MEETING RO ME -NEW YORK
SESSION IV: INTEGRATION AND IMMIGRATION
IMMI GRANTS IN ITALY AND INTEGRATION PROCESS INDEX
Franco Pittau, Ugo Mel chionda and Oli viero Forti
Caritas Statistical Dossier on Immigration - Rome
ABSTRACT
This paper discusses how immigration in It al y has becom e an increasingl y
structural process, both on a l egal level as well as from st atistical index, whil e
the rol e of societ y has not been equal t o this appeal.
The first part anal yses legislative development on immigrati on; the second
examines avail abl e statistical dat a.
The conclusions point out the differences between the actual situation, that
claims a confi dent polic y of int egration, and the attitudes of the population, that
are mostl y oriented t owards closing out new citize ns.
Analysis of legal develop ment
Until the ‘70s the attitude towards forei gner was neut ral; for some peopl e
this was equival ent to curiosit y, whereas for others, it meant compl ete
indifference. At this time laws in force for public safet y were from 1931 when
our count r y was stri ctl y mono -cultural and prevalentl y consi dered the mi grator y
trend a m atter of public order.
It al y was a count r y earmarked for wi de -spread emi gration; not until the
mid-70s, did repatriation exceed expatriation. Flows of transi ent emi grants
(East ern European refugees going overseas) were regist ered, as well as a limit ed
flow of workers (m ainl y femal e domest ic help and relati vel y few peopl e doing
other work).
There were about 300,000 immi grants, mainl y European
communit y citizens. T here was no law regulating thei r st atus, even though this i s
provided for in article 10 of the Constitution.
In the earl y ‘80s, awareness of the problem was risi ng and the first germs
of extraneousness also began to appear. The number of i mmigrants gradua ll y
increas ed, but was still below half a million (450,000) in 1986: this presence was
still rather const ant and began to be perceived.
After an almost five - year discussion, i n December of 1998, law 943 was
approved: the first appertai ning to immigration. For those times, it could be
considered a good law compared to the closed polici es of other European
countri es. It included equal ri ghts for new workers, recogniti on and preservation
of the l anguage and culture heritage and event uall y parti cipat ion on a l ocal level.
It also provided for a legalisation of the status of forei gners who had previousl y
entered the countr y without a permit. La bour m arket issues, for whi ch there were
confli cting opinions, were not confronted.
From am ong the fi rst germs of extra neousness during this phase were: the
assumption that the hypothesis of returning to the countr y of ori gin was deem ed
normal (the Fund for repat riation was instituted for this purpose), the expres sion
non EU citizens was used in this same law, and there wa s a lack of an y financi al
backi ng for reception polici es.
The mid -80s until the mid -90s was characterised b y em ergenc y conditions .
Intervention was deemed necessar y but was done without an y view to mid - or
long-term planning due to a lack of awareness of the structural dimensions of the
process. Man y legal provisions were not enforced, being alm ost ineffective.
Landing in It al y became more and more desi rabl e and the approved
legislation showed i ts limitations. In 1989, the murder of an Afri can, Jerr y Ess a n
Masslo, in the countr yside around Vill a Lit erno showed that public opinion was
against racism.
Politicians recognised the need for new legisl ation. Law 39/90 (known as
“Martelli ’s law”) was approved b y an unswerving, parli am entar y majorit y t hat
included the opposit ion (which al so occurred in 1986). The l aw was far -reaching,
especiall y with regard to: the treatment of requests for as yl um from people from
all count ries the legalisation of sta y, protection and provisi on for initi al though
modest fi nancial a id for new arrivals (30 billion per year), the provision for an
annual decree concerning the flows, the overcoming of juri dical limitations on
the subj ect of sel f -employm ent, and l egalisation granted to over 200,000 people
who had entered our count r y illeg all y.
However other factors affect ed t he effectiveness of this l aw: the short age
of funds (above all , a reduction aft er three years), the fact of having mai ntained a
direct call from abroad as the onl y means to enter our countr y, the ruling about
flows th at was often conceived as a fulfi lment “when all is done”, the restri ctive
interpret ation of the reciprocit y paragraph, and the non -involvem ent of the
countri es of ori gin of the immi grants.
In 1995 a closer scrutin y phase began. After a restl ess route, a l aw on
immigration (40/1998) and the relat ed enforcement regul ation were approved.
This positive legi slative developm ent was not accompanied b y increas ed
awareness of public opinion, that was split in half: one part open to the new
pres ence and opportuniti es it offered; the other part – al most as convinced –
closed, as i f this presence repres ented a dangerous invasion, bringing about no
benefits.
This period began i n 1995 when immi grants exceeded 700,000 in number.
The cent re -ri ght government at that time tri ed to pass a ver y restri cti ve
immigration regulat ion. The influence of this provision can be found in law
489/95, approved during the Dini government, which cont ains a ver y restri ctive
part concerning expulsions and the reuniting of families (supported b y the Lega
Nord) and a part t hat allows for more opportuniti es concerning health care and
legalis ation: in the end, onl y the legali sation section was approved (involving
over 200,000 people).
In the following centre -left government , the “Napolit ano -Turco ” proposal
became a l aw in March of 1998 aft er a heav y disput e l ed by t he opposition: thi s
was a cl ear si gn that , com pared to t he past, immi gration was no longer a question
on whi ch vi ews were shared b y a vast political line -up (as in man y countri es);
the attitude of the politicians further divided public opinion.
The new law was based on three pillars: 1. campai gn against and repres sion
of cl andestine immi gration and the expl oitation of the fl ows; 2. 3 - year planning
by m eans of a quota syst em, not dependi ng on unavailability of local labour and
feasible through various channels; 3. realistic int egration routes for forei gners
who are l egall y present. The l egalisati on (the fourth, st art ing from 1986) of a
further 250,000 im migrants was added to this. Thus, f rom 1,250,000 forei gners
pres ent in 1998, a total of 1,490,000 was reached at the end of 1999.
The formul ation of the law was realisti c and offered marked openings: an
immigrant was not reduced t o the asset of his arm s but set up as a new citizen.
Public opinion did not adequatel y recognise the characterist ics of the new flows :
structural causes of expulsion in the countries of ori gin and demographi c and
occupational reasons in our countr y, which were cl earl y indi cat ed in the
integration procedure.
Analysis of integration indices
Ten statistical it ems indicate how immi gration al read y is and that it will
increasingl y becom e a structural component of It alian soci et y. These indi ces are:
 Immi grants are requi red from a demographic point of vi ew
 The y are requi red b y our l abour market
 Man y of them have been living in t he countr y for a long time
 The y are young and a hi gh percentage are wom en
 Most of them are married
 50,000 were granted citizenship i n the ‘90s
 There is a rel evant number of mixed m arriages and mixe d couples
 More and more have their children living with them
 The y s how a l arge capacit y to save mone y through remitt ance
 There are 100,000 children att ending schools
Conclusions
Germ an y and other countri es show that a crucial problem, such as
immigration , can onl y be faced from within a bipartisan logic, according t o
which the m ajorit y and opposition are committed to not ideal ising it or exploit it
for its own propaganda.
Another serious drawback in t he Itali an situation consists of administ rative
dela ys that occur in our count r y when provisions must be enforced. This is due to
the well known deficienci es in the public admi nistration and, in this cas e,
accent uat ed b y the red -hot political clim ate and the consequent aroused st ate of
the popul ation. At t he moment , no law, no matter how valid it may be, could be
considered a “tot em ” able to suitabl y resolve all of t he problems but onl y a kind
of container to d ynamicall y impl ement concrete choices.
The m ood of the population, faced with this rel ativel y new ph enomenon,
considering t he fact that the first l aw concerning immi gration dates back to 1986
(no. 943), is not very com forting. This i s easil y seen in a series of surve ys and
polls that point out a feeling of uncertaint y and fear ( IR P Surve y 1998 and
North -east Surve y Foundation 2000).
The meet the fear and danger of racism we have to creat e a European space
capabl e not onl y of exploiting its own cultural heritage without closi ng itself off
to differences but also of supporti ng each member st ate.
It is ben efi cial to repeat that great historical processes can be di rected but
not suppressed: immigration is one of these processes. Politicians,
administrators, opi nion makers and other soci al l eaders m ust yield and exert
themselves so that i mmigration, st ructura ll y alread y our partner, is not divided
from s oci et y.