Speaking to private broadcaster Action 24, Plevris said Greece would further tighten its migration framework and rejected what he described as external interference from international institutions, including the United Nations and European bureaucratic bodies, in national migration policy.

He said that repeated concern expressed by organisations such as Amnesty International and UN agencies reinforced his support for the government’s approach, adding that criticism from such bodies strengthened rather than weakened his political position.

The comments come as Greece’s conservative government faces increased migrant arrivals via the Mediterranean route from eastern Libya, prompting closer engagement with Libyan authorities and broader support for stricter European Union migration policies.

Greece is also cooperating with eastern Libyan authorities through coast guard training and economic support programmes, including employment initiatives and investment cooperation aimed at reducing migrant departures across the Mediterranean, according to officials.

The policy shift aligns with wider discussions within the European Union over establishing migrant processing centres outside Europe for individuals whose asylum claims have been rejected, a proposal that has drawn criticism from rights groups.

Greek authorities reported that arrivals and interceptions on the island of Crete increased by more than 20 percent to around 5,500 through May compared with the same period last year, with flows accelerating in early June.

Libya has become a key transit hub for migrants attempting to reach Europe, facilitated by human trafficking networks operating amid prolonged instability across the country’s borders with multiple neighbouring states.

Analysts say eastern Libyan authorities are seeking deeper diplomatic and financial engagement with European governments as migration pressures increase across the central Mediterranean route.

During oral arguments, several conservative justices signaled openness to the government’s request to revive the practice known as “metering,” which caps the number of migrants allowed to apply for asylum at official border crossings.

The U.S. Department of Justice argued the measure is a necessary tool to manage surges in migration and has been used under multiple administrations.

Critics, including immigration advocates, said the policy previously triggered a humanitarian crisis by forcing asylum seekers to wait in Mexico, often in makeshift camps, before being allowed to present claims.

The practice is not currently in force, and Trump has separately ordered a broader suspension of asylum processing during his second term.

The case centers on interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which guarantees that individuals who “arrive” in the United States may apply for asylum if they fear persecution. Government lawyers contend the provision applies only once migrants are physically inside U.S. territory, not when they are turned away at the border.

Attorneys representing migrants argued the law has long been understood to include individuals presenting themselves at ports of entry, and that restricting access violates statutory protections.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh questioned whether current interpretations create incentives for illegal entry over lawful arrival, while Chief Justice John Roberts pressed both sides on where legal eligibility for asylum begins.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raised procedural concerns, noting the absence of an active policy and questioning whether the court was evaluating hypothetical scenarios rather than a live dispute.

Metering was first introduced during the administration of Barack Obama and later expanded nationwide under Trump. The policy ended in 2020 amid pandemic-related restrictions and was formally rescinded by Joe Biden in 2021.

That same year, a federal district court ruled the practice unlawful, finding it violated both constitutional protections and federal asylum law. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the decision, though internal divisions among judges highlighted ongoing legal uncertainty.

The case is one of several major immigration disputes before the court this term, including challenges related to birthright citizenship and the administration’s efforts to roll back protections for migrants fleeing conflict and instability.U.S. law allows individuals granted asylum to remain in the country, work legally, reunite with immediate family members, and eventually seek permanent residency and citizenship.