Address : 220 Sigrou Ave, 176 72, Athens Phone : 210-9575011 FAX : 210-9572851

ARMENIAN EVANGELICAL CHURCH Phone : 210-4913603

EUROPE ARMENIA

ARMENIAN GENERAL BENEVOLENT UNION Phone : 2310-268790

ARMENIAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE OF GREECE Address : 220 Sygrou Ave, 176 72, Athens Phone : 210-9574973 Phone 2 : 6944-870755 Contact : Representative: David Petrosian Contact 2 : Member: Xovsep Mparazian

ARMENIAN NATIONAL COUNCIL OF GREECE Address : 10 Kriezi St, 105 53, Athens Phone : 210-3252067

114

ARMENIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH "VIRGIN MARY" Address : 4 Dialeti St, 546 21, Thessaloniki Phone : 2310-275352

ARMENIAN ORTHODOX PRELACY Address : 10 Kriezi St, 105 53, Athens Phone : 210-3252067 FAX : 210-3232149

ARMENIAN YOUTH FEDERATION OF GREECE Address : 220 Sigrou Ave, 176 72, Athens Phone : 210-9319451 Phone 2 : 2109575011 FAX : 210-9319451 Email : [email protected]

CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF ARMENIANS IN GREECE Address : 11 Rene Pio St, 117 44, N. Kosmos Phone : 210-9011485 Contact : Representative: Agopian Tari

BULGARIA

GREEK-BULGARIAN ASSOCIATION OF MUTUAL AID AND FRIENDSHIP Address : 5 Sourmeli St, 104 38, Athens (PL. Vathis) Phone : 210-5231988 Contact : Representative: Diliana Patsia

GREEK-BULGARIAN FRIENDSHIP ASSOCIATION "KIRIL AND METHODI" Address : 84 Alexandrias St, 546 46, Thessaloniki Phone : 2310-414700 FAX : 2310-410733 Contact : President: Vassilis Frankopoulos Contact 2 : Member: Svetlana Georgieva Soultogianni

GEORGIA

GREEK-GEORGIAN CULTURAL ASSOCIATION "CAUCASUS" Address : 40 V. Kostantinou St, 116 35, Athens Phone : 210-7211226 FAX : 210-7211226 Contact : Representative: Avtandil Mikaberidze

MOLDAVIA

GREEK MOLDAVΙAN ASSOCIATION Address : 24 Kanigos Sq, 106 77, Athens Phone : 210-3304762 FAX : 210-3304762 Contact : President: Ion Tsaranu, 6945-484961

POLAND

GREEK-POLISH FRIENDSHIP ASSOCIATION Address : 131 Kifisias Ave, 115 24, Athens Phone : 210-6921916, 7293940 FAX : 210-7235639

115

Contact : President: Giatsek Gkmox, 6944-585819 Contact 2 : Member: Markos Panagiotopoulos

POLISH COMMUNITY INDEPENDENT ASSOCIATION Address : 51 Akominatou St, 104 38, Athens (Vathis Sq) Phone : 210-5245197

SOLIDARITY - POLISH WORKERS IN GREECE Address : 42 Menagia St, 115 24, Athens Phone : 210-8223393 FAX : 210-5244149 Contact : President: Jozef Marchewka Contact 2 : Member: Pantegiouk Mariola

ROMANIA

ROMANIAN COMMUNITY "AGIOS STEFANOS O MEGAS" Address : 6 George St, 106 77, Athens (Kanigos Sq) Phone : 210-6892828 FAX : 210-6892828 Contact : Representative: Georgios Tegos

RUSSIA

RUSSIAN CENTER Address : 50 Pandoras St, Glifada Phone : 210-8947196

SLOVENIA

GREEK-SLOVENIAN FRIENDSHIP ASSOCIATION Address : 9 Kanari St, 151 26 Maroussi Phone : 210-8029095 Contact : Representative: Olga Tsigarida

UKRAINE

GREEK UKRANIAN ASSOCIATION Address : 1 Veranzierou St, Athens Phone : 210-5061406

UKRANIAN ASSOCIATION Address : 10 Filis St, Athens Phone : 210-8259508

FAR EAST PHILIPPINES

AGAPE FILIPINO CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP Address : 5 Timotheontos & Defner St, Kalirois, Athens Phone : 6933-07762 Contact : The Reverend Simon Jularbal

FAR EAST

PHILIPPINES

MUNTING NAYON FILIPINO SCHOOL Address : 18 Mithynis, Athens (Amerikis Sq) Phone : 210-8664527

116

UNITY OF FILIPINO MIGRANT IN GREECE-KASAPI HELLAS Address : Mithminis 18, Athens Phone : 210-8659141 FAX : 210-8664527 Email : [email protected] Contact : President: Jo Valencia Contact 2 : Teresa Dino

LATIN AMERICA GENERAL

ASCLAYE - ALIANZA SOCIO-CULTURAL LATINOAMERICANA Address : 47A Falirou St, 117 42, Koukaki Phone : 210-9232204

CENTRO CULTURAL "MARTIN FIERRO" Address : 83 Spetson St, Athens Phone : 210-8220438 Phone 2 : 210-3226852 FAX : 210-8231266

CUBA

"EL SOL DE CUBA" ASSOCIATION Phone : 210-9641319 Email : [email protected] Contact : Representative: Pilar Schinaki

PANAMA

GREEK-PANAMENIAN CULTURAL UNION Address : 273 Kallergi St, Pireus Phone : 210-4630462 FAX : 210-4630462 Contact : Representative: George Karikas

MIDDLE EAST & N. AFRICA EGYPT

EGYPTIAN COMMUNITY Address : 4 Agathopoleos St, 112 54, Athens Contact : Representative: Giozef Azer 6945-278552

EGYPTIAN COMMUNITY OF GREECE Address : 69 Konitsis St, 152 35, Vrilissia Phone : 210-9401123 Contact : Representative: Magdy Helmy

LIBYA

LYBIAN COMMUNITY Phone : 210-8235810 Contact : Representative: Ali Shakeeb

SYRIA

ASSOCIATION OF SYRIAN MIGRANTS

117

Address : 25 Kritovoulidou St, 104 45, Kato Patisia Phone : 210-8310325 Contact : Representative: Αµπντουλ Καχταν, 6937-739143

TUNISIA

ASSOCIATION OF TUNISIAN IN GREECE Address : 26 Biskini St, 157 73, Zografou Phone : 210-4931276 Phone 2 : 28310-26910, 35568 Contact : Representative: Xamnti Dafer

SOUTH ASIA BANGLADESH

BANGLADESH COMMUNITY IN GREECE Address : 57-61 Evripidou St, 105 54, Omonia Phone : 210-3214022 Contact : Representative: Zainul Abedin

BANGLADESH CULTURAL ORGANISATION Address : 15 Meandrou St, 115 28, Ilissia Phone : 210-7299120 Phone 2 : 210-8643573 Contact : Representative: David Faslul, 6932-781924

BANGLADESHI COMMUNITY Phone : 210-3212132 Phone 2 : 210-8222074 FAX : 210-3210132 Contact : President: Golam Mowla, 6932-018114 Contact 2 : Secretary: Tajul Islam, 6932-791221

BANGLADESHΙ CULTURAL ORGANISATION "SHETU BHANDAN" Address : 31 Eshilou St, 105 54, Athens Phone : 210-8662679 Phone 2 : 6944-828791 Contact : Representative: Tajul Islam, 6932-791221

PAKISTAN

GREEK-PAKISTANI CULTURAL ASSOCIATION Address : 22 Karatja St, 185 34, Piraeus Phone : 210-4138530 FAX : 210-4224519 Contact : President: Saget Tzamil, 6932-381481

PAKISTAN COMMUNITY Phone : 210-2233727 Phone 2 : 6974-961406 Email : [email protected] Contact : Representative: Anwar Iqbal, 6944-951803 Contact 2 : Member: Mohammad Zaman, 6972-233727

118

5. INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR MIGRATION - IOM Address : Dodekanisoy 6, Alimos Phone : 210-9919040, -46 FAX : 210-9910914 Email : [email protected] Contact : Representative: Daniel Esdras

UNHCR Address : Taygetou 23, 154 52, P. Psyxiko Phone : 210-6726462/3 Phone 2 : 210-6726296 Email : [email protected]

UNICEF Address : Ksenias 1,115 27, Athens Phone : 210-7484184 FAX : 210-7783829

6. RESEARCH INSTITUTES

INSTITUTE FOR MIGRATION POLICY (I.ME.PO.) Xaritos 46, Athens Mrs. Psomiadou Eirini Tel.: +3-210-72.55.388 Fax: +3-210-72.55.388 The Institute for Migration Policy was established by the immigtion law L.2910/2001.It is increasingly involved in migration research. It is an important source of information for both Greek and European immigration law. EMPLOYMENT OBSERVATORY RESEARCH-INFORMATICS S.A. – P.A.E.P. S.A. 6-8 K. Palama Str. 111 41 Athens Tel.: +3-210-21.20.700 Fax: +3-210-22.85.122 Website: www.paep.org.gr Mrs. J. Cavounidis – Immigration Researcher Tel.: +3-210-21.20.746 E-mail: [email protected] PAEP is a Greek initiative. It was created from the merger of the National Employment Observatory (Ε.Π.Α.) and the National Employment Institute (E.I.E.). It is activated in the the following fields: Grant of initial vocational training, continuous vocational training, as

119

well as life-long learning to the manpower; carrying out of researches and studies on the labour market and provifing integrated solutions for the computerisation and the statistical monitoring of actions deployed by the OAED and its affiliates. NATIONAL CENTRE FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH 14 -18 Messogheion Av. Athens 115 27 Tel.: +3-210-74.89.131-5 Fax: +3-210-74.89.800 The National Centre for Social Research (EKKE) is the succesor of the Centre of Social Studies (founded in 1959).EKKE is a legal public entity, with its headquarters in Athens, supervised by the Ministry of Development. It is the most significant public agency in the field of social research.The objectives of EKKE are the systematic study of Greek socioeconomic reality and the drawing of comparisons with other countries regarding the formulation and development of social policy.The Centre pursues fertile contact between its researchers and the scientific commnunity in its entirety. The Centre's research staff is composed of scientists from a broad range of specialties and fields of expertise: sociologists, anthropologists, civil scientists, economists, demographers, criminologists, statisticians, historians etc. The administration and scientific staff, with the support of a fully equipped computer center, monitors and continually assesses to assure that the the quality of the work produced is of the highest calibre. INSTITUTE OF URBAN AND RURAL SOCIOLOGY Director: Th. Maloutas Tel.: 210 7489141 Fax: 210 7489143 E-mail: [email protected] Secretariat: A. Giparaki Tel.: 210 7489131 (ext. 122) Fax: 210 7489143 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail (Institute): [email protected] The Institute of Urban and Rural Sociology aims at becoming the basic research agency in urban and rural sociology in Greece. At the same time, it hopes to contribute positively towards the development of communication and collaboration between agencies and researchers in the field at the European and international levels. INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL POLICY Director: I. Sakellis Tel.: 210 7489142 Fax: 210 7489120 E-mail: [email protected] Secretariat: X. Spiropoulou Tel.: 210 7489131 (ext. 421) Fax: 210 7489120 E-mail (Institute): [email protected] The aim of the Institute of Social Policy is to become a hub and point of reference in the research and definition of Greek social policy. The definition of the Institute as such establishes the orientation and developmental axis.

120

INSTITUTE OF POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY Director:D.Charalampis Tel.: 010 7489128 Fax: 010 7489801 E-mail: [email protected] Secretariat: M. Avramopoulou Tel.: 010 7489131 (ext. 225) Fax: 010 7489801 E-mail (Institute): [email protected] The Institute of Political Sociology has as its objective the study of political attitude and political statutes and their reference to the broader social phenomena. Scientific goals and orientation of the Institute: The orientation and target issues of research activities conducted are the following: •

Political system, government, statutes



Mass communication and policy



Political participation, political attitude



Political system and social cohesion

INE/ΓΣΕΕ – RESEARCH INSTITUTE Emm. Benaki 71a Athens 10681 Tel.: +3-210-33.27.710-15 Fax: +3-210-33.04.452 Website: www.inegsee.gr Mr. Kollias Tel.: +3-210-33.27.746-7 E-mail: [email protected] Mr. Petros Rinaldos-Rylmond – Researcher Mr. Robolis – Researcher Mr. Dimitris Katsoridas- Researcher E-mail: [email protected] GREEK ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE - ECOSOC Dr. Gregory T. Papanikos - Secretary General (and Director of the Athens Institute of Education and Research) Amvrosiou Frantzi 9 Athens 11743 Tel.: +3-210-92.49.510-12 E-mail: [email protected] UNIVERSITY OF PATRAS – ECONOMICS DEPARTMENT Professor Charalambos Kassimis – Professor of Rural Sociology Panepistimioupoli-Rio Patras 26504 121

Tel.: +3-2610-996.133 Fax: +3-2610-996.265 E-mail: [email protected] PANTEION UNIVERSITY Professor P. Getimis – Scientific Director of UEHR Aristotelous 14 Kallithea 17671 Tel.: +3-210-92.47.450 Fax: +3-210-92.48.781 E-mail: [email protected] ATHENS UNIVERSITY Tel.: +3-210-72.77000 Professor Kontis

7. FOREIGN LANGUAGE-MEDIA ATHENS NEWS English-language weekly newspaper published on Fridays. Established in 1952, the Athens News regularly covers issues relating to immigrants and refugees. Address : 3 Christou Lada St, 102 37 Athens Phone : 210-3333161 Email : [email protected] Contact : Kathy Tsilivakis

KATHIMERINI ENGLISH EDITION Kathimerini English Edition is the daily English language newspaper printed in Greece and is exlusively available in the International Herald Tribune that is circulated in Greece and i Cyprus. Address : E.Makariou & Falireos 2., N.FALIRO Phone : 210 48 08 000

EUROPE ALBANIA

GAZETTA E ATHINES Weekly Newspaper Address : 3 Polytechniou St, Athens Phone : 210-5243987 ARMENIA

AZAT OR Daily newspaper

Address : 220 Sygrou Ave, 176 72, Athens Phone : 210-9575011 FAX : 210-9572851 Email : [email protected]

122

NOR ASHKHAR Weekly newspaper Address : 88 Systou St, 184 01, Nikea Phone : 210-4926085 BULGARIA

ATENSKI VESTI Address : 3 Polytechniou St, Athens Phone : 210-5244149

BULGARIAN VOICE Weekly newspaper Address : 11 Anaxagora St, Korydalos Phone : 210-4976412

HASIVE Weekly newspaper Address : 11 Anaxagora St, Korydalos Phone : 210-4976412

KONTAKT Weekly newspaper Address : 4 Agiou Konstantinou St, Omonia Phone : 210-5228319

POLAND

KURIER ATENSKI Weekly Polish-language newspaper Address : 3Α Polytechniou St, Athens Phone : 210-5243987 Phone 2 : 210-5247298 Email : [email protected]

ROMANIA

CURIERUL ATENEI Romanian weekly newspaper in Athens Address : 3A Polytechniou St, 104 33 Athens Phone : 210-5243987 FAX : 210-5244149 Email : [email protected] Contact : Andrei Svoronos, journalist

RUSSIA

ATHENS PLUS Weekly newspaper

Address : 26 Menandrou St, Omonia Phone : 210-5228350 Email : www.athensplus.gr

MK-ATHENS COURIER Weekly newspaper

Address : 13 Poseidonos Ave, Alimos Phone : 210-9848499

123

OMONIA Weekly newspaper Address : 3A Polytechniou St, Athens Phone : 210-5244149

LATIN AMERICA GENERAL

'SOL LATINO' Newsletter Address : 14 Parthenonos, Paleo Faliro Contact : Repersentative: Adriana Martinez Farsari

MIDDLE EAST & N. AFRICA AWAZ ATHENS Weekly newspaper

Address : 14 Anaxagora St, Omonia Phone : 210-5202495

NAWA E WATAN Weekly newspaper Address : Ano Fousa, Aspropyrgos Phone : 210-5595030

PANORAMA Fortnightly newspaper Address : 2Α Kefallinias St, Kypseli Phone : 210-8235944

8. GREEK LANGUAGE MEDIA RADIO FILIA Foreign language radiostation programm. Phone : 6944697692 Email : [email protected]

ATHENS NEWS AGENCY Address : 36 Tsocha St, 115 21, Athens Phone : 210-6400560 FAX : 210-6400581 Email : [email protected]

ARMENIAN CHRONICLES Greek-language bimonthly magazine of the Armenian National Committee of Greece Address : 11 Mitropoleos Sq, 105 56, Athens Phone : 210-3220462 FAX : 210-3248448

124

ARMENIKA Greek-language bimonthly magazine of the Azabamart Association Address : 19 28th Octomber St, Vyronas Phone : 210-7640250

MARZASER Greek-language bimonthly edition of the Armenian Athlete's Union - Athens

Address : 120 Sarkudinu St, Athens Phone : 210-9349537

9. Trade Unions ATHENS LABOUR CENTRE Address : 3rd Septemvriou 48Β, 104 33, Αθήνα Phone : 210-8836917/18 FAX : 210-8839271 Email : [email protected] Contact : George Alevizakes

INFORMATION CENTRE FOR WORKERS AND THE UNEMPLOYED (IMMIGRANTS INCLUDED) KEPEA/GSEE Address : 1 Voulgari & Pireos Sts, Athens Phone : 210-5244011 Phone 2 : 210-5245510 Email : [email protected]

PIRAEUS LABOUR CENTRE Address : 19 Skilitsis St, Piraeus Phone : 210-4100830

125

TABLE II: LIST OF THE MAIN NON GOVERNMENTAL INSTITUTIONS AND ORGANISATIONS LEGAL HEALTH POLITICAL NGO SUPPORT EDUCATION CARE LABOUR PARTICIPATION AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL ANTIGONE ECUMENICAL REFUGEE PROGRAMME/ HOLY SYNOD OF THE CHURCH OF GREECE EUROPEAN MIGRATION DIALOGUE EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVE GREEK CITIZENS UNION GREEK COUNCIL FOR REFUGEES GREEK HELSINKI MONITOR HELLINIC RED CROSS HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENCE CENTRE INTERNATIONAL ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN CHARITIES (IOCC) MARANGOPOULOS FOUNDATION FOR HUMAN RIGHTS MEDECINS DU MONDE MEDECINS SANS FRONTIERES MINORITY RIGHTS GROUP GREECE MISSIONARIES OF CHARITY NETWORK FOR SOCIAL SUPPORT OF REFUGEES AND IMMIGRANTS INTERNATIONAL CATHOLIC MIGRATION COMMISSION SOS RACISM VOLUNTARY WORK OF ATHENS SOCIAL WORK FOUNDATION (Ι.Κ.Ε.) HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENSE CENTRE CITIZEN MOVEMENT AGAINST RACISM MINORITY MOVEMENT FOR HUMAN AND MINORITY RIGHTS ECUMENICAL PROGRAM FOR REFUGEES GREEK OMBUDSMAN ΤHE EUROPEAN MONITORING CENTRE ON RACISM AND XENOPHOBIA (EUMC)









√ √ √ √ √ √ √

√ √ √ √

√ √ √









√ √ √





















√ √

√ √

√ √ √ √ √

√ √ √ √

√ √

√ √





√ √

√ √





√ √ √

√ √ √





126