Advertisement

Mandatory Integration Measures and Differential Inclusion: The Italian Case

  • Paolo CuttittaEmail author
Article

Abstract

Since 2012 migrants arriving regularly in Italy must sign an integration agreement and declare their agreement with a ‘Charter of the values’. Insufficient integration (measured through a point-based system) results in deportation. While the point-based system discriminates against the poor, the less educated and qualified, the subordinate workers, and the nomads, the Charter is inspired by stereotypical and stigmatizing visions of Islam. This paper identifies the cases of discrimination, both legal (freedom of thought, presumption of innocence, principle of non-discrimination, right to an effective remedy, laicism of state) and symbolical, of the integration agreement, and analyses Italian integration measures before the background of the concept of differential inclusion: the incorporation of regular migrants requires them to pass under a symbolic and legal yoke, which increases their hierarchical differentiation. The integration agreement is also analyzed with regard to its relationship with border controls and with the concepts of ‘illegalization’ and ‘deportability’.

Keywords

Integration Regular migration Discrimination Differential inclusion Italy 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to Karin de Vries for her helpful comments. Earlier versions of this paper were presented in Agrigento (‘Razzismi, discriminazioni e confinamenti’ conference), Bergamo (‘Mapping Conceptual Change in Thinking European Borders’ conference), Bergen aan Zee (VU Migration Law Seminar ‘Bergen VI’), Palermo (postgraduate seminar, Scuola di dottorato in Diritto sovranazionale e diritto interno, Palermo University) and Bologna (graduate seminar, Dipartimento di Scienze politiche e sociali, Bologna University). Thanks go to the hosts—Antonella E. Castronovo, Mario Grasso, Michele Mannoia, Marco A. Pirrone and Alessandra Sciurba (Agrigento); Gianluca Bocchi, Chiara Brambilla, Jussi Laine, James Scott (Bergamo); Juan Amaya Castro, Daan Bes, Evelien Brouwer (Bergen aan Zee); Aldo Schiavello, Guido Smorto and Isabel Trujillo Perez (Palermo); Sandro Mezzadra and Irene Peano (Bologna)—as well as to the participants for the inputs received. I also acknowledge feedback from two anonymous reviewers.

References

  1. Alexander, J. C. (2013). Struggling over the mode of incorporation: backlash against multiculturalism in Europe. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 36(4), 531–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Attia, I. (2013). Privilegien sichern, nationale Identität revitalisieren. Journal für Psychologie, 21(1), 1–31.Google Scholar
  3. Banting, K., & Kymlicka, W. (2013). Is there really a retreat from multiculturalism policies? New evidence from the multiculturalism policy index. Comparative European Politics, 11(5), 577–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brubaker, R. (2001). The return of assimilation? Changing perspectives on immigration and its sequels in France, Germany, and the United States. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 24(4), 531–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Camera dei Deputati. (2006). Risposta del ministro Giuliano Amato all’interrogazione dell’onorevole Luca Volontè (Iniziative volte all’immediata redazione di una Carta dei Valori). Rome: Camera dei Deputati.Google Scholar
  6. Cardia, C. (2008). Carta dei valori e multiculturalità alla prova della Costituzione. Stato, chiese e pluralismo confessionaleGoogle Scholar
  7. Carrera, S. (2006). A Comparison of Integration Programmes in the EU. Trends and Weaknesses (p. 1). Challenge Papers.Google Scholar
  8. Casas-Cortes, M., Cobarrubias, S., De Genova, N., Garelli, G., Grappi, G., Heller, C., et al. (2014). New keywords: migration and borders. Cultural Studies. doi: 10.1080/09502386.2014.891630.Google Scholar
  9. Colaianni, N. (2007). Una ‘carta’ post-costituzionale? Stato, chiese e pluralismo confessionale.Google Scholar
  10. Colaianni, N. (2009). Alla ricerca di una politica del diritto sui rapporti con l’Islam (Carta dei valori e Dichiarazione di intenti). Stato, chiese e pluralismo confessionale.Google Scholar
  11. Cuttitta, P. (2007). Segnali di confine. Il controllo dell’immigrazione nel mondo-frontiera. Milan: Mimesis.Google Scholar
  12. Cuttitta, P. (2013). L’accordo di integrazione come caso di discriminazione istituzionale in Italia. In M. Grasso (Ed.), Razzismi, discriminazioni e confinamenti (pp. 257–273). Rome: Ediesse.Google Scholar
  13. De Genova, N. (2002). Migrant ‘illegality’ and deportability in everyday life. Annual Review of Anthropology, 31, 419–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. De Genova, N. (2013). Spectacles of migrant ‘illegality’: the scene of exclusion, the obscene of inclusion. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 36(7), 1180–1198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. De Vries, K. (2012). Integration Requirements in EU Migration Law. EUI Working Paper MWP 20.Google Scholar
  16. European Migration Network (2012). Ad-Hoc Query on Citizenship Tests. Requested by AT EMN NCP on 27th April 2012. Compilation produced on 28th September 2012. http://www.sisekaitse.ee/public/ERV/ad_hoc/muu/2011/2012/EMN_NCP_AT_Ad-Hoc_Query_on_Citizenship_Tests_22062012_open_compilation.pdf. Accessed 18 June 2014.
  17. Ferrari, S. (2008). La carta dei valori della cittadinanza e dell’integrazione. In I. S. M. U. Fondazione (Ed.), Tredicesimo rapporto sulle migrazioni: 2007 (pp. 265–277). Milan: Angeli.Google Scholar
  18. Groenendijk, K. (2011). Pre-departure integration strategies in the European Union: integration or immigration policy? European Journal of Migration and Law, 13, 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hage, G. (2011). Multiculturalism and the ungovernable Muslim. In R. Gayta (Ed.), Essays on Muslims & multiculturalism (pp. 155–186). Melbourne: Text Publishing.Google Scholar
  20. ICMPD. (2005). Integration agreements and voluntary measures. Vienna: International Centre for Migration Policy Development.Google Scholar
  21. Jacobs, D., & Rea, A. (2007). The end of national models? Integration courses and citizenship trajectories in Europe. International Journal on Multicultural Societies, 9(2), 264–283.Google Scholar
  22. Joppke, C. (2007). Beyond national models: civic integration policies for immigrants in Western Europe. West European Politics, 30(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lentin, A., & Titley, G. (2011). The crises of multiculturalism. Racism in a neoliberal age. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  24. Meer, N., & Modood, T. (2010). The racialisation of Muslims. In S. Sayyid & A. Vakil (Eds.), Thinking through Islamophobia: global perspectives (pp. 69–83). London: Hurst & Company.Google Scholar
  25. Mezzadra, S., & Neilson, B. (2013). Border as method, or, the multiplication of labor. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Onasch, E., & Weide, M. (2012). Teaching integration in France and Finland: a comparison of national discourses within civic integration programmes. In H. Vad Jønsson, E. Onasch, S. Pellander, & M. Wickström (Eds.), Migrations and welfare states policies, discourses and institutions (pp. 174–215). Helsinki: Nordic Centre of Excellence NordWel.Google Scholar
  27. Russo Spena, A., & Carbone, V. (2014). Il dovere di integrarsi. Cittadinanze oltre il logos multiculturalista. Rome: Armando Editore.Google Scholar
  28. Santoro, E. (2006). La fine della biopolitica e il controllo delle migrazioni: il carcere strumento della dittatura democratica della classe soddisfatta. In P. Cuttitta & F. Vassallo Paleologo (Eds.), Migrazioni, frontiere, diritti (pp. 293–321). Naples: ESI.Google Scholar
  29. Scevi, P. (2010). Diritto delle migrazioni.Profili penali, civili, amministrativi. Piacenza: La Tribuna.Google Scholar
  30. Schiffauer, W. (2008). Parallelgesellschaften. Wie viel Wertekonsens braucht unsere Gesellschaft? Für eine kluge Politik der Differenz. Bielefeld: Transcript.Google Scholar
  31. Schinkel, W. (2013). The imagination of ‘society’ in measurements of immigrant integration. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 36(7), 1142–1161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schneider, J., & Crul, M. (2010). New insights into assimilation and integration theory: introduction to the special issue. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 33(7), 1143–1148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shachar, A. (2007). The shifting border of immigration regulation. Stanford Journal of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, 3(2), 165–193.Google Scholar
  34. Taras, R. (2013). ‘Islamophobia never stands still’: race, religion, and culture. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 36(3), 417–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Triadafilopoulos, T. (2011). Illiberal means to liberal ends? Understanding recent immigrant integration policies in Europe. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 37(6), 861–880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. van Houtum, H., & van Naerssen, T. (2002). Bordering, ordering and othering. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 93(2), 125–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Vasta, E. (2007). From ethnic minorities to ethnic majority policy: multiculturalism and the shift to assimilationism in the Netherlands. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30(5), 713–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Walters, W. (2002). Mapping Schengenland: denaturalizing the border. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 20(5), 561–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Walters, W. (2004). Secure borders, safe haven, domopolitics. Citizenship Studies, 8(3), 237–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zorzella, N. (2011). L’accordo di integrazione: ultimo colpo di coda di un governo cattivo? Diritto Immigrazione e Cittadinanza, 13(4), 58–71.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.VU University AmsterdamAmsterdamNetherlands

Personalised recommendations