The modification of the security decrees, imposed by Matteo Salvini on the yellow-green coalition, represented an important test demonstrating the ''discontinuity'' between Count 2 (and his current majority) and Count 1. The fact that, despite the passing of months (13), those rules (although not applied) continued to be part of the legal system was an open wound not only between the two allies of the new majority, but also within the leadership group of the Democratic Party and its electorate, as well as the world of solidarity associations. The adoption of a new provision had a high political value because it was going to hit one of the strengths of "Salvinism" and one of the arguments that remain at the center of the right-wing political initiative.
On the issue of migrants, in 2018 and 2019, the much of the electoral success of the superpopulist formations. Consequently, even the forces of the left have always considered the issue of immigration to be delicate and risky - in terms of political consensus - with particular reference to the more spectacular aspects of the landings on the Italian coasts, thus forced to remain on the defensive all the time in which Salvini, from the Viminale, managed the age-old question with a paucity of arguments inversely proportional to the brutality of the lies. At certain times, there was even the impression – the media bear serious responsibility – that important sectors of public opinion (perhaps the one most exposed, in the urban suburbs, to the critical problems of ''clandestine'' immigration) did not want to hear reasons or evaluate in objective terms the consequences of a structural phenomenon inherent in a phase of the history of humanity, instead being satisfied with the threat of direct and simple solutions (such as the announced closure of ports) without even bothering to verify their effectiveness .
"The black peril that comes from the sea"' – as was written on the parchment stolen by Brancaleone – threatened to invade us (woe to explain that only 3% of clandestine immigration arrived on boats through the Sicilian Channel), to violate the sacred borders of the homeland (the shipwrecked from the military ship Giorgetti they did not need to invade anything being already in Italian territory). The recurring offenses to humanity such as defining the adventures of a migrant who reached our country on a boat, at the risk of his life, after having crossed a large part of a continent oppressed by a transformation climate which destroys the most basic conditions of survival. Salvini - after sending himself to hell alone from Papeete - tried to play the same music again, even closely linking the resumption of landings and the contagion from Covid-19, even accusing the government of importing will deny to keep the flame of the otherwise extinguished pandemic alight.
And of course he is announcing a battle in Parliament on the occasion of the conversion of the decree. That's why it's important to take on this challenge with the Captain on a terrain where for years he was considered invincible, so much so that it was he who attacked. The decree law approved by the Council of Ministers therefore represents a turning point, also with respect to the policies adopted by Marco Minniti, when he was Minister of Internal Affairs. As has been written, it is a matter of ''a set of rules which - in the direction indicated by the President of the Republic himself - restores centrality to constitutional and international principles in force on the matter and no longer penalizes rescue at sea''.
There are many innovations of which we mention the most significant ones: 1) there will be no more pushbacks against those for whom there is a risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, as well as for the risk of torture, and in cases where repatriation determines the risk of a violation of the right to private and family life; 2) the conversion into a residence permit for work reasons is once again permitted for residence permits for special protection, granted for natural disasters, for elective residence, for the acquisition of citizenship or the state of stateless person, for sporting activities, for artistic type, for religious reasons and for assistance to minors; 3) the duration of the special protection becomes two years; 4) rescue operations no longer fall under sanctions (the rule concerns NGOs), "immediately communicated to the Italian authorities and to the authorities of the flag state and conducted in compliance with the rules of international law and with the indications of the competent coordination center of rescued at sea”; 5) the right to registration in the personal data is restored for the applicant for international protection; 6) the overall reception system for applicants for international protection, beneficiaries of protection and unaccompanied foreign minors is 'rewritten'; 7) the possibility of sending applicants for international protection to work of social utility is reintroduced; 8) the maximum term of proceedings for the recognition of citizenship goes from 48 to 36 months.
It is appropriate to say to the reformist left a "welcome back to the struggle" and to the fielding of its own values that no longer resemble a feel-good discount on those of the adversary. About it it would be appropriate to dispel the myth of Italy transformed into a reception centre for all of Europe (in the meantime it is good that the government participates in the meetings on the revision of the Dublin treaty). A table from the Leone Moressa Foundation shows that there are countries with reception problems higher or in any case not lower than ours.
Of the 675.670 asylum applications lodged in the European Union in 2019 – still including the UK – the share of our country (35) is just over 5%. The partners most affected by the obligation of humanitarian reception were Germany, France and Spain, all with more than 100.000 applicants. With such trends, while admitting that in 2020 the Italian share increased due to the arrivals of the summer months, a possible compulsory redistribution mechanism (the one claimed by the sovereignist ''gang of the hole'') would see us (as written by Maurizio Ambrosini, in Avvenire of 29 September) "in the uncomfortable position of a country destined to receive additional quotas of asylum seekers, rather than entitled to divert them to other destinations".
