10 years after Europe's migration crisis, the fallout reverberates in Greece and beyond
LESBOS, Greece (AP) — Fleeing Iran with her husband and toddler, Amena Namjoyan reached a rocky beach of this eastern Greek island along with hundreds of thousands of others. For months, their arrival overwhelmed Lesbos. Boats fell apart, fishermen dove to save people from drowning, and local grandmothers bottle-fed newly arrived babies.
Namjoyan spent months in an overcrowded camp. She learned Greek. She struggled with illness and depression as her marriage collapsed. She tried to make a fresh start in Germany but eventually returned to Lesbos, the island that first embraced her. Today, she works at a restaurant, preparing Iranian dishes that locals devour, even if they struggle to pronounce the names. Her second child tells her, ''I'm Greek.''
'Greece is close to my culture, and I feel good here,' Namjoyan said. 'I am proud of myself.'
In 2015, more than 1 million migrants and refugees arrived in Europe — the majority by sea, landing in Lesbos, where the north shore is just 10 kilometers (6 miles) from Turkey. The influx of men, women and children fleeing war and poverty sparked a humanitarian crisis that shook the European Union to its core. A decade later, the fallout still reverberates on the island and beyond.
For many, Greece was a place of transit. They continued on to northern and western Europe. Many who applied for asylum were granted international protection; thousands became European citizens. Countless more were rejected, languishing for years in migrant camps or living in the streets. Some returned to their home countries. Others were kicked out of the European Union.
For Namjoyan, Lesbos is a welcoming place — many islanders share a refugee ancestry, and it helps that she speaks their language. But migration policy in Greece, like much of Europe, has shifted toward deterrence in the decade since the crisis. Far fewer people are arriving illegally. Officials and politicians have maintained that strong borders are needed. Critics say enforcement has gone too far and violates fundamental EU rights and values.
'Migration is now at the top of the political agenda, which it didn't use to be before 2015,' said Camille Le Coz Director of the Migration Policy Institute Europe, noting changing EU alliances. 'We are seeing a shift toward the right of the political spectrum.'
A humanitarian crisis turned into a political one
In 2015, boat after boat crowded with refugees crashed onto the doorstep of Elpiniki Laoumi, who runs a fish tavern across from a Lesbos beach. She fed them, gave them water, made meals for aid organizations.
'You would look at them and think of them as your own children,' said Laoumi, whose tavern walls today are decorated with thank-you notes.
From 2015 to 2016, the peak of the migration crisis, more than 1 million people entered Europe through Greece alone. The immediate humanitarian crisis — to feed, shelter and care for so many people at once — grew into a long-term political one.
Greece was reeling from a crippling economic crisis. The influx added to anger against established political parties, fueling the rise of once-fringe populist forces.
EU nations fought over sharing responsibility for asylum seekers. The bloc's unity cracked as some member states flatly refused to take migrants. Anti-migration voices calling for closed borders became louder.
Today, illegal migration is down across Europe
While illegal migration to Greece has fluctuated, numbers are nowhere near 2015-16 figures, according to the International Organization for Migration. Smugglers adapted to heightened surveillance, shifting to more dangerous routes.
Overall, irregular EU border crossings decreased by nearly 40% last year and continue to fall, according to EU border and coast guard agency Frontex.
That hasn't stopped politicians from focusing on — and sometimes fearmongering over — migration. This month, the Dutch government collapsed after a populist far-right lawmaker withdrew his party's ministers over migration policy.
In Greece, the new far-right migration minister has threatened rejected asylum seekers with jail time.
A few miles from where Namjoyan now lives, in a forest of pine and olive trees, is a new EU-funded migrant center. It's one of the largest in Greece and can house up to 5,000 people.
Greek officials denied an Associated Press request to visit. Its opening is blocked, for now, by court challenges.
Some locals say the remote location seems deliberate — to keep migrants out of sight and out of mind.
'We don't believe such massive facilities are needed here. And the location is the worst possible – deep inside a forest,' said Panagiotis Christofas, mayor of Lesbos' capital, Mytilene. 'We're against it, and I believe that's the prevailing sentiment in our community.'
A focus on border security
For most of Europe, migration efforts focus on border security and surveillance.
The European Commission this year greenlighted the creation of 'return' hubs — a euphemism for deportation centers — for rejected asylum seekers. Italy has sent unwanted migrants to its centers in Albania, even as that faces legal challenges.
Governments have resumed building walls and boosting surveillance in ways unseen since the Cold War.
In 2015, Frontex was a small administrative office in Warsaw. Now, it's the EU's biggest agency, with 10,000 armed border guards, helicopters, drones and an annual budget of over 1 billion euros.
On other issues of migration — reception, asylum and integration, for example — EU nations are largely divided.
The legacy of Lesbos
Last year, EU nations approved a migration and asylum pact laying out common rules for the bloc's 27 countries on screening, asylum, detention and deportation of people trying to enter without authorization, among other things.
'The Lesbos crisis of 2015 was, in a way, the birth certificate of the European migration and asylum policy,' Margaritis Schinas, a former European Commission vice president and a chief pact architect, told AP.
He said that after years of fruitless negotiations, he's proud of the landmark compromise.
'We didn't have a system,' Schinas said. 'Europe's gates had been crashed.'
The deal, endorsed by the United Nations refugee agency, takes effect next year. Critics say it made concessions to hardliners. Human rights organizations say it will increase detention and erode the right to seek asylum.
Some organizations also criticize the 'externalization' of EU border management — agreements with countries across the Mediterranean to aggressively patrol their coasts and hold migrants back in exchange for financial assistance.
The deals have expanded, from Turkey to the Middle East and acrossAfrica. Human rights groups say autocratic governments are pocketing billions and often subject the displaced to appalling conditions.
Lesbos still sees some migrants arrive
Lesbos' 80,000 residents look back at the 2015 crisis with mixed feelings.
Fisherman Stratos Valamios saved some children. Others drowned just beyond his reach, their bodies still warm as he carried them to shore.
'What's changed from back then to now, 10 years on? Nothing,' he said. 'What I feel is anger — that such things can happen, that babies can drown.'
Those who died crossing to Lesbos are buried in two cemeteries, their graves marked as 'unknown.'
Tiny shoes and empty juice boxes with faded Turkish labels can still be found on the northern coast. So can black doughnut-shaped inner tubes, given by smugglers as crude life preservers for children. At Moria, a refugee camp destroyed by fire in 2020, children's drawings remain on gutted building walls.
Migrants still arrive, and sometimes die, on these shores. Lesbos began to adapt to a quieter, more measured flow of newcomers.
Efi Latsoudi, who runs a network helping migrants learn Greek and find jobs, hopes Lesbos' tradition of helping outsiders in need will outlast national policies.
'The way things are developing, it's not friendly for newcomers to integrate into Greek society,' Latsoudi said. 'We need to do something. ... I believe there is hope.'
____
Brito reported from Barcelona, Spain. AP journalists Petros Giannakouris in Lesbos and Theodora Tongas in Athens contributed.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Fox News
34 minutes ago
- Fox News
As Iran talks get underway, expert raises alarm over lack of plan to secure nuclear material
European and Iranian negotiators ended their talks in Geneva, Switzerland, Friday without a clear breakthrough, but diplomats told The Associated Press they were hopeful of more discussions with the Iranians. The talks with Iran come a day after White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt delivered a message from President Trump, stating, "Based on the fact that there's a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks." One former Pentagon official says there is an important issue that is not being discussed. "If Iran gives up its nuclear program as Trump has demanded, there's another problem we're not talking about, which is how do we get all the nuclear material outside of Iran," Michael Rubin, an American Enterprise Institute senior fellow, told Fox News Digital. Rubin, who has lived in post-revolution Iran, Yemen, and both pre- and postwar Iraq, mentioned that there are a few options available. "The United States could do it, but we don't want boots on the ground." He said the International Atomic Energy Agency could be tasked with doing it, adding, "Who really trusts the United Nations and U.N. agencies?" "If Trump is serious about getting Iran to forfeit its nuclear program, it's time to start having a conversation with other allies about who could take command, control and custody of this nuclear material until it's outside of Iran." Rubin said he would nominate India to seize the nuclear material. "They are trusted by the Americans, they're trusted by the Israelis and they're trusted by the Iranians. But we need to start not only being reactive, but also proactive," said Rubin Rubin cited a quote from Margaret Thatcher to George H.W. Bush in 1990 — "Don't go wobbly on me now, George" — when Saddam Hussein invaded Iraq. "I suspect Marco Rubio is filling Margaret Thatcher's britches, that he is the one going around now to our European allies, saying, 'Don't go wobbly on me now.,'" said Rubin. "[He] is saying this to everyone else within the European Union and the United Kingdom because if the Europeans have their choice, they're going to choose quiet over common sense." On Thursday, Rubio spoke with counterparts to discuss the ongoing Israel-Iran conflict. According to State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce, he spoke with Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs Penny Wong and French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot in separate conversations about the ongoing conflict. They all agreed to "continue to work together closely to commit to a path of peace and ensure that Iran never develops a nuclear weapon," Bruce said.


Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
The new map that could be guiding Trump's Middle East moves
Video President Donald Trump came back into office promising no new wars. So far, he's kept that promise. But he's also left much of Washington — and many of America's allies — confused by a series of rapid, unexpected moves across the Middle East. In just a few months, Trump has reopened backchannels with Iran, then turned around and threatened its regime with collapse. He's kept Israel at arm's length — skipping it on his regional tour — before signaling support once again. He lifted U.S. sanctions on Syria's Islamist leader, a figure long treated as untouchable in Washington. And he made headlines by hosting Pakistan's top general at the White House, even as India publicly objected. For those watching closely, it's been hard to pin down a clear doctrine. Critics see improvisation — sometimes even contradiction. But step back, and a pattern begins to emerge. It's not about ideology, democracy promotion, or traditional alliances. It's about access. Geography. Trade. More specifically, it may be about restarting a long-stalled infrastructure project meant to bypass China — and put the United States back at the center of a strategic economic corridor stretching from India to Europe. The project is called the India–Middle East–Europe Corridor, or IMEC. Most Americans have never heard of it. It was launched in 2023 at the G20 summit in New Delhi, as a joint initiative among the U.S., India, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and the European Union. Its goal? To build a modern infrastructure link connecting South Asia to Europe — without passing through Chinese territory or relying on Chinese capital. IMEC's vision is bold but simple: Indian goods would travel west via rail and ports through the Gulf, across Israel, and on to European markets. Along the way, the corridor would connect not just trade routes, but energy pipelines, digital cables, and logistics hubs. It would be the first serious alternative to China's Belt and Road Initiative — a way for the U.S. and its partners to build influence without boots on the ground. But before construction could begin, war broke out in Gaza. The October 2023 Hamas attacks and Israel's military response sent the region into crisis. Normalization talks between Saudi Arabia and Israel fell apart. The Red Sea became a warzone for shipping. And Gulf capital flows paused. The corridor — and the broader idea of using infrastructure to tie the region together — was quietly shelved. Video That's the backdrop for Trump's current moves. Taken individually, they seem scattered. Taken together, they align with the logic of clearing obstacles to infrastructure. Trump may not be drawing maps in the Situation Room. But his instincts — for leverage, dealmaking and unpredictability — are removing the very roadblocks that halted IMEC in the first place. His approach to Iran is a prime example. In April, backchannels were reopened on the nuclear front. In May, a Yemen truce was brokered — reducing attacks on Gulf shipping. In June, after Israeli strikes inside Iran, Trump escalated rhetorically, calling for Iran's "unconditional surrender." That combination of engagement and pressure may sound erratic. But it mirrors the approach that cleared a diplomatic path with North Korea: soften the edges, then apply public pressure. Meanwhile, Trump's temporary distancing from Israel is harder to miss. He skipped it on his regional tour and avoided aligning with Prime Minister Netanyahu's continued hard-line approach to Gaza. Instead, he praised Qatar — a U.S. military partner and quiet mediator in the Gaza talks — and signaled support for Gulf-led reconstruction plans. The message: if Israel refuses to engage in regional stabilization, it won't control the map. Trump also made the unexpected decision to lift U.S. sanctions on Syria's new leader, President Ahmad al-Sharaa — a figure with a past in Islamist groups, now leading a transitional government backed by the UAE. Critics saw the move as legitimizing extremism. But in practice, it unlocked regional financing and access to transit corridors once blocked by U.S. policy. Even the outreach to Pakistan — which angered India — fits a broader infrastructure lens. Pakistan borders Iran, influences Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, and maintains ties with Gulf militaries. Welcoming Pakistan's military chief was less about loyalty, and more about leverage. In corridor politics, geography often trumps alliances. None of this means Trump has a master plan. There's no confirmed strategy memo that links these moves to IMEC. And the region remains volatile. Iran's internal stability is far from guaranteed. The Gaza conflict could reignite. Saudi and Qatari interests don't always align. But there's a growing logic underneath the diplomacy: de-escalate just enough conflict to make capital flow again — and make corridors investable. That logic may not be ideologically pure. It certainly isn't about spreading democracy. But it reflects a real shift in U.S. foreign policy. Call it infrastructure-first geopolitics — where trade routes, ports and pipelines matter more than treaties and summits. To be clear, the United States isn't the only player thinking this way. China's Belt and Road Initiative has been advancing the same model for over a decade. Turkey, Iran and Russia are also exploring new logistics and energy corridors. But what sets IMEC apart — and what makes Trump's recent moves notable — is that it offers an opening for the U.S. to compete without large-scale military deployments or decades-long aid packages. Even the outreach to Pakistan — which angered India — fits a broader infrastructure lens. Pakistan borders Iran, influences Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, and maintains ties with Gulf militaries. For all his unpredictability, Trump has always had a sense for economic leverage. That may be what we're seeing here: less a doctrine than a direction. Less about grand visions, and more about unlocking chokepoints. There's no guarantee it will work. The region could turn on a dime. And the corridor could remain, as it is now, a partially built concept waiting on political will. But Trump's moves suggest he's trying to build the conditions for it to restart — not by talking about peace, but by making peace a condition for investment. In a region long shaped by wars over ideology and territory, that may be its own kind of strategy. Tanvi Ratna is a policy analyst and engineer with a decade of experience in statecraft at the intersection of geopolitics, economics, and technology. She has worked on Capitol Hill, at EY, at CoinDesk and others, shaping policy across sectors from manufacturing to AI. Follow her takes on statecraft on X and Substack.


CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
Trump Hits Pause on Iran - CNN This Morning with Audie Cornish - Podcast on CNN Audio
CNN This Morning 48 mins President Trump is giving diplomacy a shot, granting Iran a two-week window. Iran's top diplomat is heading to Europe for nuclear talks. Can negotiations succeed with missiles still flying? Meanwhile, the GOP rift on how to handle the Mideast crisis deepens. Will the president's decision on Iran fracture the party further?