Minister, the measures outlined in the new bill on immigration (the introduction of sponsors, the creation of a system of lists, the gradual evacuation of CPTs, specific repatriation programmes) correct some of the failings of the Bossi-Fini law. In practice, however, the new law does not break the link between income and employment on the one hand, and residency permits on the other. Could not more have been done?

This law is the result of an agreement reached between three different opinions within the majority – if I had had sole responsibility of writing it, it certainly wouldn’t be written it in this way. That said – that this kind of compromise is absolutely necessary since our priority is to make a law which will be approved by Parliament – I am also confident that whilst what we propose does maintain the link between work and residency permits, this link will become much less rigid than was the case in the Bossi-Fini law. From this point of view, this new legislation will resolve not one hundred percent, but perhaps seventy percent of the problems created by the rigidity of the previous law. This is why I consider it to be a significant step forward.

Another criticism of this law concerns the introduction if the sponsor, which, in the view of many, will make it much easier to enter the country.

This is the point. At present the Bossi-Fini law allows only one possible means of legal entry – only for those who already have an employment contract. Now, we have seen – concretely, empirically – that this system doesn’t work because it encourages illegal immigration, given that people are almost obliged to enter the country illegally in order to then subsequently look for a job. The value of our new proposal lies in the numerous legal possibilities for entering the country that it offers. But there’s more. The overall quota of immigrants entering the country will, nevertheless, be fixed by the government. From this point of view, those who criticise the sponsorship scheme, and claim that it will give indiscriminate access to anyone and everyone, are wrong.

You have also provided for the possibility of ‘self-sponsorship’, however. Doesn’t this opportunity, as well as being open to the same criticisms which concern sponsors, also introduce a form of discrimination between these immigrants?

It’s clear that self-sponsorship, being in effect the permission to look for a job, can only be adopted by those who have the sufficient resources to fund their own stay in Italy for those months during which they are looking for work. I would like to point out, however, that, firstly, this is one possible path, but not the only one; and that, secondly, immigrants very often pay huge sums of money to criminal gangs. The real issue is to put the State, rather than organised crime, into the role of mediator, and from this point of view the self-sponsored is not only not discriminated against, but also constitutes one of the possible channels of access. Perhaps it won’t be adopted by the majority, but it remains a possibility of legal entry and should therefore be safeguarded.

Therefore there is no problem of security.

The objection concerning (in)security to such an extent has no justification, because it is these criminal gangs who, at present, organise the ‘trade’ of illegal immigrants, just as they also concoct false employments in workplaces where these people do not really work. The Bossi-Fini law gives every possibility for criminals to organise, either legally or illegally, the entry of whoever. To me, however, it seems obvious that if a delinquent wants to enter the country (remembering that anyone who has already been identified as such cannot enter, neither as self-sponsored nor by any other means), probably the last thing s/he would do would be to use those channels which will be closely observed and which, above all, allow the police to identify him/her, to know where s/he lives, how s/he supports him/herself and so on. At the end of the day, if someone wants to come here to pursue a criminal career, the thing s/he would most like to guarantee would be anonymity! This is why any objections directed towards self-sponsorship have absolutely no basis.

Nevertheless, it can’t be denied that the issue of security is a central theme, and considered by citizens to be a priority. Tragic cases like that of Vanessa Russo – the girl killed on the metro in Rome by Rumanians, who, it is therefore true, are also Europeans – regularly give rise to endless controversies.

Security is a central theme, and I believe that it must be confronted severely. I believe, for example, that the powers of the police to combat organised crime must be increased. But this is precisely one of the functions of this law. Reducing the opportunities for criminal organisations to profit from the trade of illegal immigrants contributes to security, just as the end of the prohibition of alcohol in the United States was a decisive measure in combatting the Mafia which flourished thanks to the trafficking of illegally distilled products. Security goes hand-in-hand with legality, whilst the Bossi-Fini law, which condemned hundreds of thousands of people to an illegal status, feeds the channels of organised crime, presenting them with the water in which to fish.

Let’s come to the thorny question of expulsions. You count very much here on the cooperation of immigrants. But is this really an effective course? Those who do make it into the country do everything they can to remain here.

We have tried to find a way to make it in the interests of those immigrants who have arrived illegally in Italy to be, by mutual consent, repatriated in their home countries. In this way they will avoid a ten year expulsion order, as is currently the case. Here too we have tried to find an element of consensus in contrast with the obvious failings of forced expulsion, because someone who has been thrown out of Italy – perhaps after having sold their house and left everything to come here, and being faced with the nightmare of a ten-year ban on legal re-entry – will do one thing, and one thing alone: to try in any way possible to get back into Italy illegally, and to stay here. And this means, essentially, putting them straight into the hands of criminal gangs.

How will the government manage to communicate to public opinion the measures adopted? Essentilally, without wanting to press the point too much, electoral campaigns are won on the theme of security. How can this theme be reclaimed from the right, which constantly claims the ideological prerogative as its own?

I think that we need to continue to talk in a rational way, as we have done in pointing out that legal immigrants have a lower than average probability of engaging in delinquency with respect to the Italian population as a whole, and also that legal status and employment are two extremely powerful elements which facilitate social inclusion. Then we must also manage to get the point across that it is in our interest for our forces of order to not be obliged to keep an eye on millions of immigrants, but rather to be free to concentrate on delinquency and on organised crime. This is an important point, because every immigrant ought to be dealing with the State, and the local councils, and not the ‘questure’ (local administration centres which currently deal with immigrants – ed.), which already have a huge amount of work. The ability to concentrate forces of order on effectively pursuing criminal behaviour would, in my opinion, make a massive contribution to security.

Let’s come to the issue of integration. The measures proposed by this law, such as the empowering of cultural mediators and the adoption of ‘focused measures’, seem to be a bit generic. What realistic measures are there to aid the genuine integration of those who arrive? And how much will they cost.

As far as costs are concerned, I would like to say straight away that these are covered by immigrant taxpayers. We have two million working immigrants today who pay taxes, and who therefore finance the welfare state of other immigrants, whilst getting nothing in return. We need to make sure that these resources are used for immigrants too, so that the welfare state works for all. The question of resources is irrelevant since today we are in debt: it is simply a question of using the same measures for everyone.

But this is also true for young people, and other categories!

Exactly, unfortunately.

What about concrete measures?

I believe that we need to start with the language, in other words, an extensive programme of Italian language teaching. This is the principle element of integration into the Italian social fabric which makes communication with others possible – whether with a child’s school teacher or with a shop assistant – and therefore transforms a territory into a community. The second element, closely linked to this, is that of linguistic and cultural mediation, which is essential everywhere (in the work place etc.), starting with the printing in multiple languages of safety notices, instructions on how to access the national healthcare system, or courses offering assistance for the learning of the Italian language for students who cannot speak it. Languages and means of mediation, therefore, as instruments which empower – especially in the intermediate stage of integration, which is that which we are living today.

You have attached to the bill the Charter of Values, which, nevertheless, has no binding value. Not for nothing has Giovanna Zincone written in La Stampa: “It isn’t clear whether the charter of shared values is to be illustrated to potential immigrants as a matter of obligation, and that they will be asked to conform to the content (respect for the dignity of individuals, equality between the sexes, religious freedom and the secular status of the State), or whether it will be left like a solitary beacon, there to light only those willing to approach it”.

No, the Charter doesn’t have any normative value. But I personally would be against that, because I believe that the only Charter with a normative value should be the Constitutional Charter and our laws, and I think that the principles of civil society are those contained within our Constitution, which is essential because it allows us to live together civilly within our country. Having said this, I believe that the Charter, even if it contains passages that I don’t agree with, can be seen as an explanation, that has in some way an explicative function – almost like a course in civil education. However, I repeat, I certainly would not like to see a scenario in which there exists the Charter of Values for immigrants and the Constitution for Italians. The rules which establish the principles and values which inform our civil cohabitation must be the same for all.

You have criticised both the French model of assimilation, and the British model of multi-culturalism. Is there an Italian way towards integration? Shouldn’t there exist a definitive European way?

I think that we must find an Italian way which, in my view, would be based on certain pillars: the first is the centrality of the language, in order that communication can exist between all. As far as the equality of civil and social rights and the respect of differences are concerned, I believe that there ought to be another measure concerning religious freedom. The Italian model must be one which does not oblige people to lose their identity, or to have to choose between an Italian identity and a pre-existing one (I’m thinking about the issue of the veil), because, in my view, this sparks a needless conflict. Introducing a codification of the Italian people’s moral behaviour and customs as a necessary part of our civil society would be artificial, and wrong, because, in truth, such a codification would not be valid even for Italians; seventy years ago many Italians wore the veil, so to speak, whereas today most don’t, and there certainly aren’t any less Italians. We cannot nail Italy to customs. We must guarantee the rights of individuals and ask for their recognition of the constitutional principles, just as we must recognise that individuals much have the choice to be both Muslim and Italian, without the two being seen as necessarily contradictory. Therefore we must recognise different faiths and different cultural identities, whilst at the same time asking that these faiths in turn recognise the Italian system and its democratic function (first of all concerning the equality between men and women.)

Why are the other models wrong?

Assimilation becomes a kind all-covering, uniform set of norms, which flattens, and which is then used as a kind of litmus paper to analyse the degree of integration. The ‘community model’, on the other hand, is that of the construction of enclaves, where the guarantee of rights becomes the status of belonging to that community. No, what I hope for is a model which will oblige all to view themselves with respect to others and that, without flattening specific aspects of migrants’ identity (religious, or regarding skin colour), will allow all to adapt and therefore to feel themselves to be Italian and accept the founding principles of being Italian, even in differences of paths, religious ideas and customs. As long as these do not clash with the fundamental points. For example, no polygamy. But whether or not to wear the veil, to be honest, should be down to the individual.

The managing of the law and of its drafting seems to show an effective mediation between the needs of the more radical and more moderate elements of the left. Could the schema Amato-Ferrero not also be applied to other issues which are as equally burning?

I think so, and I’m committed to doing so on the law on drugs which I am preparing.

Translation by Liz Longden