of too few asylum offices and insufficient resources dedicated to the service). In an effort to allow the new Asylum Service to operate properly, it was decided that the backlogged cases would remain under the Police purview and their respective appeals committees. Some applicants – at the time- had been waiting for over 5 years for a decision. The legislative changes were accompanied with measures targeting the border areas and the irregular population already in the country. It can be argued that Greece proceeded to implement more than ever before a migration management routed in the security approach. It tightened border controls through the Operation ‘Shield’ (Aspida) with the transfer of 1,800 border guards along the Greek Turkish land border, and it concluded the building of a border fence across the 12.5 km land stretch used as the main entry point in the region of Evros. Furthermore it increased passport controls and upgraded technologically the harbours of Patra and Igoumenitsa (in western Greece) targeting transit migrants seeking to leave for Italy by ferry boat. In parallel, it pursued an aggressive internal policy of apprehension and detention; daily police patrols (operation ‘Xenios Zeus’) attempted to identify irregular migrants that were then detained pending expulsion. This ‘criminalisation’ of irregular migrants was reinforced through an extensive detention policy. Greece imposes by law the maximum time for detention, which is 18 months (prescribed in the Return Directive, under exceptional circumstances only) for both irregular migrants and asylum seekers. The policy of detention was originally conceived as an effective way to curb irregular migrants from indiscriminately lodging asylum claims as means of legalising their stay 12. However, recent findings13 show that Afghan migrants are discouraged from applying for asylum, since they are informed that detention time starts once more from zero once they apply for asylum and until a final decision is reached on their application. If a detainee applies for asylum, he/she remains in the facility while the claim is processed. If the claim is rejected at 1 st Instance and the applicant lodges an appeal, he/she remains in detention until a final decision is made. And if appeal is also negative, the applicant remains in detention until he/she is either forcefully expelled or ‘voluntarily’ requests to return to the country of origin. Detention however is not merely a way of criminalizing, punishing or deterring ‘bogus’ asylum claims. Rather it is perceived as the linchpin for the successful implementation of the main policy, which is return; voluntary, assisted voluntary or forced (expulsion). Return is increasingly becoming-along with deterrence (from the point of origin and/or transit)-a key EU policy in partnership with the International Organisation for Migration (IOM). Europe currently posits 12 See A. Triandafyllidou, D.Angeli, A.Dimitriadi (2014) Detention as Punishment:Can indefinite detention be Greece's main policy tool to manage its irregular migrant population ?. MIDAS Policy Brief, www. http://www.eliamep.gr/en/migration/midas-policy-brief-detention-as-punishment-can-indefinite-detention-be-greecesmain-policy-tool-to-manage-its-irregular-migrant-population/ 13 Interviews were conducted with Afghan migrants in detention, including recent arrivals from the maritime border, throughout October-December 2013 and March-July 2014, in the framework of the IRMA project (http://irma.eliamep.gr/). Page 9