Here we go again. This majority does not give up on persecuting foreigners, in violation not only of the rules of civilized life, but also of the law. And in the case in question we are not dealing with the "invaders" who arrive on the tubs across the Mediterranean, but with those who are legally resident in Italy and live in conditions of hardship. Never forget that when we talk about 5 million poor, it is customary not to specify that there are included – in the lower groups – 1,5 million EU and non-EU foreigners. Let's get to the point.
The Senate Labor Commission is examining (already undergoing amendments) the decree law n.4/2019 (AS 1018) containing the measures relating to basic income (RdC) and pensions (quota 100 and surroundings) . Initially, the yellow-green majority intended to recognize the RO only for Italians. When it realized that foreigners - both EU and non-EU citizens with long-term residence permits - could not be discriminated against both on the basis of laws and consolidated jurisprudence (even of constitutional rank), the majority had to make an inversion of gear, inserting the requirement of ten years of residence, of which the last two are continuous, at this point, however, having to apply it to Italians as well.
Thus, even an Italian immigrant citizen who, for example, returns from Venezuela poor in the cane, would not have the right to basic income. The envy of the "Italians first" has not subsided: the Commission has set stricter rules for foreigners wishing to apply for the basic income. The League has approved a law according to which non-EU foreigners requesting access to the basic income must present a certification of income and assets of the family nucleus issued by the State of origin, translated into Italian and legalized by the Italian Consular Authority.
The new rules they do not apply (goodness them) for political refugees and for foreigners who come from countries from which it is not possible to obtain the required documentation. Over the next three months, the Ministry of Labor will draw up a list of these countries. Thus, immigrants who are interested in applying for citizenship income will have to wait – further malice – for the launch of this list before submitting the relevant application. If the thing weren't serious, it would present some paradoxical features.
How will it be determined which countries, among the many origins of foreigners residing in the national territory, I am not able to issue the certification? Will inspectors be sent around the world to verify the functionality of local administrations, registry offices, land registers and tax archives? Then will a guide be published with lots of stars next to each State, based on the (in)efficiency found? Obviously, say the presenters of the amendment, the ISEE certification required of Italians is not enough for foreigners: we know very well that these freeloaders hide huge movable and real estate capital at home and come here to look for a free ride!
E the carers? They come to us only to circumvent their grandfather and get married (in the XNUMXth legislature, even a provision was passed in a budget law to oppose marriages; the provision was later declared unconstitutional at the request of an Italian lady, who had remained widow of someone much older than her).
Thinking about it, the ratio of the rule on the certification surplus for non-EU foreigners is the same that caused such a stir months ago following a resolution of the Municipality of Lodi (Mayor Sara Casanova from the Northern League) as regards the reduced fees for the school canteen and school bus services for foreign children. The case broke out last autumn and went around the world (the Guardian also wrote about it). A new regulation established that, in addition to the ISEE, foreign parents were also required to certify that they did not own houses, current accounts or cars in their country of origin.
Documents to be retrieved in original and for which the self-certification was not valid; therefore very difficult to find, especially in some African and South American countries. Those services thus became inaccessible to over 200 non-EU children. Public opinion was mobilized, fundraisers were organized and above all an appeal was presented to the judiciary which accepted that appeal considering the resolution discriminatory. The political forces of the majority split.
The Lodi case was judged an example to follow for the Northern League component, a distortion for the Five Stars. On the one hand, Matteo Salvini spoke of an "anti-cunning rule", on the other, Luigi Di Maio stated: "This state will always be on the side of the children". He was followed by the Speaker of the Chamber, Roberto Fico: «Anyone who creates discrimination apologizes». If the amendment remains part of the decree converted into law, the Lodi case will become an Italy case (despite the fig leaf of the exemption of the ''rogue states'').
Another change is aimed at preventing the use of scam divorces, i.e. those which, due to the date on which they occurred, can suggest that they were aimed at collecting the RdC. The proposal approved by the Commission in the Senate provides, in fact, that, if two spouses separate or divorce after 2018 September XNUMX, in order to access the basic income they will have to certify that they no longer reside in the same house with a "special report from the municipal police" . The traffic police will therefore carry out very scrupulous checks to check if the ex-spouses are telling the truth or not.
At the notice of the writer the procedure borders on the ridiculous. Thinking of the traffic policeman who goes to the home of the divorced man (or the divorced woman) early in the morning, carefully inspecting the wardrobes and looking to see if anyone is hiding under the bed, is a case that would look like him in a pochade. That two citizens are prohibited from "being separated at home" belongs to the absurdly dirigiste rules of the discipline envisaged for the RdC. It has never been seen that two former spouses - mindful of the old passion - are forced to spend a night of love in a hotel, in order not to run the risk of being surprised, at home, by a policeman, who does not always ring two times as the postman. An act of love between two consenting adults could cost them jail time.
