Accounting for migration policy in Greek Parliament: Analyzing discourse by Nea Dimokratia MPs on amendment 56/7/2023

The present study explores how politicians from Nea Dimokratia, Greece's ruling party, account for a governmental initiative regarding the migration policy. Data consisted of transcripts of a parliamentary session during which amendment 56/7/2023 -that provided for the possibility of granting a residence permit for work to third-country nationals- was debated. Employing the tools and concepts of critical discursive social psychology, analysis indicated that politicians are oriented to moral accountability concerns, which differ from the ones that have been repeatedly identified in discursive psychological studies. Specifically, in contrast to existing literature that focuses on the management of the censure of anti-immigration rhetoric (which potentially involves racism or prejudice), Nea Dimokratia politicians address as blame the assumption (by part of the opposition) that the present amendment appears pro-migrant. Oriented primarily to the management of this censure, speakers a) employ different constructions of “legal” and '“illegal” immigration, sometimes essentializing and other times de-essentializing the above categories, b) construct their policy as strict but fair by invoking a moderate (and even at times forced) humanitarianism, c) draw on the rhetorical resource of realpolitik by arguing that the legalization of migrants fulfils genuine needs of the Greek economy; and d) make comparisons with other countries, presenting their government's stricter immigration policy as a comparative advantage. The discussion argues that, compared to the findings of previous discursive studies which focus on efforts to disclaim racism in political rhetoric, the findings of the present study highlight the increasing normalization and legitimization of anti-immigration rhetoric.