Delivered by Ingenta IP : 94.67.166.95 On: Thu, 17 Oct 2019 07:25:18 Copyright The Policy Press ‘This is a cage for migrants’ unquestioned. This is reflected through the legitimating practices of the authorities as a normal reaction and a collateral effect. Looking at this new era of racism in general, Triandafyllidou and Kouki (2014: 433) have noted ‘a radicalisation of mainstreaming different forms of ethnic, racial or cultural inequality that are prevalent in daily life in the country, but also across Europe’. The sweep operations, as described here, evolved from sporadic, non-orchestrated attempts to an official policy that was institutionalised at a national level with the Xenios Dias campaign, and at a EU level with the Mos Maiorum operation; what is common is the notion of ‘cleaning up’ neighbourhoods. In all these operations what is at stake is the non-tolerance of the visibility of a certain population in public spaces. One element that links these operations with the patrolling of the public space as a practice of this new era of racism is the fact that locality has become the factor that legitimises intervention. This evokes the sweep operations in Patras and Igoumenitsa. It is also reminiscent of the Prime Minister’s “need to reoccupy our neighbourhoods” comment (Filippidis, 2013). What our analysis so far has tried to show is that practices similar to the ‘taking the law into our own hands’ approach, in order to evict and exclude certain populations from public view, have been taking place for some time now and that the authorities bear considerable responsibility for initiating and legitimising them. If we step back for a more general view of the situation and take into consideration all the securitisation processes related to migration at a national and EU level, it is clear how the implemented policies of non-tolerance towards certain populations constitute the background to a situation of non-tolerance and xenophobia that has emerged more intensively in recent years. Greece has never had a reception policy for migrants untill the adoption of the Action Plan for the Management of Immigration. The issue of migration is more or less approached as a problem, as a state of emergency. And reactions to migration are always repressive measures and not long-term policies of reception and integration. This goes hand in hand with the state of the welfare system in Greece. Even before the crisis it was deficient, and much of it functioned through unofficial networks. Then with the crisis it is has been one of the worst-hit areas. Migrants, being from the most disadvantaged sector of society that is supposed to be supported by social structures, have been left without any assistance. The already deficient welfare state in Greece has been replaced by what Vradis (2012) terms a ‘welfear state’.10 What is interesting in Vradis’ approach is the way in which – quite ironically – he identifies the migration policies of intimidation as a substitute for a welfare state. From the Xenios Dias operation, and the so-called ‘reception’ policies and mechanisms set up by the government under the Action Plan for the Management of Immigration, which was presented in 2010 and adopted in 2011 (see FIDH/Migreurop/EMHRN, 2014: 66-8), the approach to migration could be summarised by what the-then Interior Minister declared in January 2011: ‘We open our hearts and we close our borders’ (Ethnos, 2011).What is striking is the effort to coin euphemisms for all these practices of the control of mobility, detention, violence and intimidation for people who irregularly cross borders. This intimidating policy is the only alternative put forward by the government and the authorities to a system of reception based on welfare.And this could not be possible without the assistance and the encouragement of EU bodies. 193