Italian anti-Trumpism on migrants

On the same topic:

The issue isn't the cost: it's the direction. The issue isn't the result achieved: it's the approach demonstrated. The point isn't the battle with the judges: it's the attempt to find a balance between the agenda of rights and that of duties. Amidst complete indifference in Italy, the Economist on newsstands this week has chosen to focus heavily, in its introductory editorial and its first in-depth article, on a dossier that isn't about the ongoing tariff conflict between the world's major democracies, between the United States and Europe, but about a conflict currently taking place within major democracies, and primarily within European democracies . Given the many fronts that exist around the globe, the dossier may seem, as Giorgia Meloni would say, secondary. But that dossier is actually like a fever line that's always present—fixed, constant, and debilitating—on the thermometer of open societies. We are talking, as you will have understood, about the topic of topics, the topic on which a large part of European politics is still divided today, Ukraine aside, and that topic is obviously immigration .

The Economist's thesis is strong. The current system regulating the right to asylum no longer works; we must acknowledge this, have the courage to say so, and have the strength to build something new, abolishing what exists today. The right to asylum, says the Economist, no longer works for at least two reasons . On the one hand, it is no longer capable of governing a phenomenon vastly different from what it was in 1951, when the right to asylum was established: today, there are 90 million people worldwide who would like to migrate permanently, but for a poor citizen, entering a rich country legally is nearly impossible. On the other hand, the right to asylum allows for the creation of a vast gray area, within which illegality nests through a consolidated pattern: migrants arrive in a country after countless difficulties, apply for asylum, knowing that the evaluation will take years, and in the meantime, while they await that evaluation, they can disappear and work illegally. Voters, The Economist notes, are the first to understand that the system doesn't work. It fails to protect those who truly need asylum and encourages illegal immigration.

The Economist's proposal is to move within two different dimensions . In the first dimension, it is necessary to understand that the formula "let's help them at home" should not necessarily be interpreted as "let's help them at home so they don't leave their homeland," but rather must be understood in a different way: it is necessary to understand that hosting refugees in places close to their country of origin is much less costly, and the UNHCR's own budgets tell us that a refugee in Chad spends less than a tenth as much as one in a rich country. The next step in the Economist's reasoning is one that directly concerns Italy. And here too, the reasoning is straightforward. If countries more affected than others by immigration want to transform it into an opportunity, they must increase legal flows to welcome them, putting them at the service of those seeking labor but unable to find it. If countries affected by migration also want to curb arrivals, they cannot avoid questioning the incentives they offer irregular migrants. If a country does nothing to combat irregular immigration, irregular immigration will increase. If something is done to combat it, irregular immigration could decrease. And countries that choose, for example, to send migrants who are not eligible to seek asylum to a third, safe third country to undergo the assessment procedures are countries that, rather than being considered xenophobic, should be considered a role model.

The Economist cites the Albanian model, widely criticized in Italy and under attack by the judiciary, not for its functioning, but for what it represents, or rather, for what it was originally supposed to represent. And in the beginning, this was the Albanian model: a set of structures organized to keep out of Italy adult, non-vulnerable male migrants from countries on the list of so-called safe countries that should be repatriated. This model, whether one likes it or not, is found, among other things, within the new European Pact on Asylum and Migration, which, starting in mid-2026, will introduce a comprehensive set of rules governing, among other things, cooperation with third countries deemed safe, with the aim of making the external management of migration flows more effective and coordinated. The Meloni model on immigration perfectly matches the one suggested by The Economist—border management, legal flows, and third-country immigration to discourage irregular arrivals—and despite the hostility shown toward that model not only by much of the opposition but also by much of the judiciary, it represents the exact opposite of the Trumpian model dreamed of by populists . It offers solutions, not scapegoats, reverses the naval blockade method, attempts to manage a phenomenon without closing ports, attempts to do so with the support of Europe, and ultimately attempts to offer voters answers not by demonizing immigration but by demonstrating commitment and creativity to combat illegal immigration. It's not a perfect model, but it's one that needs to be perfected, if anything, not destroyed, sabotaged, or scrapped. Because, despite what the anti-populist opposition may think, there's nothing more populist than talking about immigration without addressing voters in a way that's often featured in political news : if you're a migrant arriving in Italy, you have the right to stay; if you don't have the right to stay because you don't meet the requirements for asylum, repatriating you is racist; and if you're looking for a solution to manage the phenomenon, you're simply handing the immigration agenda to the right. The right to asylum no longer works. Finding solutions to manage an epochal phenomenon is a duty. Focusing on scapegoats is populism. Seeking alternative solutions is not. The issue isn't the cost: it's the direction. The issue isn't the result achieved: it's the approach adopted . Think about it before your next tirade.

More on these topics: