Between Human Dignity and Security: Identifying Citizen and Elite Preferences and Concerns Over Refugee Reception

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.