Migrants and Safe Countries

 

 

Giovanni De Sio Cesari
www.giovannidesio.it

 

The Facts
The decisions of the judiciary, which have ruled certain countries (Egypt and Bangladesh) as unsafe despite being declared safe by the Italian government, have sparked intense debate. As a result, it was not possible to transfer migrants to the centers in Albania, prepared at great expense by our government.
In Italy (and not only in Italy), judges often interpret laws based on their own ideological views. To predict the outcome of a trial, it seems more important to consider the judges' orientation than the actual laws.
In this case, however, the actions of the judges do not seem as forced as they often are (e.g., the kidnapping charge against Salvini). Certainly, the judge had a clear ideological orientation and could have acted differently; judicial processes allow for flexibility. However, from a legal and logical standpoint, I don't believe they can be faulted.
The example of Nazi Germany seems relevant: the Third Reich might have been safe for the general population, but certainly not for Jews, Roma, or dissidents. Using this criterion, however, no country could be considered safe for everyone. I recall that even Italy, under the so-called Mitterrand Doctrine, was deemed unsafe for members of 1970s terrorist groups because trials might not have guaranteed impartiality.

Legal Aspects
The principle followed by judges is that European jurisdiction prevails over national laws. Indeed, objections to the Italian ruling were based on a failure to fully comprehend the European Court's decision, not on challenging its supremacy.
The European Court's ruling, however, concerned the case of Transnistria, which, while legally part of Moldova, is effectively an independent state—a completely different situation from that in Italy.
Nevertheless, in law, one can always argue both sides of a case, and even experts get lost in the jungle of national and international regulations.
These international principles often seem vague and generic, making it difficult to definitively determine what constitutes a crime.
Is Putin a criminal for invading Ukraine, but not Bush for invading Iraq?
Why is the bombing of Gaza a war crime, while that of Serbia or Vietnam was not?
The central issue is that judges apply (or should apply) the law without considering socio-economic consequences, while politicians act (or should act) based on those consequences.
On one hand, there's the principle of fiat iustitia et pereat mundus ("Let justice be done, though the world perish"), and on the other, there is raison d'État ("reason of state"), where collective interests prevail over individual ones. This inevitable conflict worsens when international principles—just but difficult to apply and theoretical—are invoked.
But what does “safe country” mean in this context? Similarly, what exactly do “gender equality,” “LGBT rights,” or “freedom of religion” mean?
What ordinary people judge are the effects: they clearly understand that these rulings could allow millions to come to Italy, and they do not want that. Perhaps they are right, perhaps they are wrong; I won’t take a stance, but in a democracy, the majority prevails.
If laws and regulations oppose the majority's will, it is the laws that must be changed. People might not know how, and it’s up to experts and politicians to figure that out.
If we were to truly apply Article 10 of our Constitution:
"A foreigner who is prevented in their country from exercising the democratic freedoms guaranteed by the Italian Constitution has the right to asylum in the territory of the Republic,"
then all inhabitants of non-democratic countries—amounting not to millions but to billions—would have the right to enter Italy (and, more broadly, the EU). This would be entirely impossible and absurd.
This, in my opinion, is the crux of the matter.

Real Possibilities
In practice, in the Middle East, Africa, and poorer countries in general—the regions from which immigrants come—democratic principles, as theoretically upheld in Europe, are not respected. Thus, all these countries would be considered “unsafe.”
It would not make sense to address only those who risk death crossing the sea and not those who calmly apply for asylum through embassies or consulates. Essentially, anyone could come to us as long as they don’t originate from the most developed and advanced countries.
But this is impossible, and what is impossible cannot be done.
We would have to accept all LGBTQ+ individuals, women who lack the same rights as men, political and religious dissidents, and so on.
It would also be hard to verify whether their claims are genuine, and in general, they are excuses, as the primary reason in almost all cases is economic.
The principles of asylum in our Constitution were established when Italy was not a destination for mass migrations; on the contrary, we were the migrants (and, to some extent, still are).
Once a migrant enters the national territory, even if they are not entitled to asylum, it becomes extremely difficult to repatriate them. Typically, they disappear, enter illegality, work off the books, and we are obligated to assist them if they fall ill, and we cannot deny schooling to their children. Eventually, it becomes convenient to regularize them: at least they pay taxes.
This significant repatriation difficulty explains the attempt to transfer them to Albania: if their asylum application is denied, they are not on Italian or EU soil.
Otherwise, why spend so much to relocate them to Albania?

The main issue is that it’s hard to reject migrants without violating our laws and, above all, our humanitarian principles. The so-called naval blockade—using force to prevent migrant boats from entering territorial waters—would suffice. Just a few interventions would suffice; there would be casualties, albeit fewer than now, and illegal immigration would stop overnight.
But no government would ever do such a thing: who could fire on migrants?
Even without shooting at them, these boats would not be able to return to where they came from.
If one of these rejected boats were to sink, what would happen here?
If they came on commercial ships, it would be easy to send them back. That’s why migrants risk death at sea or in deserts instead of using convenient and affordable public transport.

Our Principles
In my opinion, we must also consider a socio-political dimension.
If someone is at odds with their culture of origin (for example, being homosexual), they may move to another country, as anyone else can, provided the new country accepts them. However, being at odds with their culture does not grant them the right to go wherever they wish.
I understand that if an LGBTQ+ Arab comes to Europe, they should not be harassed, just as they should not harass LGBTQ+ people; they must abide by our laws. But why should these principles also apply in Arabia?
Why should someone at odds with their native culture have the right to come to us?
If we accept LGBTQIA+ individuals, does that mean the whole world must accept them because our principles are the “correct” ones? Does it not matter that the rest of the world thinks differently or that we ourselves considered it a crime until a few decades ago? And even now, many of us do not agree?
Our laws and rules apply to us; other nations and civilizations may have different principles, just as we had different principles in the past and will likely have new ones in the future.
For example, I recall a case where a girl sought asylum because she would have been forced into an arranged marriage in her country. But if such practices dominate in her country (as they did here until not long ago), why should we impose our customs? And how can we verify that her claim isn’t a pretext?
Most importantly, would all the women from that country (or rather, the majority of humanity) then have the right to come to us?
If the general principle of asylum, enshrined in our Constitution, is unfeasible, absolutizing a political principle is irrational. It assumes that only we Westerners are correct while others are foolish, barbaric, or malevolent. This ignores the cultural plurality of the world.