Returns and security: a law against impunity
Italy turned into a permanent waiting room
Irregular immigration is not governed with slogans or the limp, almost ceremonial caution that for years has turned every return into an administrative, judicial and diplomatic labyrinth. A serious state does not shout: it decides. And, above all, it acts.
The point is simple. The state must not be allowed to choose whether to expel those who commit crimes: it must be obliged to do so. Discretion at the very least breeds public distrust and disaffection. Those with no right to remain, those who commit crimes, those posing a concrete danger to public security must be swiftly expelled. The right of residence is not a moral annuity. Free movement is not a licence for impunity. And the sacrosanct protection of individual rights cannot turn into the state’s abdication of its duty to protect its citizens.
A comprehensive reform of the Consolidated Immigration Act is needed. And the defect to be rooted out has a name: discretion. Today expulsion is ordered ‘case by case’ (our translation), entrusted to a power that may be exercised or left dormant according to the sensibilities of the moment. In that margin a chasm opens. It must be filled. The prefect [the government’s territorial representative] must no longer be ‘able’ to assess whether to expel: the law must oblige him to do so, without delay, whenever the conditions are met. The same constraint must apply to the questore [the provincial police chief], who must be enabled to open the return file, establish identity, request consular documents and, where necessary, initiate detention in CPR [detention centres for returns]; and this obligation must also rest with the mayor, local police and municipal offices. No more discretion: a statutory obligation with certain, verifiable response times.
We all know it: no return is possible without the cooperation of countries of origin. Very well. Readmission agreements should be binding and economically advantageous for those who cooperate: cooperation, visas and entry channels linked to the duty to take back their own citizens. Those who do not cooperate cannot expect benefits.
The judiciary must remain a safeguard of legality, not become a substitute government. Judges verify compliance with the law; they do not rewrite migration policy case by case. Hence the need for exhaustively defined grounds for suspension, appeals without automatic suspensive effect, specialist divisions and mandatory deadlines. Return cannot be reduced to an endless game in which every formal technicality cancels the public interest.
The issue also applies to European Union citizens. Free movement is a pillar, not a blank cheque of trust. Those who commit crimes or pose a genuine and present threat must undergo a mandatory review of their right of residence and, where provided for, be removed.
Finally, minors. Being under age requires protection, not amnesia. If a foreign minor commits crimes, assaults people, deals drugs, incites hatred or joins violent groups, the state must intervene immediately: restrictive residential facilities, requirements, educational supervision, family responsibility, a national file. And on reaching eighteen, there must be a rigorous review of the entitlement to remain.
This is just order, not repression. It is the first form of respect towards those who live, work and obey the law.