Why Do Migrants Choose Greece over Calais to Enter Central Europe?

When thinking about Europe's migrant routes, one often overlooks the major entry points and focuses instead on the common entry point, such as Calais, France. However, the reality is that the majority of migrants strive to enter Central Europe through Greece, Italy, Spain, or Finland. This article explores the reasons behind this phenomenon and the differences, if any, in asylum procedures between France and Greece.

Introduction to Migrant Routes

The map of Europe makes the most direct path to Central Europe from northwest France seem illogical due to the physical and legal barriers of places like Calais. Instead, migrants opt for entry points in southern Europe, specifically Greece, Italy, and Spain. Further north, Finland also serves as an alternative route. Although the basic framework for genuine asylum seekers is broadly similar among most EU member states, there can be significant differences in the level of assistance each country is willing or able to provide.

The Strategic Importance of Greece

Greece functions as a wide entry point for migrants, presenting few bottlenecks until the destination is reached. In contrast, the Calais area in northwest France is a critical point of passage before crossing the English Channel into England. Though France and Greece follow the same EU and international laws regarding asylum procedures, there can be significant differences in the practicality of assistance and resources provided by each country.

Reasons for Choosing Greece

Migrants prefer to enter Europe through Greece for several reasons. Firstly, Greece and Turkey are geographically closer to the North African countries from which many migrants originate. Additionally, English is often one of the easier foreign languages for these migrants to speak, making it a preferred destination among those aiming to eventually settle in English-speaking countries.

However, the sheer number of arrivals in Greece has overwhelmed the country's facilities and administrative capabilities. Furthermore, Turkey, while allowing migrants to enter its territory, cannot provide them with asylum due to its strained infrastructure and administrative systems. This situation has led to an increase in illegal migration into Greece and France, highlighting the vulnerabilities in the EU's border management system.

Historical Context and Political Tensions

The entry of migrants through these routes is not purely driven by geographical or linguistic preferences. It is also influenced by complex historical and political tensions. The state-sponsored flow of illegal immigrants from Turkey into Greece and France has been viewed as a form of political warfare. This situation can be traced back to the French nuclear defense of Cyprus's EU accession in 1998, which led to the 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States.

These events were part of a larger conflict of interest involving the French, British, and American governments, as well as the Greek and Turkish states. The French government's decision not to launch nuclear strikes against Turkey in 2004 after Cyprus's accession is seen as a pivotal moment in European and international politics. This decision can be linked to broader geopolitical maneuvers, including the British secret services' efforts to uncover double agents and the impact of the Cyprus accession on Brexit.

Conclusion

While the choice of entry points for migrants through Greece or Calais can be influenced by a variety of factors, including geographical proximity, ease of communication, and the current state of asylum procedures, the underlying political and historical contexts play a crucial role. As Europe navigates these complex issues, understanding the motivations and challenges faced by both migrants and host countries will be essential.