The persecution of irregular immigration was a key promise in the electoral campaign that ultimately made her Prime Minister of Italy. Throughout his mandate, he has attempted controversial solutions, such as the one intercepted by Italian ships in international waters to Albania, which was met with legal opposition.
Now, his ultra-conservative Government in Italy has gone further: yesterday it approved a bill that reactivates the deportations of migrants to countries considered safe by Rome (although they are not) and proposes the so-called “naval blockade” for migrant boats trying to reach the Italian coast.
A late afternoon cabinet meeting gave the green light to the bill, which now needs to be discussed and approved in both Houses of parliament before coming into force. However, despite the national debate on the matter, it is expected to go ahead without problems, with the support of the three parties in power: the Brothers of Italy of the ultra leader, the League and Forza Italia.
Italy’s new migration package also includes stricter border surveillance and cooperation with European agencies and comes a day after the approval of the , which Rome plans to implement quickly. It seems that Meloni, with his Albanian path, opened a path that seemed reserved for the extreme right, but no, what he has done is infect other European states: today the community norms resemble his wishes.
Rome’s plans
The package includes new powers that would allow Italian authorities to impose a naval blockade on migrant boats attempting to enter Italy’s territorial waters, under certain conditions.
Authorities can prohibit crossing into Italian waters for up to 30 days in cases where the migrant boat represents a “serious threat to public order or national security,” such as in the case of a concrete risk of terrorist acts or terrorist infiltration, according to the bill. The blockade can be extended for up to a maximum of six months.
“In cases of serious threat to public order or national security, the crossing of the border of territorial waters may be temporarily prohibited by resolution of the Council of Ministers, on the proposal of the Minister of the Interior,” the new text literally states. The ban – aimed at NGOs, although it is not mentioned, as it does not apply to boats – can be imposed in four circumstances: risk of terrorism, exceptional migratory pressure, health emergencies and international events requiring security measures.
It would also be possible to prevent ships from entering Italian waters in the event of a drastic influx of migrants that could jeopardize secure border management.
Those who violate the rules would face fines of up to 50,000 euros and see their boats confiscated in case of repeated violations, a measure that appears to target humanitarian rescue ships.
In these cases, intercepted migrants could be “transported to third countries other than their country of origin, with which Italy has signed specific agreements,” the bill says.
Under these rules, the Meloni Executive intends to restart processing centers offshore similar to the two controversial ones created in Albania, which have been substantially dormant for about two years due to legal obstacles. These centers – a major effort by the Meloni government to manage migration flows – have consistently sparked debates about their legality and effectiveness, provoking strong opposition from humanitarian groups.
The passage of the Italian bill comes after European lawmakers voted Tuesday to approve new immigration policies that allow nations to deny asylum and deport migrants because they come from a country designated as safe or could seek asylum in a country outside the 27-nation bloc.
Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani praised the new rules on Tuesday and said the European Parliament’s confirmation on the list of safe countries “proves that Italy is right.”
The complaint
On the opposite side, among those who criticize the measures, reproaches come from various fronts. A part of the opposition accuses the Government of constructing a grand narrative of firmness with legally fragile and operationally debatable instruments.
But the most serious argument is that of the clash with international law: the jurist Giuseppe Cataldi, a specialist in the law of the sea, cited by maintains that the naval blockade would be, to a large extent, incompatible with the , because it already clearly defines when a State can consider the passage of a ship “not innocent.”
According to his thesis, except for the alleged terrorist case – which is more plausible – the other scenarios proposed – migratory pressure, health emergencies, major events – would not justify closing access in a general way, and even less so when there is an obligation to help people in danger.
