ľ�ϸ���Ӱ��

People are sleeping on the street in Ter Apel, in the Netherlands. Provisional tent camps arise and are taken away, the phrase ‘refugee crisis’ is back in the news. Calling it a ‘crisis’ is a myth, say researchers. Migration will always happen – human mobility is a constant and dynamic phenomenon in the globalized world. “When migration is experienced as a crisis, the migrants themselves become the personification of the crisis”, argues Vassilis Gerasopoulos who recently obtained his PhD on a dissertation in the field of criminology on the post-2015 realities of the migration 'crisis' in the Greek context. 

We keep focusing on migrants, you say we should look at the host society Why? 

Because we keep seeing people through unhelpful stereotypes. They are either the idealized subject of solidarity or the demonized manifestation of a threat. They are a ‘problem’ that needs ‘a solution’ and that’s not fair. We should consider people active agents of their lives. Migrants want to build a better life for themselves. European institutions seem unwilling to refrain from treating migrants as a commodity that has to be managed, controlled, blamed or rejected.

We should try to understand the relationship with the migrant-Other. What he or she means to us is fluid and depends on the context, the time and space in which we meet - we should accept that. Do we have a loaded history with the country from which they come from? Do we think we are better off than they are – and why? Because they came to us? Do we feel close to them due to their culture, religion, political beliefs, or not.? In Greece people tend to feel closer to Syrians than other refugees, because some of them are Christian Orthodox. When do we, as a host society, think that migrants are entitled to or not deserve social protection? 

They are a ‘problem’ that needs ‘a solution’ and that’s not fair. We should consider people active agents of their lives.

How does the concept of necro-politics play a role? By necro-politics we refer to processes that ascribe meaning to life or death, to governmental practices that define who matters and who does not, whose life is disposable and whose is not. Are there racist tendencies in our way of thinking? What is the influence of the growing populist arguments? Let’s be critical of ourselves. When we create migration policies, we should consider all those questions. I think of migration as a recipe: we need to define the ingredients, to deal with it properly. Even though that is hard.

You argue that the hundred and thousands of migrants that passed through Greece in 2015 forced the Greek to take a long hard look in the mirror?

Yes, you tend to evaluate your own life, when you see people trying to make theirs better. Do we let them in? Or not? The timing of the migration movements was unlucky, but not unexpected, after the war broke out in Syria. The Greek society, though, was still recovering from the government-debt crisis, the European financial reforms and austerity measures. People were struggling, maybe they wished to place themselves above the migrants? But the question arose: are the Greek people, symbolically and materially, better off than the arriving migrants? Aren’t the Greek people – as the host society - supposed to be better off? How valuable is one’s own life in this neoliberal capitalist society? The Greek people were angry at politicians, institutions and at migrants too. Refugees were helped by many, out of solidarity. But they were also easy targets for unresolved anger. Encountering a migrant can potentially shake one’s beliefs and one’s sense of self.

Encountering a migrant can potentially shake one’s beliefs and one’s sense of self.

Nowadays most countries in Europe are in dire need of workers. Do you think the discourse will change?

I’m not sure. We’ve been exhausted by border measures, by pushbacks, by sad images on the news regarding refugees. It’s hard to shift the discourse. I hope we can have new debates about the appropriate treatment of people on the move. There is a willful defensive ignorance towards the potential benefits of interacting with the migrant-Other. We still don’t highlight the many material, financial and cultural benefits that the presence of migrants brings. I was in Iceland, as a tourist, recently and our Icelandic guide asked me: what is this “Dublin Agreement” and what does it stand for? He couldn’t understand that Iceland, after 2 years of COVID was expected to send migrants back to the country to which they first applied for asylum. Iceland needs construction workers, carpenters, plumbers, doctors, and teachers. Like most countries in Europe. So the provisions of the Dublin regulation are not contributing to the solution of these needs on the ground but insists on placing an unfair burden to the countries of first entry.

Simultaneously, the EU-Turkey deal is even more obscure and legally problematic. This deal has been alleged to be an agreement between heads of State. So, legally speaking, no European Institution can be held accountable for the human rights violations that occur in the implementation of the Deal. When asylum seekers turned to the General Court of the European Union challenging the legality of the EU Turkey Deal, the Court decided that it lacked jurisdiction. So where do migrants turn to when their rights are infringed upon?

You are Greek yourself. What was it like to write your dissertation on this topic?

“I was doing my master’s programme in the Netherlands during 2014 and 2015, so I was living here, observing the migration ‘crisis’ Greece from a distance which helped me to focus and un-focus on my home country and on the subject itself. Sometimes I looked at the migration discussions as a Greek citizen, sometimes as a “European” or “someone living in Western Europe”. Of course I talked to my family and friends about it. I think I already knew I wanted to study the topic in more detail, it was fascinating me.”

The topic also inspired me to realize how insightful it can be to study the societal reactions to migration movements through a criminological lens. I already had a degree in law, so I aware of the legal and policy parameters of the topic but I believed that there are many more components to analyze. That is why I like the way criminology is studied here in Utrecht ľ�ϸ���Ӱ�� - incorporating elements of sociology and anthropology. What drew me to the perspective of critical and global criminology – as it is taught here - is that criminology explores what happens before “law”. Who breaks the rule and why? Who creates the rules and what are the aims and the agendas behind such rule-making? What do we consider to be deviant or criminal behavior?  Moreover, criminology also studies what comes “after” law.: What do we do as a society when people break the rules? How do we treat them?

What amazes me, as well as many other migration scholars, is that nothing seems to substantially change. You wonder: will it ever change?

Are you tired of the subject, now that you’ve obtained your PhD?

Tired? No, I hope to stay active in the Migration and Societal Change focus area of Utrecht ľ�ϸ���Ӱ�� and in the RENFORCE research group. But what amazes me, as well as many other migration scholars, is that nothing seems to substantially change in the way governments and host societies deal with the topic.  You wonder: will it ever change? The reactions are, within the Greek and European context, remarkably consistent over time. Migration policies, political discourse and public opinion on migration remain fixated on the same principles: deterrence, securitization, defensive and hostile attitudes, and categorisation of those who do and do not deserve international legal protection. An alternative response might be to seriously consider the available scholarship on the shortcomings of migration policies, to deconstruct populist, nationalist and racist myths, and to highlight the many material, financial and cultural benefits that the presence of migrants brings.