Italy's immigration-security decree and its consequences
I don't know if many of you are familiar with the Italian political system and with what is going on in Italy with the whole immigration issue, but I'm curious to know how foreigners see my country's response to such an important matter.
Italy's lower house of parliament, the Camera dei deputati, has approved two immigration-security decrees on immigration and safety advocated by Interior Minister Matteo Salvini (who is the head of a far right party called the League): the Decreto sicurezza and the Decreto sicurezza bis.
Those two decrees brought up many changes in the Italian immigration system: asylum protection on 'humanitarian' grounds has been canceled, there has been an extension of the time foreigners spend in detention centres and a weakening of local integration programmes for asylum seekers. Politicians from the opposition parties and important personalities of the journalistic world are worried that these kind of laws might fuel xenofobia and racial discrimination, because they foment a form of extreme nationalism that has never done any good to our country: just think about the Fascist period.
An Italian teacher, for example, has been suspended over a video made by her students that compared the security law drafted by Matteo Salvini to Mussolini’s racial laws, provoking a storm of protest all across the country.
In addition, Salvini has begun an extenuating war against the Ngo (Non-governmental organizations), which he accuses of assisting illegal immigration, and he is currently fighting a long battle against the captain of the Ngo Sea Watch 3, Carola Rackete.
What are your thoughts on the matter?
Italy's lower house of parliament, the Camera dei deputati, has approved two immigration-security decrees on immigration and safety advocated by Interior Minister Matteo Salvini (who is the head of a far right party called the League): the Decreto sicurezza and the Decreto sicurezza bis.
Those two decrees brought up many changes in the Italian immigration system: asylum protection on 'humanitarian' grounds has been canceled, there has been an extension of the time foreigners spend in detention centres and a weakening of local integration programmes for asylum seekers. Politicians from the opposition parties and important personalities of the journalistic world are worried that these kind of laws might fuel xenofobia and racial discrimination, because they foment a form of extreme nationalism that has never done any good to our country: just think about the Fascist period.
An Italian teacher, for example, has been suspended over a video made by her students that compared the security law drafted by Matteo Salvini to Mussolini’s racial laws, provoking a storm of protest all across the country.
In addition, Salvini has begun an extenuating war against the Ngo (Non-governmental organizations), which he accuses of assisting illegal immigration, and he is currently fighting a long battle against the captain of the Ngo Sea Watch 3, Carola Rackete.
What are your thoughts on the matter?
Comments (46)
Who are the asylum seekers?
It's a person who flees their home country, gets to another country and applies for asylum, which is the right to have international protection
But who are they? Where do they come from?
What is the government's official reason for limiting immigration?
There's a good Politico article on it.
Here
On the other hand, nationalists need legitimate problems to legitimize themselves. In the light of fear, they look strong.
What does the pope say?
I remember French fighter jets bombing Khadaffi's troops in order to make sure that the rebellion would succeed. It is not that I particularly liked Khadaffi, but shouldn't France take in these immigrants instead of Italy?
He says governments should build bridges not walls. However if Italy cannot welcome, cannot integrate, cannot provide the right services to those who arrive, politicians have the duty and the right ask other European countries to do so.
That's true.
This is a faulty analogy. Your country is made up of strangers, many of whom you may not want in your home.
I think this should sound familiar to you since you posted it on your about page:
"And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not." - John 1:5
In this time of darkness we need more comprehension of the light. Yes? Forget the theology for a moment and comprehend the human message. Many immigrants are in desperate need. What they don't need is locked doors. When a flood comes locked doors will not keep you dry. When the winds blow off your roof locked doors will not keep you safe. Comprehend it not?
You're right. But immigrants still arrive, and they arrive by sea on half-wrecked boats. The Ngo have the duty to save them, and this duty is indipendent from the laws of the single states. They also have the duty to bring them to the safest, closest port. So they cannot be brought back to Libia, since we can all agree on the fact that it's not a safe place and that the immigrants would be imprisoned under inhuman conditions. The closest port is Lampedusa's (Sicily), but since Salvini wants all the ports in Italy to stay closed to immigrants, this year many Ngo boats have waited to dock in Lampedusa's Port for weeks, because, according to the Government, they should have chosen another port, for example Malta's. Salvini has all the right to regulate immigration here in Italy, but the thing is he has no plan when it comes to actually dealing with this delicate issue. Also, the only thing he seems to care about right now are the Ngo boats that carry immigrants and draw the media's attention. In Lampedusa, immigrants on small boats arrive every day, without being noticed by the authorities. It's up to the islanders to help them or not. He should just stop doing useless propaganda and think about actual problems: our population is getting older and older, our economy is slowly sinking, the South of the country has been devastated by corruption and no one knows anymore what meritocracy is.
There's nothing faulty about my analogy.
If you wish to make no distinction between your countrymen and the type of immigrant that is invading Europe, that's your prerogative. I do make that distinction.
Quoting Fooloso4
That is not how I interpret that quote at all.
But since we're on the topic of preaching, how many immigrants and homeless people have you let into your house so far, dear Judas?
Well, what do you want to hear from me?
I think all illegal immigrants should be returned to where they came from, and any action or legislation towards that goal is positive. Any action or legislation that undermines that goal, including human trafficking under the guise of philanthropy by NGOs, is negative.
So what should countries do? Like they always have done: enforce their borders and send anyone back who doesn't belong there. So called "NGOs" who are trying to smuggle people in should be jailed.
Do you know everyone in your country? No strangers? Do you allow all of them in your home? Do you have as much say in who enters your neighbor's house as your own?
Quoting Tzeentch
My house is not my country. I am in favor of allowing those who seek asylum to go through an expedient process and a path to citizenship. I am also in favor of international cooperation to spread the burden. As I pointed out in an earlier post immigration can be a problem when the numbers are high. I am also in favor of helping people in their own country if possible before they are forced to leave.
I am sure that wherever you live if the situation became dire and you were forced to leave you would find a different song to sing.
Quoting Tzeentch
The quote does not stand alone. It is part of Jesus' message which says: "Lock your doors lest those in need who seek food and shelter invade your country", or something like that. Or maybe nothing like that.
That said, I do understand the difficulty of having to accommodate millions of non-citizens, although I also think we haven’t seen the worst by a long way. When climate change and food and water shortages really start to bite in a decade or two there may be billions seeking refuge, not just the tens of millions we see today.
There is a kind of osmosis involved as when a nation that respects human rights receives a citizen from a nation that does not (like Eritrea), then it violates the rights of that citizen to return them to their country of origin. And unfortunately there is no easy solution to that problem.
I don't have to. You're missing the point of the analogy.
Countrymen are to a country, like family is to a home.
Immigrants are to a country, like a stranger is to a home.
Notice the word like, implying likeness and not sameness.
You're interchanging the terms, turning it into something like,
Countrymen are to a country, like a stranger is to a home.
This makes no sense, and it is not what I wrote.
Quoting Fooloso4
Excuses to justify inaction.
Words and "being in favor of things" serve as nothing but social self-gratification if such gospel is never translated into action. Don't you see the inherent hypocrisy in preaching about how other people should accept total strangers to negatively impact their lives, while at the same time these preachers don't carry any of the negative consequences and squander every opportunity to help their fellow man?
If one wishes to be a saint, there's plenty of people that need help. They're all around. Homeless people, drug-addicts, isolated elders, depressed people, I could go on. One could be actually helping these people through action. So why does one choose words? Because words make one feel fuzzy whilst not having to do anything.
You're asking others to make a sacrifice that you demonstrate not to be willing to make yourself.
Quoting Fooloso4
Doubtful. Many people stay behind in the countries from which people are supposedly "forced" to leave. The truth is, a multitude more people die yearly in car accidents in the US than in the hostilities in most of these conflicts combined.
But, if I were to hypothetically be forced to leave, I would find a refuge where I hold some ties to its inhabitants in terms of language and culture, and where I can contribute to their society to earn my keep, rather than become a leech on a successful system.
These people don't just want safety. They want free stuff. And they don't just want free stuff. They want the most free stuff. This is evidenced by the numerous safe countries they pass through on their way to the country with the highest social benefits.
Quoting Fooloso4
This.
And should this be something to be proud of? People are dying, everywhere, in this very second. It's not some sort of competition in which there is a winner. People shouldn't die only because someone made the poor choice to drink and drive, just like people shouldn't suffer because they were born in a country in which there is a war.
Quoting Tzeentch
What you are describing as a choice is absolutely not one. It's like saying: you can choose whether you want to go to hell or you prefer following a certain doctrine. It's not a that hard of a choice, isn't it?
https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/07/11/too-many-africans/?fbclid=IwAR2cioCg5SfpuoPJcS6sYsdWS_RYJJ2y9s1Rn5rRJF2-0zpgCKrhK2z2PLE
Greenland will take them (the ones who don't die an incredibly horrible, hellish, death of violence, disease, and starvation, vomiting out their insides from plague to have their eyeballs picked out by African vultures in the blazing sun.)
And do you regard your countrymen like family? By this I mean not simply as a matter of drawing lines between "us and them" but as you treat members of your family is opposed to the strangers most of your countryman are.
Quoting Tzeentch
Not at all. The question is whether to prevent immigration or manage immigration. By your analogy I am allowing strangers into my home.
Quoting Tzeentch
If those who live in a country allow immigrants into their country then it potentially impacts their lives. It is not squandering every opportunity to help their fellow man, it is by their actions helping their fellow man.
Quoting Tzeentch
My interest here is in having a rational discussion about a very serious problem, not hyperbole, sweeping generalizations, and mischaracterizations. The funny, or maybe not so funny, thing is that everything you say has been said in places like the United States throughout its history whenever there has been a large influx of immigrants - Irish, Italians, Chinese, Jews ...
Like it or not the world is changing any unless you are extremely wealthy you are not going to be able to hide from it behind locked doors.
In certain aspects, yes. That's the point of an analogy.
Quoting Fooloso4
This is nonsense. Loud words, naive idealism and paying taxes does not equal, in any way, helping one's fellow man. They are excuses for inaction. Your argument is based on the idea that one should help one's fellow man? Then why are you not spending your free time helping those in need? Why do you need to crusade for a foreign cause with which you will likely never been in real contact? Why are foreigners more important to you than the people you can actually directly help in your vicinity?
Because words are easy, actions are hard.
Quoting Fooloso4
I don't know about the United States, but where I come from we have always welcomed hard-working immigrants who had an intention of integrating and a sense of gratitude towards the communities they wished to become a part of.
Most immigrants from Africa and the Middle-East do not share those qualities. They have no prospects for work, have pre-historic ideas about what a society should look like and rather than integrate they seek segregation, creating further breeding grounds for extremism and radicalism.
This parallel you are drawing between different waves of immigration is not funny. It's ridiculous.
So far I'm winning.
We aren't in a position to do anything about future disasters. All we can do is give some money to Sea Watch or whatever and go listen to Hans Zimmer's Aurora.
...unless one of us wants to swim out into the Mediterranean and be one more burden on the rescue operation that has no port. That might help.
I'm not in favor of immigration restrictions aside from screening for wanted criminals or people with known terrorism associations.
And I'm a free speech absolutist, so I have a problem with suspending the teacher, too.
Clearly the only sensible answer is, as @Tzeentch, would have it, to lock your doors and pretend that it is still 1919.
But of course we can no longer sustain that fantasy.
NGOs of a particular variety take the view that individuals have the right to go wherever they want to go. Providing emergency assistance to, and advocating for people who want to live somewhere other than where they are citizens is the reason d'être of some NGOs. They are entirely focused on the dire straits people have gotten themselves into by getting on a leaking boat and heading for distant shores.
The NGOs who bring the sinking boat to port are pretty much done with the refugees at that point. It becomes somebody else's problem then, like Italy, France, Spain, or... whoever. A few million people from Central America and Mexico decide they would rather live in the USA, at least for a while, and our immigrant NGOs want everyone to celebrate. Admit them all! Of course!!!
Free movement of people anywhere they want to go, and the obligation of nations to accept all comers is what we call "an unfunded mandate". An example of an unfunded mandate is when city governments are ordered by the federal government to do something (maybe build new housing for all the poor people) but no funds are provided to pay for the mandated action.
Human Rights agencies tell nations what they should do about migration, but they don't provide any funds to do it, nor do they take into account the wishes of the citizens in the sovereign country.
Even if it was the case that every migrant was a saintly martyr of oppression, sovereign countries would still have the right to say, "Sorry; no, you can't come here."
Certainly the movement of people on the planet is going to get much, much worse as time goes on. Global warming guarantees that, even if the predations of corrupt governments didn't. As it happens, they both guarantee an abundant supply of refugees. I do not know what the solution for this problem is.
Well, yes, we do have a lot of problems in the South, that's what I was saying. I am Sicilian and the stereotypes foreigners have about us do not make me happy at all. I emigrated to the North of Italy because it was hard for my mother to find a job in the South, since if you don't have a friend or a relative recommending you, you have no hopes at all (that's the lack of meritocracy I was talking about). And yes, we gave birth to the Mafia, but it's very unfair to label all Sicilians as criminals. Finally, about Plato, he chose Syracuse to test his ideal form of State, so I don't think we were so bad after all (Don't hate me if I have used a harsh tone, I just hate when they attack Sicily. People have said really bad things to me because of my origins - they often asked me if I was capable to speak Italian, for example. It's nothing personal).
There's no need to apologize, really!
(a) Tell him that he's welcome to express his opinion,
(b) Tell him that I agree with him that epistemologically, it's always a matter of believing one thing or another, though belief isn't contrasted with facts--facts are what we have beliefs about,
(c) Explain that regardless of his opinion, his school, just like all the other schools, is required to teach about the Holocaust in history class, regardless of whether he or any parents believe that the Holocaust occurred or not. The point of teaching things in school isn't to kowtow to beliefs that parents might have. If they don't agree with something, that's their problem.
It's about these people not having anything to contribute to the society they seek to join. They do not speak the language, they do not have any education, they do not share the society's common values. On top of that, they negatively impact the lives of those in whose vicinity they set up camp. Crime, harassment, a general sense of insecurity. Finally, this isn't at all free. It costs boatloads of cash to provide them with "basic needs", like IPhones and Nike shoes.
It's absurd to welcome this human deadweight into societies.
Should we help refugees? Sure, I guess. Again, I believe there's plenty of people to help within any given country's borders (the homeless, the isolated, the elderly, etc), so I do not see why philanthropy must necessarily be aimed at foreigners. But if one is convinced refugees must be helped, help them in or near whatever country they fled.
It's not like all this naive idealism is without risk, either. Right-wing parties are steadily on the rise in all of Europe. A direct result of the inability of the European Union to find an effective course of action with regards to the refugee crisis. One can only hope that governments can and will keep their angry populations in check.
Every sensible country in the world controls their borders and gets to decide who comes in and who doesn't. The only countries with open borders are those being forced by the European Union's inability to act, or are failed states. Your suggestion that open borders are the norm and "the way forward" are groundless. And profoundly naive. As right-wing parties are on the rise all over Europe in direct response to the EU's failure, the only fantasy that is proving unsustainable is the fantasy held by the left about multiculturalism.
I'd like to change my analogy from earlier. Open border policy and uncontrolled immigration aren't the equivalent of letting strangers into your home. It's the equivalent of removing all the locks from your doors and putting a sign out front saying "Free stuff".