A left-wing agenda for immigration

Elections are won and lost on immigration . The left has lost many of them. And not only because right-wing parties across the West have constructed a toxic yet effective narrative on the issue, aimed at fomenting fear and hostility toward foreigners, nor because the majority of citizens are racist.

Migration flows are part of European history, and even constitutive of American society. The more marked cultural and religious differences that characterize the most recent ones cannot be underestimated, but they only partially explain the resistance we are witnessing. What contributes most to making immigration the most disturbing and divisive issue in Western societies—along with the fact that it is a phenomenon largely endured, not governed—is the state of health that characterizes the "receiving" communities, and in particular the state of uncertainty—social, economic, and cultural—that has afflicted large segments of the population in recent years. People fear the arrival of "outsiders" if they feel their stability is threatened, if they experience or fear a deterioration in their material conditions, if they feel unsafe, or if they perceive the risk of an upheaval in their habits, traditions, and identity. This is why immigration arouses greater opposition outside the cities—because those contexts are currently the most fragile—and more in the suburbs, among the weaker social classes, than in the urban centers inhabited by the more affluent classes.

An insecure society (in every sense) demands protection and security , and it is around this demand that political discourse has split. While the right has seized upon and exploited it—on the one hand, exploiting fears, on the other, promising control and repression—the left has given the impression of ignoring it. It matters little that the right's promises—for staying in Italy: closed ports, naval blockades, mass repatriations—are often unfulfilled or impossible to achieve. What matters is the impression given, and while the right has given the impression of taking charge of the problem, and of at least intending to curb a phenomenon that many have perceived as out of control, the left—always prioritizing the humanitarian dimension—has allowed the idea of ​​indiscriminate openness to consolidate.

Immigration has thus become the main source of rift between the working classes and the left. The European left has noticed this, and both in Brussels and in government in various countries, has begun to take the issue seriously, moving beyond a purely humanitarian vision and addressing—with different solutions, not all of which are shared—the issue of "migration governance." The Italian left, however, and particularly the Democratic Party, which is still struggling to grasp a fundamental concept, seems unaware: if elections are lost on immigration, the "others" end up governing, with all the attendant consequences (including that immigration policies are then decided by the "others," usually for the worse).

If the Italian left aspires to win elections and govern the country, it is therefore necessary for it to approach immigration with fresh eyes, tackling the most critical issues and challenging its own taboos, certainly not to ape the right and the populists, but to define a serious, pragmatic position that protects the rights of migrants but which at the same time responds to the demand for legality and security that comes from the majority of Italian citizens.

This isn't a rejection of the idea of ​​an open society; on the contrary, Europe and Italy have never needed immigrants so much. According to Eurostat, over the next 15 years, the working-age population in the Union will decline by 7 percent, and without the influx of non-EU citizens already forecast, the decline would be as much as 13 percent. As for Italy, according to Istat, the number of working-age people will decline by approximately 5 million by 2040. This could result in an estimated 11 percent contraction in GDP, equivalent to an 8 percent drop in per capita income.

We know that it's necessary to invest in policies that seek to raise the birth rate and increase the labor force participation of women and young people. But without "robust migratory flows" (as Mattarella puts it), our country is destined for significant impoverishment, accompanied by the impossibility of maintaining the generous welfare system to which we have become accustomed (primarily healthcare and pensions).

However, it's crucial to distinguish. Supporting the need for "robust migratory flows" cannot mean abandoning border control. It doesn't mean allowing anyone who wants to come to Italy and Europe. Distinguishing, first and foremost, means saying yes to legal immigration—truly, not just pretending—and saying no to irregular immigration.

Yes to significant, planned admissions, tailored to the needs of the demographics and the productive fabric, as qualified as possible, facilitated by processes far more effective than those employed by the current government. Yes to rebuilding a priority relationship between immigration and employment, to repealing the Bossi-Fini law, the "click day" lottery, and the entirely ineffective mechanism that allows entry only to those with an existing employment contract (which is responsible for countless "fake admissions" and scams targeting migrants); yes to temporary residence permits for "job seeking," accompanied by the reinstatement of the sponsorship system to provide the necessary guarantees. Yes to integration policies dismantled over the years by right-wing governments, to reception in the SAI (Italian Social Security Institute) and to widespread reception. And yes to the individual regularization of illegally residing foreigners who wish to work and comply with the law, whether through the initiative of an entrepreneur seeking employment or through proven social integration.

These are the "yeses" contained in the bill presented by Graziano Delrio for the Democratic Party. In my opinion, they are all important and worthy of support, and taken together they define a position markedly distinct from that practiced by the current government forces.

Investing in legal immigration is the most effective way to counter illegal flows and the activities of mafias that profit from human trafficking. Just as regularizing those unable to repatriate—in recent years, repatriations have never exceeded 4,500—means lifting hundreds of thousands of currently "invisible" people from marginalization, freeing them from the prospect of exploitation in the black market and from the need to turn to crime for survival. Investing in the legal dimension of immigration is also a way to contribute to greater security in our cities.

This yes must obviously be extended to refugees, to those fleeing war, persecution, or natural disasters, because the Italian Constitution and the Geneva Convention require it, but even more so because it is required by the humanitarian values ​​we embrace. However, the right to asylum must be made concretely enforceable, which is not the case today. This requires the multiplication of humanitarian corridors, with strong European leadership and the support of the IOM and UNHCM, to prevent refugees—in order to reach safety and reach Europe—from having to undertake "journeys of hope" and put themselves in the hands of traffickers.

But saying "yes" isn't enough, as I've said. Distinguishing today also means knowing how to say "no," with the same clarity, to irregular immigration managed by organized crime, of which migrants—also due to the lack of effective legal entry channels—are the primary victims. It's irregular immigration that generates suffering, insecurity, and illegality. It's irregular immigration that ends up fueling fear and hostility toward foreigners.

This "no" has not been clearly expressed so far by the left and the Democratic Party, fueling the prejudice that the entire left is in favor of the indiscriminate entry and welcome of anyone who wishes to come to Italy and Europe. The lack of this "no," the refusal to consider border control and the fight against irregular immigration as necessary, the idea that these are "right-wing" principles and policies from which it is necessary to distinguish oneself, is among the main causes of the divorce between the left and the working classes—in Italy, Europe, and the United States—as well as the reason why so many elections have been lost.

In my opinion, it's time for a turning point. I repeat: certainly not to copy (badly) the right, nor to retreat from the humanitarian values ​​that inspire us. We remain firmly opposed to populist ideas like the unnecessary and costly hub in Albania, to the spectacularization of repatriations, and to any denial of human rights. We remain steadfast in our opposition to anyone risking their life at sea and to assist them in the best possible way, and therefore we must commit to developing effective search and rescue operations, ideally through a European rescue mission. The protection and care of anyone in danger or in need is not in question. However, we must be clear that failing to combat irregular flows is an enabler of the criminal activities of those who profit from migrants, just as failing to control our borders jeopardizes the very security that Europe demands of us.

Strengthening regular flows can certainly significantly reduce informal movements, but it would be wishful thinking to eliminate them, just as it would be wishful thinking to rely on the prospect of increasing forced repatriations (while some additional results can be achieved with assisted voluntary repatriations). There remains the need to mitigate the impact of migratory movements that will not disappear, and to combat human trafficking as effectively as possible.

For this reason, there are no alternatives: we must speak with the countries of origin and transit, starting with those in sub-Saharan Africa and the southern shores of the Mediterranean. Even—I emphasize—if they are authoritarian regimes. We must build relationships and work on regular entry for work, develop legal pathways, demanding in exchange a tougher stance towards traffickers, along with guarantees regarding respect for human rights. We know this is difficult to achieve, especially if we limit ourselves to bilateral relations. But a pact between the European Union and the African Union, extended to the United Nations, can achieve this goal. It involves combining development support—aid and investment in healthcare, energy, and education—strengthening legal immigration channels, and combating the mafias that manage trafficking. This would also require that UN agencies—IOM and UNHCR—be allowed to effectively monitor respect for human rights. Is it difficult? Very difficult. But it is an essential path. Failure to do so would leave us exposed to potentially limitless uncontrolled flows. And, with that, hand over the keys to our democracies to human traffickers.

I conclude by returning to the topic of integration, because it is of primary importance. The right has dismantled what was there, but what was there was very little. Without adequate training, integration, and inclusion policies, a greater influx of non-EU citizens risks generating—alongside the positive effects mentioned above—serious inequalities, segregation, and conflict.

It is therefore essential that work-related admissions take into account knowledge of Italian, educational qualifications, and professional skills, and that the experience currently relegated to the few "extra quota" admissions introduced by the "Cutro decree"—allowed to those who have attended language and professional training courses in their countries of origin—be expanded and systematized.

Furthermore, it is a fact that immigrants are in demand in the labor market today, partly because—despite situations of outright exploitation—they are willing to take on strenuous (often low-paid) jobs that young Italians prefer not to do. However, we must absolutely avoid the risk of entrenching ethnic inequalities and the formation of a true "underclass" of foreign origin. Various signs—including the poorer academic performance of young immigrants, their dropout rate, and the high proportion of NEETs among them—tell us how real this risk is already today. And how necessary it is, therefore, to work for greater inclusion of second and third generations, to prevent the frustration of their aspirations from translating into resentment, as has happened in other countries.

It would be hypocritical, however, not to recognize that migrants are not all the same, and that depending on their culture and religious beliefs, some ethnic groups are more or less inclined to integrate into the host community. Interesting in this regard—on a positive note—is the experience of Spain, whose recent demographic and economic growth has been significantly contributed to by immigration of Latin American origin, encouraged because it is considered—for cultural, linguistic, and religious reasons—akin to its people and easier to integrate. It is estimated that in the last ten years, approximately two million people of Latin American origin have settled in Spain, facilitated by specific agreements between the Spanish government and several Latin American countries, as well as by the possibility of applying for citizenship after just two years of legal residence (ten years are required for other nationalities).

This is obviously a circumstance that is not easily repeatable, a legacy of the long Hispanic domination of many territories in Central and South America, but from which it is possible to deduce the legitimacy – in general, within the context of the flows that will be planned in the future – of introducing some form of "preference" based on a criterion of "greater integrability" of this or that migratory component (as was also the case for Syrians in Angela Merkel's Germany).

Pedro Sánchez's Socialist government, moreover, has not hesitated to sign bilateral agreements with Morocco, Mauritania, and Senegal aimed at curbing irregular immigration, along with strengthening maritime border controls in the Strait of Gibraltar, the Balearic Islands, and the Canary Islands. This confirms that there is a way for the left to effectively address the issue of immigration, staying true to its principles but without handing over open spaces to the right. This requires reconciling solidarity and security, setting out to govern the movement of people according to a fundamentally simple principle: favor all that is legal, and oppose all that is not.

Giorgio Gori , mayor of Bergamo for ten years, is an MEP elected on the Democratic Party lists

More on these topics: