Downloaded by [94.66.124.78] at 01:32 30 November 2017 4 M. BOSWORTH ET AL. towards the Turkish coast. Five years earlier, Human Rights Watch had alleged Greek officials simply deposited migrants at the Turkish borders, outside the readmission agreement signed by the two countries in 2001, which has never been fully implemented (Human Rights Watch 2008). In addition to hardening its external border, Greece has sought to make conditions inside detention centres act as a form of deterrence. As the Head of Hellenic Police advised his officers, ‘we have to make their lives miserable, otherwise they will be under the impression that coming to Greece they will be free to do what they want’.6 Faced with the prospect of prolonged stay inside a Greek detention centre under deplorable conditions, this officer hoped that irregular migrants would not make the perilous journey to Greece. In response to the ‘persistent lack of action of action to improve the situation’, the Council of European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment took the ‘exceptional’ measure of making a ‘Public Statement Concerning Greece’ in relation to Article 10 of the European Convention on Torture and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment7: ‘Despite significant numbers of irregular migrants entering Greece via its eastern land and sea borders over a period of years’, it observed, ‘no steps were taken to put in place a coordinated and acceptable approach as regards their detention and treatment’ (para 3 of the statement) (CPT 2011). This is not the first time that Greece has been publically castigated for the conditions of its detention facilities. Numerous NGO reports cite overcrowding, poor conditions, and lack of access to assistance, including legal, social and medical support (Amnesty International 2010; HRW 2013). Police aim to arrest and detain all new arrivals, including those who claim asylum, victims of torture and human trafficking, disabled persons, pregnant women and minors (see Pickering and Weber 2013). Thus, in 2013, as part of a massive national policing operation known as Xenios Zeus,8 the Ministry of Interior authorised daily police ‘sweep operations’ to arrest and detain all irregular migrants in Greek territory. As former Minister of Citizen's Protection, Nikos Dendias put it: ‘Our aim is that every illegal migrant, unless the competent authorities decide that he is entitled to international protection, will be detained until he is returned to his home country’.9 Following their arrest, everyone was issued with an automatic deportation order without a hearing or any consideration of protection obligations. Such deportation orders were and remain rarely enforced, however, because most irregular migrants lack the travel documents not only to enter but also to leave the country legally. Thus, only one quarter (24.5%) of the 491,411 orders to leave issued by the Greek authorities between 2008 and 2013, were enforced. Consequently, the number of arrestees soon exceeded the number of detention places available. In response, the government engaged in a large-scale investment in pre-removal detention establishments to increase the return rate. Despite all this policy activity and investment in tough policing measures, the current refugee influx serves as a stark reminder that the ‘erection of metaphorical and actual walls and the desire to stop irregular migration do not seem capable of repressing migration movements’ (Tsianos and Karakayali 2010). The Greek state has managed neither to curb arrivals nor to remove the majority of those subject to deportation orders. Why then, does the state remain so wedded to this strategy? And what are some of its effects. These