“Countries that we consider liberal democracies such as Australia, Japan and New Zealand and the USA have more restrictive laws than Italy, both on entry and exit”. Cristina Fasone, associate professor of comparative public law at Luiss, takes stock of immigration laws in the rest of the world.
But, is a harder line now being adopted in the EU too towards immigrants?
“Yes, even in Europe, there is an attempt to make expulsions easier. In Denmark, for example, a law was approved in 2021 regarding the expulsions of asylum seekers and convicted irregular migrants to third countries where these people could risk their lives, such as Uganda where human rights are not respected. This has led to protests from various NGOs and strong concerns have also arisen within the Council of Europe”.
Because?
“The 47 countries (which became 46 after Russia’s exit) that adhere to the European Convention on Human Rights must submit to a series of rules that are more guaranteed. Article 4 of Protocol 4 prohibits collective push-backs and, therefore, asylum applications must be assessed individually. Article 3, on the other hand, prohibits inhuman and degrading treatment which is applied in the event that the possibility of disembarking in safe ports is denied”.
Apart from Denmark, are there other cases of European countries that are placing restrictions?
“In the United Kingdom, the former Home Secretary of the short-lived Litz Struss government was considering the possibility of proceeding with collective expulsions of migrants arriving from France on small boats. In Finland, a country that is considered a beacon for democracies , on the other hand, there has been discussion of a wall to stop the arrival of migrants from Russia. In short, there is a widespread trend in Europe to circumvent or disapply the rules”.
But Italy has problems especially with France and Germany on immigration…
“France and Germany take advantage of the fact that, in Europe, the rules of the Dublin Treaty are still in force and they accuse us of not respecting them. In those countries, as well as in Denmark, migrants arrive second-hand and, therefore, are not entrusted with immediate management of the migratory flow”.
Looking also at the situation overseas, one wonders what is the difference between the wall that separates the USA from Mexico and the one that separates Spain from Ceuta and Melilla? Why does the former make “more noise” than the latter?
“From the point of view of law, the US wall and the Spanish one are walls in the same way. From the point of view of the protection of migrants, nothing changes, there is only a different media clamor. In the US, then, there have been problems with family reunification and with unaccompanied minors. Perhaps it was the character Trump who aroused the most clamor, but the problem in Spain is that we don’t know what happens with African migrants who try to arrive from the southern border. We don’t know if they are welcomed or rejected, but the presence of a wall already represents a violation of the rules of international law”.
What do you think of France rejecting migrants in Ventimiglia?
“France, according to the rules of the European Convention on Human Rights, cannot carry out collective push-backs on the border with Italy. There is, clearly, a violation of rights. Those are prohibited pushbacks.”
In this context, what is the role of Frontex?
“Frontex should ensure border security. At the moment it has only a monitoring role and I am afraid there will be no enhancement of Frontex which could help the coastguards of individual states. The point is that immigration, in the EU, is perceived as a problem that only concerns some countries and not others”.
