Prologue – Setting the stage
As Germany intensifies efforts to return migrants and asylum seekers to Greece under the Dublin III Regulation and Schengen rules, the policy is increasingly shaped not by legal necessity or humanitarian coordination, but by domestic political pressure—particularly the rise of the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) (Bendel, 2023). This article argues that Germany’s return strategy represents a symbolic gesture aimed at appeasing populist fears rather than addressing the structural flaws of EU migration policy.
Drawing on Shakespearean parallels from Richard III and A Midsummer Night’s Dream, the article portrays this approach as both desperate and illusory: an attempt to reclaim “order” through a strategy that lacks feasibility and undermines EU solidarity. Greece, already overburdened, is being treated as a political and administrative backstop—despite lacking the capacity to manage large-scale returns (Human Rights Watch, 2021).
The article critiques this shift as emblematic of a wider European failure to pursue collective, sustainable migration solutions. Without real burden-sharing, harmonized asylum procedures, and institutional reform, such return policies merely mask the problem. They resemble political theater more than effective governance—and risk fracturing the very European project they claim to uphold (Carrera et al., 2022).
Act I – The rise of the chorus
Germany, after years of oscillation between compassion and pragmatism in its migration policy, has now opted to intensify the return of migrants and refugees, particularly to Greece. However, this move seems to be based on an idea as unfeasible and utopian as “regaining the kingdom” with a single move. Just like Richard III, who gambles with his life to reclaim a lost power, Germany seems to be struggling to restore “order” in a world that is already overstretched and unstable (Boswell, 2022).
The rise of the AfD plays a crucial role in shaping Germany’s current position on migration. As one of the loudest voices advocating for a hardline approach to migration, the AfD has tapped into fears and anxieties about cultural dilution, national identity, and economic strain (Mudde, 2019). This populist party has succeeded in framing migration as a zero-sum game, where every new migrant is perceived as a threat to the well-being of native citizens. The political success of the AfD, especially in eastern Germany, has made it impossible for the mainstream political parties—including the CDU/CSU and SPD—to ignore the populist push for stricter border controls and the reversal of what they see as lenient policies from previous years.
Act II – The king’s gambit
Germany’s migration strategy, particularly the focus on returns, can be seen as a direct response to this populist surge. Former Chancellor Angela Merkel’s decision to open Germany’s borders to refugees in 2015, while widely praised at the time, became a political liability in the years that followed, as the AfD gained traction and public opinion turned increasingly hostile to irregular migration (Triadafilopoulos & Schönwälder, 2021). The current return policy is thus not just about managing migration, but about appeasing a significant portion of the electorate that demands a crackdown on asylum seekers and refugees. It is a political response to the AfD’s call for an end to what they term the “failed asylum system.”
For years, mainstream parties were perceived to have encouraged unchecked irregular migration and fostered a culture of impunity that undermined social cohesion and security. Many citizens feel that traditional political forces failed to address the complexities and challenges of migration effectively, creating fertile ground for the AfD’s rhetoric. This growing frustration with the established parties has led many to seek seemingly decisive solutions, even if these come from populist sources with exclusionary agendas (FRA, 2020). Thus, the rise of the AfD reflects not only a political shift, but also a profound societal reaction to what many perceive as policy failures and a loss of control over national borders and identity.
Act III – The forest of delusions
As a result, the current German government—under pressure from both right-wing extremists and the broader public, who have become increasingly skeptical of migration—has shifted its focus toward migration control and returns, often with little regard for the long-term feasibility or humanitarian consequences of such actions (Guild & Moreno-Lax, 2021).
In this context, Germany’s decision to intensify returns to Greece can be understood as part of a larger political calculus. The return policy is framed as a way to reduce the number of migrants in Germany, responding to the AfD’s vocal demands for stricter border controls and tackling “uncontrolled migration” (Carrera et al., 2022).
Yet this approach bears an uncanny resemblance to the world of A Midsummer Night’s Dream, where reality is obscured by illusion, and where characters—driven by desire, fear, or confusion—make decisions divorced from reason. In Shakespeare’s enchanted forest, order is temporarily upended; identities are mistaken, roles reversed, and transformations abound. Likewise, Germany’s return policy seems governed less by facts on the ground than by a desire to believe in a fantasy—namely, that Greece can absorb the additional burden without consequence, and that Germany can thereby shield itself from the political and logistical complexities of shared responsibility.
Germany’s plan to intensify returns of migrants to Greece is similarly grounded in an illusory notion that this will restore “order” to an already fragile system. The assumption here is that Greece, which already faces immense challenges in managing its migrant population, can be the European Union’s dumping ground for unwanted migrants—much as Richard III seeks to restore his kingdom through dangerous political maneuvers (FRA, 2020). The similarity lies in the fact that both are chasing a restoration that cannot be achieved through single, isolated actions.
This vision of returning migrants to Greece—a country with its own overstretched resources and already strained social services—is as unrealistic as Richard III’s belief that he could rule effectively despite a history of betrayal and chaos. As Winston Churchill famously said, “The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is” (Churchill, 1947). It presupposes that Greece has the capacity to deal with returns on a scale that is simply unmanageable under current conditions (Human Rights Watch, 2021). Furthermore, the migration crisis, as it stands, is no longer something Germany can fully control by pushing the burden onto others. Like the characters in A Midsummer Night’s Dream, who chase illusions and are ensnared by their own delusions, European leaders are locked in a futile cycle of seeking unattainable solutions to an increasingly complex issue.
Act IV – The turning point
In Shakespeare’s world, illusion often danced with truth—misjudgments led to calamity, and quests for control spiraled into chaos. Germany’s current return strategy mirrors not a policy brief but a tragic monologue delivered under flickering torchlight: urgent, dramatic, and ultimately disconnected from the realities of the stage upon which it plays (Guild & Moreno-Lax, 2021).
This is not merely about rules or quotas. It is about the peril of crafting policy from fear rather than foresight—of seeing migration as a contagion to be contained, rather than a phenomenon to be understood and shaped with vision. As John F. Kennedy once observed, “The problems of the world cannot possibly be solved by skeptics or cynics whose horizons are limited by the obvious realities. We need men who can dream of things that never were and ask, why not?” (Kennedy, 1963).
The European Union stands not at a crossroads, but inside a labyrinth of its own making—where exits are not found by turning backward, nor by pushing others deeper into the maze.
Act V – Rewriting the script
Perhaps what is needed is less a bureaucratic fix and more a dramaturgical shift: from tragedy to dialogue, from spectacle to structure. Because no matter how many times the set is rearranged, the play cannot reach resolution so long as its cast remains divided, its chorus unheard, and its script beholden to ghosts of populism and short-term gain. Europe does not lack the means—it lacks the imagination.
In this complex tableau, the urgency of migration management has often overridden the imperative for thoughtful, cooperative solutions. Germany’s return policy, while politically expedient, reveals a deeper crisis of imagination within the European Union’s approach to migration. The reliance on unilateral actions driven by electoral anxieties exposes a fragility in the continent’s political fabric. As member states retreat into nationalistic postures, the shared values of solidarity and human dignity risk being sacrificed at the altar of political convenience.
This moment calls for a profound rethinking—not merely of policy details, but of the narratives and frameworks that shape European migration discourse. Migration is neither a problem to be quarantined, nor a game of numbers to be won or lost. It is a human reality, interwoven with economic, social, and geopolitical threads that demand holistic, empathetic engagement. Europe’s strength lies not in erecting walls or assigning blame, but in forging alliances that reflect its foundational ideals.
Amidst the challenges and frustrations surrounding current migration policies, there lies a crucial opportunity on the horizon: the ongoing negotiation of a new EU Return Regulation, which is set to repeal the Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals. This legislative shift, currently under discussion among EU member states, carries the potential to fundamentally reshape how returns are managed across Europe—moving away from punitive, fragmented practices towards a more coherent, fair, and effective framework (Carrera et al., 2022).
The proposed regulation presents a rare chance to address longstanding shortcomings—such as inconsistent application, insufficient safeguards for human rights, and the absence of a truly shared responsibility mechanism. If negotiated and implemented with vision and political courage, it could enhance the EU’s capacity to conduct returns in a humane and coordinated manner, ensuring that no single member state shoulders a disproportionate share of the burden. Just as importantly, it may reinvigorate a spirit of solidarity among member states, laying the groundwork for a more integrated and balanced approach to migration governance.
This process calls upon policymakers to confront, rather than avoid, the complexity of return management—recognizing that sustainable migration solutions require not only legal standards, but also mutual trust, coordination, and political will. The transition from directive to regulation offers more than a technical adjustment; it signals an opportunity for Europe to reimagine its migration policy architecture—from one built on ad hoc fixes and national reflexes to a common, strategic, and forward-looking endeavor.
Harnessing this moment may prove essential in transforming today’s fragmented and reactive migration regime into a resilient framework grounded in the EU’s founding values of dignity, solidarity, and justice.
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
Bendel, P. (2023). Germany’s Migration Policy and the Political Influence of the AfD. Journal of European Migration, 15(1), 45-60.
Boswell, C. (2022). Migration Control and Political Theater in Germany. Migration Studies Review, 10(2), 75-90.
Carrera, S., Allsopp, J., & Vosyliūtė, L. (2022). The 2008 Returns Directive: Reform and Challenges in the EU. European Policy Analysis, 20(4), 100-120.
Churchill, W. (1947). Speech, House of Commons, UK Parliament.
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA). (2020). Migrants in Greece: Challenges and Human Rights. FRA Publications.
Guild, E., & Moreno-Lax, V. (2021). European Migration Policies in Times of Political Populism. Journal of European Policy, 18(3), 230-245.
Human Rights Watch. (2021). Greece’s Overburdened Migration System and the Impact of Returns. HRW Report.
Kennedy, J. F. (1963). Speech at American University, Washington D.C.
Mudde, C. (2019). The Far Right in Europe: Populism and Anti-Immigration Sentiments. Routledge.
Shakespeare, W. (1597). Richard III. In The Riverside Shakespeare (2nd ed., pp. 682-720). Houghton Mifflin.
Shakespeare, W. (1595). A Midsummer Night’s Dream. In The Riverside Shakespeare (2nd ed., pp. 444-484). Houghton Mifflin. Triadafilopoulos, T., & Schönwälder, K. (2021). Germany’s 2015 Refugee Policy and Its Aftermath. Migration Policy Quarterly, 14(2), 55-72.
* Marios Kaleas is General Director of the Greek Asylum Service and Deputy Chair of the Management Board of the European Agency for Asylum (EUAA).