Fear of foreigners is always triggered by a mix of both subjective and objective factors. Do you think the Reggiani case (when an Italian woman was robbed raped and killed in Rome by a Rumanian immigrant – Ed.) is a symptom of a real emergency? How much objectivity is there in the public reaction, and how much do you think we are seeing the projection of feelings which are certainly legitimate, but perhaps of a different nature?

We must have the courage to go beyond emotion. Real emotion, such as that which comes from the death of a gentle and peace-loving woman who worked with children is of course just, and legitimate, and without it we would be less human. But this feeling is also partly composed of the deep insecurity of a world which is rich, but lost in the dizzying age of globalisation. People feel unsafe. Twenty or thirty years ago we had a sense of living in a civilised society. These days people don’t know what Italy is, or what it means to be Italian in this world.

Do you believe that there really is a security issue?

Of course there are problems concerning security and of different cultures living side by side. But they come in waves. We’ve seen it with Muslims, with Albanians (in the 1990s it seemed as if we were being invaded), and today it’s the Romanians. The Romanian problem, however, is also due to a serious oversight, that is, that no one foresaw that so many would come when the borders opened. It’s quite surprising, because whilst we have been worrying for years about the entry of Turkey into the EU, saying that it will lead to thousands of Turks pouring into our country, there was no similar reasoning about Romania, a great rural country traumatised by a history of terrible Communism.

So do you believe that there should be limits placed on the circulation of EU citizens, particularly with respect to certain countries? Wouldn’t this lead to the labelling of some peoples as being ‘more dangerous’?

No, of course not. How can we reason in this way? We ought to have thought about it before, but we can’t now label a people as criminals when our experience proves that Romanians are easily integrated (after 5 years they seem Italian, working in our homes and looking after our elderly), and when on the whole the overall judgement is positive. It’s true that certain individuals have created serious problems. But it should also be remembered that the high levels of criminality amongst Romanians is also due to the fact that there are so many of them. At any rate, when it comes to punishment, we must act only upon individuals. What we can do with groups and communities is preventative work to aid integration. Where such work has been implemented, Romanians have been integrated well. We should also encourage the establishment of the Romanian Orthodox Church in Italy so that it can monitor its congregation, because we need Romanians themselves to cooperate in this process.

Do you think that the security legislation recently passed by the government contains adequate measures? What do you think, for example, of the possibility that not only convicted criminals may be deported, but also those who have no income?

I’m very perplexed by the expulsion of those with no income, because I think that, in this way, everyone is tarred with the same brush. Amongst other things, expulsions do little to help, because, being EU citizens, these people are free to return. In short, we should be careful to not resort to force, making excessive knee-jerk reactions. The problem of security must be tackled in two ways. The first, obviously, is to punish the criminals, keeping an eye on these areas where they live, integrating the people there, and so on. The second is to combat the malaise of insecurity, which finds a scapegoat in the gypsy and the foreigner. To do this we need to try to teach Italians once again what it means to be Italian, to teach Italy what Italy is for. Until the 1990s, political parties explained to the people, and to their militants, their vision of the future, their programmes, and what they were fighting for. But these days we find ourselves in a country which is richer, but less motivated, and extremely frightened. This is a deep problem that we must think about and work upon. At any rate I feel that it is deeply wrong, and false, to use the immigration problem as a card in noisy political debates. Immigration is a massive national issue, just as the question of our national borders was in the first half of the 20th century. And just as it was impossible then to debate on the inclusion of a particular region in Italy in terms of majorities or oppositions, so today we must treat immigration as a bipartisan issue, to be approached with a cool head and logical reasoning in the best interests of the country. It is a national question, which demands a historical change in thinking and a long-term vision. If we continue to excite people’s fears, on the other hand, politics will be defeated. And the centre-left first of all, because people will think “it was better before”.

But how do we select who is welcome and who isn’t? How can we distinguish between those who are ‘regular and correct’ and those who aren’t, when circumstances are ever more mixed and confused? (There are, for example, many Rumanian women who work who may have unemployed husbands with drink problems)

If we were to apply the same criteria to judge Italians as we do to judge foreigners, who knows what would happen. Take for example the recent crime in Perugia! (The murder of Meredith Kirchner – Ed.) If someone has a drunken husband, should we throw her out of the country? We have to work towards integration without isolating people, punishing criminals and responding more fully to the need for security. A stable government, good policies and the ability to speak to the nation would be much more substantial responses to the insecurities of the Italian people than the promise “We will repress such and such”. Using expulsions to placate fear is pointless. Much more useful would be substantial collaboration between the government and the Rumanian authorities. But the most important thing is not to set Italians and Rumanians against each other, or Rumanians against Roma – in Rumania there is a very strong Italian presence, too, and we are an important trade partner. Unfortunately, in this Europe, ever more in decline, the use of national categories is re-emerging, as the recent case of the separation between the Flemish and the Walloons in Belgium demonstrates. I’m very worried about this last issue, which has been practically ignored by the press.

But do you believe that successful and harmonious integration is possible? It’s true that immigrants cover those jobs which would otherwise lack manpower. But from a social point of view, is our system capable of managing such a massive influx?

Our system needs immigrants – this is a proven fact. They come because we need them, as well as for the fact that they themselves are looking for work, and because of ‘the American myth’, which is unfortunately very widespread in Rumania. I remember when the Albanian borders opened – everyone rushed out because they had seen Italy on the television. Ours is a society which has the ability to attract. And so for many there is a move from a primitive rural situation to an urban one, as in Rome. In this way their existence is turned upside down, and this always has a difficult impact. The problem, indeed, is to avoid the creation of ghettos.

And yet this is what often happens.

Not always. Italian immigration didn’t have this consequence, nor did Portuguese immigration into France, nor that of the Poles. Perhaps the most difficult integration from this point of view is that of the Chinese. Then of course there are the gypsies, who are much more difficult to integrate, in part because of the serious prejudices against them which exist within our society. No one has ever shed a tear (nor spent a lira) for the 300,000 nomads killed in the extermination camps. But the Roma are also Italian citizens, and so if they don’t commit crime then they also have the right to live as nomads. In our society we tolerate all differences – why is their diversity so terrible? Then there is the discussion on what policies to adopt toward the camps, where there are sometimes drug traffickers. In such cases we must intervene, but I shudder when I see the virile exultation of bulldozers razing the camps to the ground. It reminds me of Marchais driving his caterpillar lorry to demolish the small dwellings on the outskirts of Paris. The issue of the gypsies must be addressed, but let’s remember that we’re talking about a small minority, who are persecuted in Rumania too, and the most effective policies for these people are those which focus on the youths and children, making sure that they go to school and that their families are able to take care of them properly.

What is the role of the media in all this? Is the emergency created at a collective level, and then catalysed by the TV and newspapers, or do the media, in parallel with politics, create this (perhaps fictional) reality?

Today, politics is accompanied by a mix of TV, shouting and antagonistic games. There is an excessive level which pushes the rhetoric to excess and makes it difficult to govern and discuss from different standpoints. One day it seems politicians are ready to die for an issue, and the next it is forgotten. There is an excessive emotivity which is born from a sense of being uprooted and from the limited awareness of the real difficulties involved. Good politics is a mix of lucid realism and ideals – we need these ideals, too, because politicians have to declare what they believe in, and state openly where they want to take this country. Let’s take the issue of Europe – do we still believe in it?

The Reggiani case has brought the problem of degradation and poverty to light, but not only that of foreign nationals. Who is charging themselves with the responsibility of dealing with poverty in today’s world? Why, dramatically, does the Church continue to be the only social actor in an issue that ought to be of purely political relevance?

The issue that you have brought up is dramatic. I myself see it in our soup kitchens and reception centres – there is a process of impoverishment affecting the middle classes, a lack of income. A simple argument or the loss of the house can result in an individual becoming asocial and losing his or her job. There are two problems, both enormous. The first is that of the house, which these days seems to be almost made of gold. Public building programmes are a national disgrace, making us nostalgic for the First Republic and the Fanfani housing plan. The second is food, the cost of which is ever increasing. But anyway, I don’t have a dramatic vision of the country. The noisy predictions of catastrophe are a Utopia, a means of attracting and channelling attention, when in fact there is nothing that can be done. We should beware of crying wolf. What we really need is gradual action, that doesn’t criminalise anyone. When I hear some people say that Rumanians are all criminals, I immediately expect that the next day to hear that it’s the fault of the Jews. And then maybe the Christians. With that attitude, where will it end?

Translation by Liz Longden