Irregularisation as a process reproduced through the asylum system in Greece
Sign at the entrance of the first wing of Amygdaleza detention center in Attika Source: Wikimedia Commons
by: Eva Papatzani, George Kandylis, Penny Koutrolikou, Panos Hatziprokopiou, | National Centre for Social Research, EKKE
In the context of return migration from Greece, whether considered through the legal and institutional framework or the research on the ‘Return Migration Infrastructures’, the issue of regularity versus irregularity is inescapable. Irregularity has become a central concept in dominant public discourses about migration, often defined in opposition to regularity—or, more specifically, legality. By equating irregularity with illegality, this binary logic is used to stigmatize migrants as ‘threats’ to national and EU social and political structures. This oversimplification, however, neglects the complex ways in which irregularity is not simply a status but a process shaped by laws and institutional practices.
Our research, conducted within the framework of the GAPs project, seeks to contribute to the return migration debate by revealing that irregularity is not a fixed condition but a product of the migration and asylum system itself. Irregularity is constantly reproduced through formal and informal practices, embedded in evolving migration policies and procedures. We argue that irregularity is best understood not as a status but as a broader, dynamic process of irregularisation, which complicates the return migration framework. Rather than viewing irregularity as an isolated category, our study highlights how migrants—both regular and irregular—are entangled in a sequence of statuses, navigating a system that produces and perpetuates irregularity through its legal and procedural complexities.
The concept of irregularisation makes a significant contribution to the return migration debate by challenging the linear narrative that views irregular migrants solely as subjects to be removed. Instead, our research, particularly in the context of Greece, emphasizes the role of the asylum system in creating and sustaining irregularity, sometimes even for individuals who initially enter the country in a ‘regular’ manner. Irregularisation involves not only official actions but also informal practices developed by migrants, even those with regular status, in response to the unpredictable and often opaque legal landscape they face. This process unfolds on multiple levels—spatial, temporal, and carceral—and intersects with broader European migration governance, contributing to a deeper understanding of how return migration is shaped by ongoing legal and procedural uncertainties.
In Greece, irregularisation has been a feature of the immigration system since the 1990s, when the country transitioned from being an emigration country to one of immigration. Restrictive migration policies, complicated residency procedures, the lack of integration measures, and aggressive policing practices (such as ‘sweep operations’, arrests and deportations) have all contributed to creating temporary and shifting statuses of regularity and irregularity for migrants. Detention has played a pivotal role in this process, becoming a central pillar of both migration management and return governance.
However, the phenomenon of irregularisation is not confined to the past. It continues to evolve, especially in light of recent changes to the asylum system since 2015-2016. These revisions have created a “multifaceted labyrinth” of procedures that migrants must navigate, with some individuals ultimately left in a state of irregularity despite having initiated asylum claims in good faith. This evolving situation is crucial to the return migration discourse. Asylum procedures, while offering a potential route to protection, also produce irregularity, especially when claims are rejected, or applicants are caught in legal limbo due to systemic delays or ambiguities.
The spatial and temporal dimensions of irregularisation vary significantly depending on the point in the asylum process. For example, irregularisation can begin during the initial registration of an asylum claim, either at the border or within Greece, leaving applicants vulnerable to detention or exclusion from protection. The implementation of the safe third-country rule further complicates this, as it deems many asylum applications inadmissible, particularly since the suspension of readmissions to Turkey in 2020. Thousands of asylum seekers have been left in a legal grey zone, exposed to detention, exclusion, and irregularity.
Irregularisation also plays out across the entire asylum procedure. Delays in asylum decisions, failure to notify applicants of rejections, and the coexistence of conflicting legal frameworks—especially in relation to return governance—create an environment where even those who previously acquired a regular legal status can become irregularised. This complexity has significant implications for return migration, as it reflects how the intention to return migrants often leads to their irregularisation. Instead of a straightforward process of identifying irregular migrants and returning them, our research suggests that return governance is often more about creating and maintaining irregular statuses through legal and institutional mechanisms.
Our study emphasizes the spatiality of irregularisation, showing how borders—both external and internal—are reproduced and extended through asylum and migration policies. In Greece, spaces of irregularisation are defined through the asylum system itself, encompassing detention centers, reception facilities, and refugee accommodation sites. These spaces blur the lines between legal and illegal, regular and irregular, creating a spectrum of migrant experiences that reflect the broader process of irregularisation. Time, too, is essential in understanding irregularisation. The fluidity of asylum procedures, marked by shifting deadlines, waiting periods, and temporal discontinuities, underscores the experience of irregularity as something that evolves throughout a migrant’s trajectory, from initial entry to eventual return.
Through the lens of the GAPs project, this research offers a critical contribution to the return migration debate by illustrating that irregularisation is not merely a consequence of migration laws but an active process that shapes the experiences of migrants and influences return governance. Rather than viewing return migration as a linear process, we argue that the intention to remove migrants is often what triggers the creation of irregularity, leading to a recursive cycle where irregularity itself becomes a tool of governance. This perspective challenges conventional understandings of return migration, highlighting the complex, multi-layered nature of migration governance and the central role of irregularisation in shaping return outcomes.
Contact:
Eva Papatzani | Research Associate and Co-Principal Investigator, National Centre for Social Research, EKKE, | epapatzani@ekke.gr
George Kandylis | Senior Research Fellow and Co-Principal Investigator, National Centre for Social Research, EKKE | gkandyli@ekke.gr
Penny Koutrolikou | Associate Professor, National Technical University of Athens & National Centre for Social Research, EKKE | pkoutrolikou@arch.ntua.gr
Panos Hatziprokopiou | Associate Professor, School of Spatial Planning and Development, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki & National Centre for Social Research, EKKE | pmchatzi@plandevel.auth.gr