Who is valuable in the Italian refugee regime?

Building on this context, this paper uses the concepts of deservingness and the community of value to analyze the social construction of the un/worthy refugee. This paper draws on fieldwork conducted between October 2013 (with the beginning of the Mare Nostrum operation) and May 2019, both as a sociologist pursuing numerous qualitative research projects, and as a social worker directly involved in protection and reception activities in the city of Parma, as well as trainer for social workers across Italy. Ultimately, this paper aims to interrogate the policies meant to govern irregular migrants and asylum seekers, as well as the constructions of Italy’s ‘real refugees’ and ‘good citizens.’

The regime of rights: Citizenship First

Asylum policy in Italy transformed between 2013 and 2016. As mentioned above, migrants had previously enjoyed institutional and social openness.'

The State’s Legislative Decree 142/2015 renounced the staircase model and provided asylum seekers - including those with a suspended legal status -with access to the formal System for the Protection of Asylum Seekers and Refugees. Even though asylum seekers had to wait for their applications to be processed and to be fully acknowledged as ‘real refugees,’ they were not preemptively mistrusted by the government.

The System directly involved the local administrations that had the capacity to integrate refugee services into their local welfare systems and to supplement their services (particularly universal services like health) for the benefit of the entire community, regardless of migrant status. Moreover, the System followed a model that considered not only the material conditions of reception, but also the accelerated integration of migrants who would remain in Italy. Departing from the containment approach, this model affirms that asylum seekers are not fraudulent economic migrants until proven otherwise and that they ought to be treated as future citizens entitled to the rights and social opportunities of any other citizen as soon as possible (Ager & Strang 2008). Promoting a sense of security and stability in local communities, the System encouraged refugees’ participation in their local community, as well as the development of integrated social networks among nationals, locals, and migrants (Catarci 2011).

Even if undersized, the System aspired to overcome the risks and avoid the distortions of an emergency approach, where asylum seekers were differentiated from refugees, and where only the most deserving could hope to settle. The System began enlarging its capacity⁷ for migrants, which grew from 3,000 in 2013 to around 24,000 by the end of 2016. According to a national allocation plan, first issued in July 2014 and updated in October 2016,⁸ all 8,000 Italian municipalities shared reception responsibilities based on established quotas (2.5 migrants per thousand in general; 1.5 in metropolitan areas). Furthermore, while it was decided not to make the System for the protection mandatory for all local authorities, the updated plan laid out a strategy to increase quotas for municipalities facing higher migrant populations.

This regime of rights echoes the Housing First model for homeless populations as applied in Canada or New York, which offers chronically homeless people immediate access to scattered-site permanent apartments without sobriety or treatment prerequisites Qohnsen & Teixeira 2010). In the context of asylum seekers, the concept of Citizenship First might be introduced. Here, it is not just a matter of housing, but one of fundamental rights. It is a matter of whether people must demonstrate that they are ‘good’ enough to deserve them.