Greece and the right to citizenship
Want to become a Greek citizen? Sorry, only if you score behind the three-point line…
by Anna Gkiouleka
The recent story of a young basketball player, who acquired Greek nationality due to his talent, has been a hot topic in the local media for the last few days. The story exposes the Greek State’s dominant discriminatory ideology and raises more general questions about citizenship rights and migration policies inside Europe.
The success story
At first, I would like to describe the story briefly. Giannis Antetokounmpo, is a 18- year-old man, a Nigerian descendant. He was born in Greece, but until May he did not have any citizenship or passport (he was considered to be a stateless person), as it happens to almost all second-generation immigrants in Greece.
What is special with him is the fact that he is a potential NBA all-star talent. Last Thursday, he was picked at the 15th position in the NBA draft by Milwaukee Bucks. Since that night, the photo of Giannis celebrating his success waving the Greek flag is everywhere in the press, television and on-line media, and everyone feels the right to speak about him. The prime minister himself invited Giannis to his office to congratulate him.
Only two months ago, when Giannis had no passport, this success would seem like an illusion, not because Giannis had a lack of talent, but because he had a lack of travelling documents. Fortunately, NBA sports agents showed their interest in the young boy on time. This was the sole fact which could give a good reason to the Greek side to put forward his citizenship application.
Citizenship law in Greece
Unfortunately, Giannis is an exceptional case. Greece presents one of the strictest legal frameworks for citizenship acquisition in Europe. This framework is based mainly on the principle of jus sanguinis, which means that a person is eligible for acquiring the Greek citizenship when he/she can claim to be descent of Greek parents. In reference to migrants who cannot claim Greek origin, even if they are born in Greece, the state only recognizes the right to long-term residence permission, which however, is given only after certain requirements are met.
One of these requirements refers to the existence of legal residence permission for the last five years before one applies for the long- term permission. However, the majority of second-generation immigrants, although they may have been born or lived in Greece for most of their life, often do not have the required legal permission to stay in the country.
This happens either due to the ignorance of their parents, either due to the fact that they lost their legal permission because it had been acquired with an older legal framework and mainly due to the reluctance of the Greek state to provide immigrants with clear and understandable information about their responsibilities and the rules that apply for them. As a result, the majority of such people remain without legal papers, and when they come at the age of eighteen not only cannot they apply for long-term residence permission or for university attendance, but also they face the threat of expulsion.
Racism as a barrier ahead of law-making
At the same time, racism and discrimination have settled their foot inside the Greek society. The existence of the far-right “Golden Dawn” in the parliament and the alarming increase in incidents of racist violence are the explicit forms of the problem. The implicit forms of prejudice and racism lie in the political discourse of the mainstream parties, in the media discourse but also in the minds of a big share of the people.
In this frame, any serious attempt for the formation of a legal framework which would promote the integration of the immigrants in the Greek society is quickly abandoned. This is what has happened recently with the legal plan known as “citizenship law” introduced by the former government. “Citizenship law” was a big step towards a more progressive integration policy as it provided immigrants with civil rights, participation in organizations and local elections and made the procedure of citizenship acquisition a feasible option for the second-generation immigrants. Unfortunately, this law was not only abolished by the current government but also this abolition was promoted as an example of the decisiveness of the government to defend the rights of the native Greeks “who are threatened by the immigrants”. The prime minister himself has promised to “clean the neighborhoods from the clandestine immigrants” in his pre-election campaign and after his success he is the one who assigned ministers of far-right ideology in critical ministries like Health Ministry and Ministry of Justice.
The case from different(?) viewpoints
Considering all the above, Giannis’ success was enough to bring the issue of second-generation immigrants to the spotlight again. The pro-immigrants organizations used his case to state again how important it is to recognize the right of citizenship to all the young individuals who remain without papers. They support their argument saying that these children feel that Greece is their motherland and do the best they can for it. On the other hand, mainstream parties used Giannis case to gain some extra publicity. The photo of the prime minister congratulating the young man has definitely reached some American newspapers and websites. Those loyal to their nationalist ideology, question the procedure with which Giannis managed to acquire the Greek passport. The responsible ministry have made a public announcement to make clear that Giannis acquired citizenship and passport following the legal procedure in which the state has intervened only to expedite it, as they do for any exceptional case like when a second-generation immigrant needs to travel for health reasons; and that this time it was for the good of the country.
But what do we understand if we read between these lines? The rhetoric of the opposing sides is not dramatically different. The pro-immigrants side – without probably realizing it- sets a “moral” requirement to the immigrants. They build their argumentation in favor of giving the citizenship right to the second-generation immigrants based on the fact that these children recognize no other motherland than Greece. They use the image of Giannis with the Greek flag as an evidence for his loyalty to this motherland. One wonders, if Giannis had chosen to keep also the Nigerian flag or no flag, what would this mean? Would there be any proof for his “loyalty”? Would he deserve the Greek citizenship then or not?
On the other side, the prime minister’s behaviour and the statement of the ministry make clear that the Greek state will guarantee rights for immigrants only in exceptional cases. When it is a matter of life or death or when the state itself has a clear benefit from it, only then a young individual will be considered eligible to Greek citizenship. Only in exceptional cases, immigrants will be treated as equal and will be respected, in all other cases they will be described as “intruders” and as “intruders” they will be treated.
Both sides, in a way seem to put the responsibility on the weakest chain link, on the immigrants. One side expresses the obligation of “loyalty” and “love for the motherland” while the other highlights the benefits for the state. The issue raises critical questions that go beyond Giannis’ personal story. The issue of citizenship is approached only from the aspect of “who deserves to have it” but maybe the right approach would be from the aspect of “who deserves to share it”. Who is the one who can set the rules? And since when citizenship has become a reward for being “loyal” or “benefiting”? Why do some individuals have to prove that they deserve a citizenship right and others do not? Probably, most European citizens born inside Europe have never thought of how it would be to be born without citizenship. As they probably do not wonder how it would be to be born without legs, eyes or mouth. However, Someone has decided that they deserve their citizenship and it is the one who has also decided that some others do not. Probably it is time to see, who is this Someone and which are his motives…
Anna Gkiouleka has lived in Greece, Egypt and the Netherlands and she has been involved with non-governmental sector with a special focus on immigrants’ integration and minorities’ rights. She endorses the values of “Process Oriented Psychology” and she has an experience in facilitating experiential workshops and self-development groups. She has been an active blogger for the last five years and she currently runs her own blog “greekcrisisreview”. Her interests lie in the fields of migration, national identity, nationalism and the rise of extreme right in Europe.
Πηγή: one-europe