On July 10, Greece took a dramatic step in reshaping its migration policy. Thanos Plevris, the Greek Minister for Migration, announced new legislation that would deny asylum to anyone arriving on Greek shores after crossing the Mediterranean from Africa.
“Greece will not tolerate the uncontrolled entry of thousands of irregular migrants from North Africa,” Plevris declared in a televised interview.
The reaction was swift. Human rights organisations condemned the policy as illegal, warning it violated international and EU laws. The Plenary of Greek Bar Associations joined the criticism, stating that blocking the right to asylum directly breaches Europe’s legal commitments.
While Greece was tightening its border policy, across the continent, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer unveiled what he called a “ground-breaking deal” with France. The agreement aims to target small boats and human smuggling networks, sending, in Starmer’s words, “a clear message that these life-threatening journeys are pointless.”
The UK–France deal, however, faced immediate backlash. From left-wing activists to humanitarian groups, critics warned of dangerous consequences. Doctors Without Borders labelled it “reckless” and “ill-fated,” while the Migrants’ Rights Network argued it would fail to stop people from attempting the perilous journey.
Read More: Canada Faces Setback as US Border Policies Threaten World Cup Plans
The EU’s Unfinished Business from 2015
To understand why these new measures are unlikely to succeed, we need to revisit the summer of 2015. The European Union was caught unprepared as conflict and instability in the Middle East and Africa drove unprecedented migration.
The rise of ISIS, Syria’s brutal civil war, and decades of instability in Afghanistan sent hundreds of thousands seeking refuge in Europe. This period, often referred to as “the long summer of migration”, became known as the refugee crisis.
Yet the EU had no clear plan in place. The European Agenda for Migration, adopted just months earlier in May 2015, had never been tested in practice. As a result, policy responses across member states were reactive, inconsistent, and often focused more on border control than humanitarian protection.
The Politics of Fear and Division
Fast-forward to today, and the language of crisis still dominates European migration debates.
In Greece, the “crisis” narrative has been used since 2015 to justify harsh deterrence measures—from pushbacks at sea to restricting asylum rights. For the current neoliberal government, migration is portrayed as a blemish on its record of economic recovery and stability.
In the UK, the story takes a slightly different shape. Migration is frequently framed in ways that fuel far-right sentiment and appeal to voters concerned about border security. But in both countries, the political function of migration policy is the same: to project control, even if it comes at the expense of humanitarian obligations.
Borrowing from the Far-Right Playbook
Neither of these migration strategies can be viewed in isolation from the broader rise of far-right politics across Europe.
Both governments adopt language that criminalises migrants and portrays them as a security threat.
In Greece, the Migration Minister repeatedly invokes the image of an “invasion” from Africa, a trope long used by far-right groups. The policy’s stated goal is to reinforce borders so that only so-called “real refugees”—a subjective and politically loaded term—can access European protection.
In the UK, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper warns that small boats risk “undermining border security”, echoing a framing that treats migration primarily as a threat, not a humanitarian challenge.
The Border as a Fortress
Though the political contexts of Greece, the EU, and the UK differ, their migration policies share striking similarities in design and rhetoric.
Both treat the border as a security barrier to be defended, and the migrant as a potential invader. The term “illegal migrant” has gained prominence in official discourse, despite the fact that seeking asylum is a legal right under international law.
This approach creates an “us versus them” narrative. Migrants are seen as a faceless mass, stripped of individuality and reduced to their migratory status. Governments decide who counts as a “worthy” refugee and who is deemed undesirable—with the latter facing expulsion and exclusion.
By framing migration as a security crisis, these policies manufacture fear and harden public opinion against newcomers.
Why Deterrence Fails
The central problem with deterrence-based migration policy is that it ignores the root causes of migration. People risk their lives crossing seas and deserts because they face war, persecution, poverty, and environmental collapse.
No threat of detention or deportation can outweigh the desperation driving them to leave home. In fact, research shows that restrictive policies often push migrants toward more dangerous routes, increasing—not decreasing—deaths at borders.
The 2015 refugee arrivals were not a failure of migrants to respect borders; they were a failure of the European border system to respond humanely and effectively. The so-called “refugee crisis” was, in reality, a crisis of the European border itself—a crisis created by inadequate planning, political infighting, and an unwillingness to share responsibility across the continent.
Toward a Humane Migration Policy
If Greece and the UK truly want to reduce dangerous crossings, the solution is not more fences, more patrols, or harsher asylum rules. Instead, they must focus on safe and legal migration pathways—humanitarian visas, expanded resettlement programs, and bilateral agreements that respect international law.
This requires a shift from fear-based politics to evidence-based policy, acknowledging that migration has been—and will continue to be—a constant in human history.
The question is not whether migration happens, but how governments choose to manage it: through cruelty and exclusion, or through protection and integration.
Frequently Asked Questions:
What does “Europe’s deadly border drama” refer to?
It refers to the recurring humanitarian crisis at Europe’s borders, where thousands of migrants and refugees risk dangerous journeys—often across the Mediterranean—facing deadly conditions, pushbacks, and restrictive asylum policies.
Why is the crisis described as “returning”?
Although the peak migration wave of 2015 has passed, recent policies in countries like Greece and the UK signal a renewed cycle of harsh deterrence measures, leading to heightened risks for migrants.
What role does Greece play in the current border crisis?
Greece has introduced legislation denying asylum to those arriving from North Africa by sea, drawing criticism for violating EU and international law.
How is the UK involved in this issue?
The UK recently signed a deal with France to stop small boats from crossing the Channel, focusing on disrupting smuggling networks but facing backlash from human rights groups.
Why do human rights groups oppose these policies?
They argue that deterrence does not stop migration—it forces people onto more dangerous routes, increasing deaths and human suffering.
What happened during the 2015 refugee crisis?
Conflict in Syria, the rise of ISIS, and instability in Afghanistan and Africa drove hundreds of thousands to seek refuge in Europe, overwhelming border systems and sparking divisive political debates.
Why is migration deterrence considered ineffective?
Because people fleeing war, persecution, or poverty often see no alternative but to leave—no matter the risk. Restrictive policies rarely address the root causes of migration.
Conclusion
Europe’s renewed border crisis highlights the persistent tension between national security policies and humanitarian responsibilities. While governments in Greece, the UK, and other nations tighten measures to deter irregular migration, these strategies often push desperate people toward even more perilous routes, perpetuating a cycle of tragedy. History has shown—most notably during the 2015 refugee crisis—that deterrence alone cannot resolve migration pressures rooted in war, persecution, and poverty.
