Following the recent legislative regulation of the Greek government in its attempt to tackle the disproportionately high illegal arrivals from eastern Libya, there have been a series of legal arguments about the constitutionality of this regulation, with reputable lawyers on both sides “crossing their swords.” I suspect that the legality of this initiative is expected to be judged in the halls of the Council of State and/or the European Court of Human Rights, as is the case when ambiguities and complex legal issues arise that have an impact on the everyday lives of citizens.
However, what seems self-evident in the Western world and European civilization—namely, the judicial process and the judgment of legitimacy within the framework of the rule of law—is a luxury for the residents of many countries beyond the European continent, especially with what this implies for the rights of migrants and refugees these countries host on their territories.
Selective outrage: Ignoring abuses beyond Europe’s borders
Recently, the Iranian regime decided to forcibly expel and return to Afghanistan 1.4 million Afghans, both first and second generation, adopting tactics of violent repatriation and following the example of the Pakistani government, which in the last 24 months has returned, following an agreement with Kabul, around 500,000 Afghans to their homes. In addition, communist China, with a population of 1.411 billion, which has ratified the 1951 Geneva Convention, considers its implementation optional, granting only 296 refugee statuses in the entire year 2023, while its standard policy is to return rejected North Korean asylum seekers back to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea! (The Economist, 2025).
At the same time, there are millions of migrant workers in the Arab world suffering under inhumane and exploitative conditions, often deprived of legal remedy or even basic human rights. They are geographically restricted, confined to forced labor, and subjected to abuse, whereas stateless groups are systematically excluded, with no access to education, medical care, or legality.
The paradox is that for the above cases, which clearly constitute emblematic instances of circumvention of international law, the reactions from the international community are isolated and limited to sporadic statements by high-ranking officials on the necessity of finding a compromise solution between the states involved, ignoring the drama of thousands of people. Indicatively, the Head of the International Organization for Migration in Afghanistan, M. Park, stated recently in the international edition of The New York Times that: “we have to recognize that Iran has accommodated lots of Afghans and has the right to decide who can stay and who cannot… But we demand that they be treated in a dignified manner” (The New York Times, 2025). To make matters worse, these situations seldom find their way into mainstream advocacy reports, which most vigorously address Europe’s perceived shortcomings.
It is therefore evident that there is a biased public projection of the way illegal migration is managed in Greece and in Europe in general, in contrast to the superficial criticism that the actions of authoritarian regimes—especially Arab ones and those under the influence of theocratic constraints—receive on the same issue. In the deeply polarized debate about migration and human rights, this humanitarian selectivity presents an alarming double standard trend distorting the debate and preventing frank exchanges on sovereignty, national security, and management of illegal migration.
The bleak situation for migrants and stateless persons in the Arab world
The experience of migrants and stateless individuals in the Arab world is typically shrouded in secrecy, yet it is a grisly reality that exists in stark contradiction with the narratives channeled by the majority of global activist groups.
In Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Kuwait, migrant workers from South Asia and Africa are exposed to the “kafala system,” which ties their legal status to their sponsors and employers. The “kafala system” practically disempowers workers, exposing them to forced labor, non-payment of wages, confiscation of passports, and adverse working and living conditions. Some reports have indicated situations where workers are trapped in exploitation without any ability to escape or seek help without being detained or deported (Human Rights Watch, 2023; Amnesty International, 2022). For example, an investigation of the working environment at Saudi Arabia’s Neom megaproject revealed at least a dozen unexplained deaths of Nepali migrant laborers, for which neither compensation nor death certificates were provided to their families—signs of a systemic lack of regulation (Associated Press, 2023).
Similarly, a total of 132,000 individuals is estimated to live in conditions of modern slavery within the UAE alone, with frequent cases of heatstroke, fatal accidents, and compelled overtime—most significantly in the construction sector (Amnesty International, 2023; Global Slavery Index, 2022). Instances of Gulf authorities routinely attributing migrant worker deaths to “natural causes” or “cardiac arrest,” with no autopsy or investigation, have been reported and increasingly challenged by labor observers (FairSquare, 2022).
In addition, stateless groups such as the Bidoon in Iraq and Kuwait face additional institutional exclusion. Without citizenship, they are denied education, healthcare, lawful employment, or political rights. An estimated 92,000 Bidoon are stuck in limbo in Kuwait, where members of their community are undocumented, rights-less, or even officially unrecognized (UNHCR, 2023; Human Rights Watch, 2022). Various reports have accounted for excessive levels of psychological distress, isolation, and even suicide among Bidoon youth due to persistent exclusion and social isolation (UNHCR, 2023).
The destiny of migrants from war-torn nations such as Sudan, Yemen, and Libya adds another dimension to this human catastrophe. Migrants are often exposed to arbitrary detention, human trafficking, torture, and abuse by militia and criminal networks (Amnesty International, 2023; IOM, 2023), while there are reports highlighting the degrading conditions that Somali, Sudanese, and Eritrean migrants face when they try to go through Arab countries (Human Rights Watch, 2022).
Moreover, one of the most abused migrant groups of the exploitative regimes in the Arab world are migrant women—domestic workers—who suffer a unique form of gender- and migration-based abuse. Under the “kafala system,” women migrants are literally bound to their employers with no right of legal freedom. Many workers are forced to work 18 hours a day with no rest, verbally, physically, or sexually assaulted behind closed doors (Human Rights Watch, 2022; Amnesty International, 2023). Passport confiscation, denial of communication, and confinement are institutionalized. In rape or sexual exploitation situations, victims risk imprisonment, deportation, or even prosecution for “extramarital sex” rather than protection. Unwed pregnancy is criminalized in certain Gulf states—even when it’s a consequence of abuse—thus leaving victims legally double-bossed. Suicides among female domestic workers from Nepal, Ethiopia, and the Philippines are well-documented, often attributed by officials to “mental illness” and not pursued (FairSquare, 2023). The women have no labor protections and cannot unionize or seek court action without employer approval. Moreover, they are often hired under false circumstances for domestic or hospitality work, only to be sexually exploited in places like Lebanon, Bahrain, and Jordan (Amnesty International, 2023; IOM, 2023; FairSquare, 2023). Even during these massive violations, international human rights bodies rarely report the gendered atrocities suffered by migrant women, perpetuating selective outrage that mutes thousands who continue to be held hostage to modern slavery conditions.
The contribution of professional activists and advocacy organizations to spreading selective narratives
Despite these brutal circumstances, the international human rights system tends to avoid these concerns, focusing mostly on migration management challenges for European countries. This selective focus enables abuses to continue and encourages the misimpression that the responsibility of addressing human rights concerns of migration rests with the exclusive domain of European states only (European Migration Network, 2023).
As migrants in the Arab world still face dismal destinies, most of the professional activists and advocacy organizations focus their activities almost exclusively on criticizing European migration policies. Not only does such selective activism express an uneven moral compass but a covert agenda that invalidates true debate and realistic policy-making.
The majority of these groups frame Europe as the chief perpetrator of the migration crisis, portraying border controls, detention facilities, and asylum procedures as human rights abuses. Concomitantly, they eschew or downplay the far worse constant abuses occurring beyond Europe—especially among countries where migrants effectively possess zero legal safeguards. This imbalance is no lapse but a politicized story meant to erode national sovereignty and border security.
This selective emphasis skews public opinion and feeds schisms into European societies. By framing Europe as inherently oppressive, these activists induce guilt and moral obligation that force governments to adopt increasingly lenient migration policies—too frequently with the consequence of downplaying social solidarity and security (Pew Research Center, 2022).
Moreover, the majority of these advocacy organizations are funded and maintained by international networks that share ideological affinities placing international priorities above local concerns (Stiftung Mercator, 2023). This creates a disconnect between advocacy language and actual circumstances confronting European citizens, who must endure the consequences of uncontrolled migration flows.
It is also intriguing to see how such groups usually dismiss genuine concerns about security and identity as xenophobia or intolerance, thereby closing down debate. In other words, this approach denies democratic dialogue and prevents the formation of well-balanced, effective migration policies. In exposing this dynamic, it is evident that the migration debate is in itself skewed, concealing a larger picture of global migration flows and allowing for a deliberate neglect of migrant suffering outside of Europe.
The consequences of selective advocacy on Europe’s migration policy
Selective advocacy by professional activists and lobby groups, in disproportionate focus on Europe’s migration policy—and the marginalization of abuses elsewhere—has concrete impacts beyond rhetoric. Their selective agenda influences policymaking in ways that often compromise national security, social cohesion, and the protection of Europe’s frontiers.
European governments face greater pressure to adopt more lenient asylum policies, reduce border control, and facilitate migration flows, with reasoning mostly founded on humanitarianism and not practical motives (European Policy Centre, 2022). They are likely to ignore challenges of integration, risks of social fragmentation, and security threats that stem from non-controlled migration (Migration Watch UK, 2023).
Moreover, stigmatization of border control measures as harsh or xenophobic in character hinders states from being able to adequately confront networks of illegal migration and human trafficking. At the same time, politicization of migration by civil society actors evokes polarization between European societies and escalates tensions among migrant groups and native populations (Pew Research Center, 2016; Institute for Strategic Dialogue, 2022).
Last but not least, ignoring what happens to the migrants once they are outside Europe also perpetuates the cycle of exploitation and insecurity in the transit countries, thus indirectly contributing to ongoing migration pressures (IOM, 2023).
Fighting the hypocrisy: Towards an honest and comprehensive migration discourse
Previous chapters have exposed stunning hypocrisy in the migration debate: as much as advocacy groups and professional activists bemoan Europe’s efforts to control its borders, they point a willing blind eye or minimize the gross human rights abuses committed against migrants in the majority of Arab (and not only) countries. This one-sided interpretation distorts reality as much as it prevents the creation of useful migration policies balancing compassion with national concerns.
In moving forward, it is important to break this double standard and demand a more honest dialogue—one that condemns abuses wherever they occur, and not only pointing an accusatory finger at Europe. Accepting the complexities of migration, including economic, social, and security considerations across regions, is important in framing policies that are humane and also sensible (European Policy Centre, 2022; IOM, 2023). This requires advocacy organizations to raise their eyes above the horizon of Europe, holding all governments responsible for migrant well-being and rights (UNHCR, 2023; Amnesty International, 2023).
Moreover, European countries need to reaffirm their sovereign power in order to protect their borders and manage migration in language that honors their cultural heritage and social cohesion. National security needs are not xenophobic arguments but sensible worries in the aftermath of complex global matters (Migration Watch UK, 2023; Pew Research Center, 2016). Encouraging open, respectful dialogue on migration, unclouded by ideological dogma, is necessary to build societal consensus. This will help dispel fear, lower polarization, and provide the foundation for sustainable policies that are safe for both migrants and host societies.
For example, in the recent article by Adre, El Paso & London in The Economist (2025), the view is put forward that the first host countries, which are usually adjacent to the countries of origin of migrants, are the ones that should be given importance by the international community in order to ensure the necessary conditions for the protection of those in need of international protection. The argument is twofold and clear: on the one hand, the cultures and living conditions of these countries have more in common with each other—a factor that favors the faster and smoother integration of refugees—on the other hand, the millions of potential refugees are displaced in neighboring countries, since the majority of them are people who do not have the means to pay the smugglers’ networks to come to Europe, and therefore the core of addressing the issue lies in these areas.
In conclusion, the migration debate demands a shift away from one-sided advocacy towards a balanced, comprehensive perspective. Genuine commitment to human dignity involves addressing migration’s causes globally—not symptoms at Europe’s borders. Only then can Europe effectively address the realities of migration, protect its values, and uphold human dignity worldwide.
Disclaimer
This article reflects the personal views of the writer and in no way expresses the official policy and administrative practices of the Hellenic State, Greek Authorities and EUAA.
References
Amnesty International. (2023). Amnesty International Report 2022/23: The state of the world’s human rights. https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/WEBPOL1056702023ENGLISH.pdf
Associated Press. (2025, May). Unexplained deaths among Nepali workers at Saudi Arabia’s Neom project. https://apnews.com/article/saudi-arabia-migrant-workers-india-bangladesh-nepal-8d913465c3de81c62412dcf5ec07f11c
European Migration Network. (2023, July 8). Annual report on migration and asylum 2023. https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/news/european-migration-network-releases-annual-report-migration-and-asylum-2023-2024-07-08_en
European Policy Centre. (2022). EU migration and asylum policies: Building resilience for changing geopolitical realities [Conference report]. European Policy Centre.
FairSquare. (2022). Vital signs: The deaths of migrants in the Gulf. https://fairsq.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Vital_signs-report-1.pdf
Global Slavery Index. (2023). Global slavery index 2023. https://respect.international/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Global-Slavery-Index-2023.pdf
Human Rights Watch. (2022). World report 2022. https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2022
Human Rights Watch. (2023, May 31). Gulf states: Migrant workers at serious risk from dangerous heat. https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/05/31/gulf-states-migrant-workers-serious-risk-dangerous-heat
Institute for Strategic Dialogue. (2022). Analysis of political narratives shaping migration discourse. Institute for Strategic Dialogue.
International Organization for Migration. (2024). World migration report 2024. https://publications.iom.int/system/files/pdf/pub2023-047-l-world-migration-report-2024_13.pdf
Pew Research Center. (2016, July 11). Europeans fear wave of refugees will mean more terrorism, fewer jobs. https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2016/07/11/europeans-fear-wave-of-refugees-will-mean-more-terrorism-fewer-jobs/
Stiftung Mercator. (2023). Mercator dialogue on asylum and migration (MEDAM). https://www.ifw-kiel.de/institute/mercator-dialogue-on-asylum-and-migration-medam/
The Economist. (2025, July 12). Wretched, refused: The global asylum system is falling apart. What should replace it?
The New York Times. (2025, July 15). Expelled from Iran, with few prospects at home. International Edition.
UNHCR. (2023). Statelessness in Kuwait. https://www.statelesshub.org/country/kuwait
* Marios Kaleas is General Director of the Greek Asylum Service and Deputy Chair of the Management Board of the European Agency for Asylum (EUAA).