After humanitarian crises involving asylum seekers, how do citizens and elites view reception policies? What concerns drive their preferences? This paper examines these questions using an original survey of 5916 citizens and 586 politicians in Greece, a critical European front-line case. Using experimental and text analysis methods, we find aggregate support for controlled national management of reception sites featuring geographic distancing, restricted mobility, and limited size. However, substantial polarization emerges among citizens regarding asylum seekers’ freedom of movement and facility administration, irrespective of crisis exposure. Left-wing respondents prioritize humanitarian obligations and human dignity, while right-wing citizens emphasize security concerns and legalistic deservedness. Elites appear less polarized than citizens, and right-wing citizens express greater threat perceptions than their elite counterparts. These findings suggest reception approaches providing organized accommodation while spatially segregating residents and restricting mobility may be democratically viable, but risk generating values-based polarization around human dignity, security, and administrative authority.
AbramsonS. F.KocakK.MagazinnikA. (2022). What do we learn about voter preferences from conjoint experiments?American Journal of Political Science, 66(4), 1008–1020. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12714
2.
AdidaC. L.LoA.PlatasM. R. (2019). Americans preferred Syrian refugees who are female, English-speaking, and Christian on the eve of donald Trump’s election. PLoS One, 14(10), Article e0222504. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222504
3.
AlesinaA. F.TabelliniM. (2021). The political effects of immigration: Culture or economics?SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3846698
4.
Alrababa’hA.DillonA.WilliamsonS.HainmuellerJ.HangartnerD.WeinsteinJ. (2021). Attitudes toward migrants in a highly impacted economy: Evidence from the Syrian refugee crisis in Jordan. Comparative Political Studies, 54(1), 33–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414020919910
5.
BansakK.HainmuellerJ.HangartnerD. (2016). How economic, humanitarian, and religious concerns shape European attitudes toward asylum seekers. Science, 354(6309), 217–222. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aag2147
6.
BansakK.HainmuellerJ.HangartnerD. (2017). Europeans support a proportional allocation of asylum seekers. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(7), 0133. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0133
7.
BhabhaJ. (2018). Can we solve the migration crisis?Polity Press.
8.
BhabhaJ. (2022). The imperative of sustaining (rather than destroying) frontline empathic solidarity for distress migrants fortress (North) America. Boston University International Law Journal, 40(1), 49–78.
9.
BuehlerM.FabbeK. E.KyrkopoulouE. (2022). Thy neighbor’s gendarme? How citizens of buffer states in North Africa view EU border security externalization. Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies, 22(2), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/15562948.2022.2037035
10.
CampesiG. (2018). Between containment, confinement and dispersal: The evolution of the Italian reception system before and after the ‘refugee crisis. Journal of Modern Italian Studies, 23(4), 490–506. https://doi.org/10.1080/1354571x.2018.1501995
11.
CampoF.GiuntiS.MendolaM. (2024). Refugee crisis and right-wing populism: Evidence from the Italian dispersal policy. European Economic Review, 168(1), 104–826. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2024.104826
12.
Casas-CortesM.CobarrubiasS.PicklesJ. (2016). ‘Good neighbours make good fences’: Seahorse operations, border externalization and extra-territoriality. European Urban and Regional Studies, 23(3), 231–251. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969776414541136
13.
CharitopoulouE. (2019). European refugee crisis in Greece: Understanding host communities. Thesis submitted for the degree doctor of philosophy in sociology. Oxford University.
14.
ClaytonK.FerwerdaJ.HoriuchiY. (2021). Exposure to immigration and admission preferences: Evidence from France. Political Behavior, 43(1), 175–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-019-09550-z
15.
Dianeosis. (2020). Το μεταναστευτικό-προσφυγικό ζήτημα στην Ελλάδα [The migration-refugee issue in Greece]. Dianeosis.
16.
DimariG. (2021). The emergence of a new security apparatus in Greece: The securitization of the Migration/Refugee-Covid-19 crises nexus. Partecipazione E Conflitto, 14(1), 341–358. https://doi.org/10.1285/i20356609v14i1p341
17.
DinasE.MatakosK.XefterisD.HangartnerD. (2019). Waking up the golden dawn: Does exposure to the refugee crisis increase support for extreme-right parties?Political Analysis, 27(2), 244–254. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2018.48
18.
DruckmanJ. N.PetersonE.SlothuusR. (2013). How elite partisan polarization affects public opinion formation. American Political Science Review, 107(1), 57–79. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055412000500
19.
DunningT. (1993). Accurate methods for the statistics of Surprise and coincidence. Computational Linguistics - Association for Computational Linguistics, 19(1), 61–74.
20.
El-TaliawiO. G. (2024). The politics of refugee policy in the global south. McGill-Queen’s University Press.
FabbeK.KyrkopoulouE.VidaliM. (2025). Replication data for: Between human dignity and security: Identifying citizen and elite preferences and concerns over refugee reception. Harvard Dataverse. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/5CSZWG
24.
FacchiniG.MaydaM. (2009). Does the welfare state affect individual attitudes toward immigrants? Evidence across countries. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 91(2), 295–314. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest.91.2.295
25.
FerrarioB.StantchevaS. (2022). Eliciting people’s first-order concerns: Text analysis of open-ended survey questions (working paper no. 29686). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w29686
26.
FerwerdaJ.FlynnD. J.HoriuchiY. (2017). Explaining opposition to refugee resettlement: The role of NIMBYism and perceived threats. Science Advances, 3(9), Article e1700812. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1700812
27.
FinotelliC.PonzoI. (2023). Introduction: Understanding migration controls in Europe. In FinotelliC.PonzoI. (Eds.), Migration control logics and strategies in Europe. IMISCOE Research Series. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26002-5_1
28.
FitzGeraldD. S. (2020). Remote control of migration: Theorising territoriality, shared coercion, and deterrence. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 46(1), 4–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2020.1680115
29.
GabrielatosC. (2018). Keyness analysis. In TaylorC.MarchiA. (Eds.), Corpus approaches to discourse (1st ed., pp. 225–258). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315179346-11
30.
Gammeltoft-HansenT.HathawayJ. C. (2014). Non-refoulement in a world of cooperative deterrence. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 53(2), 235–284.
31.
GesslerT.TóthG.WachsJ. (2021). No country for asylum seekers? How Short- term exposure to refugees influences attitudes and voting behavior in Hungary. SocArXiv. Available at. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/qgpve
32.
HaidtJ. (Ed.), (2013). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion (1). Vintage Books.
HainmuellerJ.HopkinsD. J. (2015). The hidden American immigration consensus: A conjoint analysis of attitudes toward immigrants: The hidden AMERICAN immigration consensus. American Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 529–548. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12138
35.
HainmuellerJ.HopkinsD. J.YamamotoT. (2014). Causal inference in conjoint analysis: Understanding multidimensional choices via stated preference experiments. Political Analysis, 22(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpt024
36.
HainmuellerJ.XuY. (2013). Ebalance: A stata package for entropy balancing. Journal of Statistical Software, 54(7), 18. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v054.i07
37.
HangartnerD.DinasE.MarbachM.MatakosK.XefterisD. (2019). Does exposure to the refugee crisis make natives more hostile?American Political Science Review, 113(2), 442–455. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055418000813
38.
HellwigT.SinnoA. (2017). Different groups, different threats: Public attitudes towards immigrants. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 43(3), 339–358. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2016.1202749
39.
HilbigH.RiazS. (2022). Freedom of movement restrictions inhibit the psychological integration of refugees. The Journal of Politics, 84(4), 2288–2293. https://doi.org/10.1086/720307
40.
HyndmanJ.MountzA. (2008). Another brick in the wall? Neo-refoulement and the externalization of asylum by Australia and Europe1. Government and Opposition, 43(2), 249–269. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-7053.2007.00251.x
41.
KeeniM.TakashinoN. (2025). Encampment policy and public perception: A cross-country analysis of host community responses to Rohingya refugees. Comparative Migration Studies, 13(48), 48. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40878-025-00471-x
42.
LeeperT. J.HoboltS. B.TilleyJ. (2020). Measuring subgroup preferences in conjoint experiments. Political Analysis, 28(2), 207–221. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2019.30
43.
MacdonaldD. (2021). Political trust and support for immigration in the American mass public. British Journal of Political Science, 51(4), 1402–1420. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123419000668
44.
MaydaA. M. (2006). Who is against immigration? A cross-country investigation of individual attitudes toward immigrants. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 88(3), 510–530. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest.88.3.510
45.
MouradL.NormanK. P. (2020). Transforming refugees into migrants: Institutional change and the politics of international protection. European Journal of International Relations, 26(3), 687–713. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066119883688
46.
NorrisP.InglehartR. (2019). Cultural backlash: Trump, brexit, and authoritarian populism (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108595841
47.
ScheveK. F.SlaughterM. J. (2001). Labor market competition and individual preferences over immigration policty. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 13(1), 133–145.
48.
SchwartzC.SimonM.HudsonD.van-Heerde-HudsonJ. (2021). A populist paradox? How brexit softened anti-immigrant attitudes. British Journal of Political Science, 51(3), 1160–1180. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123419000656
49.
SegarraH. (2020). The reception of asylum seekers in Europe: Exclusion through accommodation practices. In JesseM. (Ed.), European societies, migration, and the law: The ‘Others’ amongst ‘Us’ (pp. 213–229). Cambridge University Press.
50.
ShafferR.PinsonL. E.ChuJ. A.SimmonsB. A. (2020). Local elected officials’ receptivity to refugee resettlement in the United States. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 117(50), 31722–31728. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2015637117
51.
SolodochO. (2021). Regaining control? The political impact of policy responses to refugee crises. International Organization, 75(3), 735–768. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818321000060
52.
TriandafyllidouA. (2014). Multi-levelling and externalizing migration and asylum: Lessons from the southern European islands. Island Studies Journal, 9(1), 7–22. https://doi.org/10.24043/isj.290
53.
van der BrugW.HarteveldE. (2021). The conditional effects of the refugee crisis on immigration attitudes and nationalism. European Union Politics, 22(2), 227–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/1465116520988905
54.
VrânceanuA.DinasE.HeidlandT.RuhsM. (2022). The European refugee crisis and public support for the externalisation of migration management. European Journal of Political Research. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12565
55.
WolffS. (2008). Border management in the mediterranean: Internal, external and ethical challenges. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 21(2), 253–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/09557570802021030
56.
ZaiottiR. (Ed.), (2016). Externalizing migration management: Europe, North America and the spread of “remote control” practices. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
