The government of New Democracy is listening attentively to concerns regarding the uncontrolled flow of immigration, having realized in a timely manner the thorny and critical emerging issue, which affects Greek and, more broadly, European borders.
The fact that Greece has clearly defined borders, which are guarded by the highly trained personnel of the armed forces, which guarantee the territorial integrity of our homeland, is an objective reality recognized by all, as is indeed the case with all nation-states around the world.
Consequently, the phenomenon of historical migration did not arise under New Democracy government but is the result of a succession of interlinked political and economic factors over time, hence each host country, based on its economic capabilities and, at times, its needs, chooses the appropriate immigration policy, which will appropriately serve, on the one hand, the fundamental rights of migrants and, on the other hand, public order and security in the respective host country.
There is, of course, a wealth of legislation and international conventions that distinguish between the concept of refugee, from that of an economic migrant from third countries, and there are diverse existing legal provisions that regulate the prerequisites which must be cumulatively met (financial requirements, criminal record, health standards) so that, on the one hand, their human rights are safeguarded out of necessity, (whether due to economic hardship or the hardships of war) and, on the other hand, to ensure, in turn, the public order of the host country.
Therefore, the phenomenon of migration throughout Europe, as well as globally, constitutes an inescapable and unavoidable reality, which has a dual purpose: on the one hand, toward safeguarding the well-being and security of the migrant population—that is, the refugees—and, on the other hand, toward protecting national security and public order for the native population.
For this reason, the law establishes a distinction and strictly enforces certain conditions for immigrants and refugees; on the other hand, those who violate the law—or, in other words, undocumented individuals who either enter the country illegally or commit criminal offenses—are subject to criminal and administrative penalties, including sentences of imprisonment and deportation from the country where they committed the offense.
The concept of immigration is governed by rules designed both to safeguard the value of human life and to protect citizens within nation-states, hence, whatever the minority opposition has argued vaguely thus far is divorced from the objective reality of the situation, since it is entirely and completely devoid any rational and lawful basis; for instead of a relentlessly realistic, as well as specific and thoroughly substantiated approach to this thorny phenomenon, it indulges, without restraint, in outdated and haphazard conspiracy theories of a utopian nature regarding the abolition of borders, without, however, presenting any rational, legally or jurisprudentially substantiated counterproposal, in line with European standards and in accordance with UN principles.
In other words, the major and minor opposition parties, beyond their phony populist rhetoric—a form of extreme demagogicpopulism aimed at winning votes from their extreme, easily swayed—though politically ungrounded— electoral base—it turns its back, both in word and thought, on the Greek people , dismissing the inherently complex phenomenon of migration and merely regurgitating sterile, stereotypical, rhetorical clichés about racism, the far right, and so on , painfully avoiding pointing the finger at the root of the problem, taking a responsible stance, and directly accounting for the effective resolution of this pressing issue.
The drift of the major and minor opposition toward willful blindness and burying their heads in the sand, and their silence regarding the onerous networks of smugglers, demonstrates time and again their lack of a serious political counterproposal on the immigration issue as a whole, at the very moment when European societies, regardless of party or ideological orientation, are rapidly boiling over and suffocating, since, without a doubt, the much-touted experiment of multicultural societies and the illusory vision of a global society with borders abolished once and for all, in the guise of a falsely sentimental, populist rhetoric, has come crashing down with a deafening roar.
In conclusion, a comprehensive overview of the current migration crisis, at its core, demands groundbreaking and radical decisions—on the one hand, with due respect for international conventions, EU law, the constitutional legal order, and fundamental human rights, and on the other hand, the appropriate, measured, and uncompromising realism, to ensure social peace, public order, and security, as well as to safeguard the cultural character and identity of the respective nation-state.
In short, New Democracy is the only party that, by rejecting ideological rigidity, and short-sighted adherence to political dogmas, is moving resolutely and unwaveringly toward the implementation of a modern immigration policy guided by security and human dignity, evaluating, weighing, considering, and taking into account the facts and the pressing needs of societies, sometimes disregarding the political cost, provided that it produces the necessary results in the long term, for society, immigrants, and nations.
* Charalambos V. Katsivardas is an attorney admitted to the Supreme Court and the Council of State, and an independent member of parliament
