costs. In terms of irregular migration management, during the period 2008-2013, both practice and political promulgations agree that the ultimate goal was to reduce the size of the irregular migrant population. On this basis, the Greek authorities designed their policies along two main intertwined objectives: deterrence and return. To achieve this objective, Greece designed a three-pillar policy, outlined below: Figure 1. Greece's irregular migration strategy In 2010 Greece designed a National Action plan, which was revised in 2013. The Plan foresaw a series of reception and integration policies in the context of asylum and migration management. Nonetheless, not all of the policies were prioritised in the period 2008-2013. Both in terms of resource distribution and implementation pace, most of these measures are still in the making or in search for funding. In terms of short- and long-term aims, Greece's policy approach sought to achieve both objectives of deterrence and return in an integrated manner. In the short term, border management aimed primarily at stopping migrants from entering the country. Apprehensions at the borders and the interior aimed at detecting ‘trespassers’ with a view to immediately return them. Detention was seen as a tool to facilitate returns, in turn made possible through apprehension. In the long run, the aim appears to be to deter migrants from entering Greece altogether. As aforementioned, the focus here will be on the direct costs of each policy measure and in particular on the national resources consumed and external funding mechanisms that were deployed in order to pay Greece's irregular migration policy. Page 17