Security and Xenophobia: not Only Public Rhetoric, but Also a Lot of Substance.

The day when the Italian Chamber of Deputies approved amendments to the draft law on security, 1) introducing the crime of illegal migration; 2) raising payment from eighty to 200 euros for the residence permit and to 200 euros for citizenship; 3) increasing up to six months the detention of foreigners in identification centers and increasing the number of deportations and 4) the formation of citizens’ patrols to control the territory. The President of the Republic, Giorgio Napolitano, said: “There is a public rhetoric that does not hesitate, even in Italy, to incorporate accents of intolerance and xenophobia.” As if it were an annoying interference, the warning of the Head of State was immediately returned to the sender by Premier Berlusconi who said: “We have always been against xenophobia” and especially by the leader of the Northern League and minister for Federalism, Umberto Bossi, who replied: “Napolitano? I listen to the people.” This process of self-absolution by the two main leaders responsible for the Italian migration policy does not eliminate, however, the feeling that the rhetoric of security feeds also actions which would often be seen as xenophobic. Indeed, on the eve of a new election campaign (the real plight of immigrants is that Italy is always in the election campaign!), to gain votes and support, the Italian Government and the political parties that make up the majority, wanted to use, once again, immigration and have re-aligned to the dictates of the League and the Minister of Interior.

The barrage against immigrants has been preceded by the disclosure by the Interior Ministry of data on landings of immigrants who numbered 36,952 persons in 2008 (Berlusconi government) against the 20,445 of 2007 (Prodi government). These figures show clearly the contradiction between what was announced by the Government and the League (“with the center-right in government, not one illegal migrant will enter”) and the complex reality of migration.

The Minister of Interior announced, then, a new process to remove the “illegal” migrants i.e. those people who “overtly” try to get to Italy on ships of shame and, many times, could not do it without “overtly” being helped by Italian fishermen and sailors who saved them from shipwreck. The resident of the Viminale, Premier Berlusconi, declared that “They come because it is easy to arrive. No one is chasing them. We have decided to change the tone. No more goodwill, we will be tough against illegal immigrants.”

Despite the reaction of former Interior Minister Beppe Pisanu who has accused the League “of making speeches worthy of a Padana osteria” and has invited Berlusconi not to “be deterred by the slogan of the Carroccio,” the Minister Maroni engaged, on the backs of exhausted immigrants rescued by the ship Pinar, in an indecent contention with Malta to determine which of the two countries had to assume the burden of collecting and receiving the migrants. After ten days, the migrants were brought to Italy.

It was the last straw for the “tough” Maroni, to have to accept immigrants against his will, but he persevered and found immediately a solution: all he had to do was to not recognize their right of asylum. If over 70% of the 31,200 asylum applications submitted in 2008 in Italy came from people landed on the southern coast of the country; if about 75% of the 36,952 migrants landed on the Italian coast in 2008 had applied for asylum; if the rate of recognition of some form of protection (refugee status or subsidiary protection / humanitarian) of the people arriving by sea was around 50% and if, in 2008, the majority of the people who arrived by sea and received international protection came from Somalia, Eritrea, Iraq, Afghanistan and Ivory Coast, to eliminate all this all he had to do was stop them from getting to Italy. He had to stop them in international waters and deport them to Libya (alleged country of origin), where, if they wanted, they could apply for asylum.

Maroni and Berlusconi (who moved quickly to point out that he is the one who decides the government’s policy!) declared that the rejection is the only way to remove illegal immigrants from Italy and that if the European Union, the UN, the UNHCR, the Church and humanitarian organizations were not happy, they should mind their own affairs.

Now, the real problem is that these measures run contrary to the principle of non-rejection enshrined in the Geneva Convention of 1951 (signed by Italy) and contained, also, in the European legislation and in the Italian legislation, which has value in international waters, without any geographical limitation. We could debate methods, tools to be adopted and European responsibilities, but we cannot in any way prevent or limit the right of those fleeing war and persecution, to seek asylum in a safe country. In so doing, Italy goes against the Geneva Convention.

Lorenzo Prencipe, Scalabrinian
President of the Centro Studi Emigrazione - Roma (CSER)
Rome, 16 May 2009