“Countries that we consider liberal democracies such as Australia, Japan, New Zealand and the US have more restrictive laws, both incoming and outgoing, than Italy”. Christina Fazzone, associate professor of comparative public law at Lewis, takes stock of immigration laws around the world.

But is the European Union taking a tough stance against immigrants?

“Yes, even in Europe there is an effort to make deportations easier. For example, in Denmark, a law was passed in 2021 on the expulsion of refugees and illegal immigrants, sentencing these people to third countries where human rights are not respected, such as Uganda, where they can risk their lives. This led to protests by various NGOs and raised strong concerns within the Council of Europe.

the reason?

“The 47 countries that adhere to the European Convention on Human Rights (which became 46 after Russia’s exit) must be subject to a series of more assertive rules. Article 4 of Protocol 4 prohibits collective refoulements, and therefore, asylum applications must be assessed individually. On the other hand, Article 3, in cases where the possibility of disembarkation in safe harbors is denied, Prohibits inhuman and degrading treatment.

Apart from Denmark, are there other cases of European countries imposing restrictions?

“In the United Kingdom, the former interior minister of the short-lived government of Litz Strauss was considering the possibility of mass deportation of migrants arriving in small boats from France. In Finland, a country considered a beacon of democracy instead, a wall was discussed to prevent the arrival of migrants from Russia. In short, there is a widespread trend in Europe to bypass or postpone the rules. Do “.

But Italy has problems especially with France and Germany when it comes to immigration.

“In Europe, France and Germany are strengthened by the fact that the rules of the Dublin Treaty still apply. In those countries, as well as in Denmark, migrants arrive secondarily and, therefore, are not invested in the immediate management of migration flows”.

Looking at the situation abroad, one wonders what difference there is between the wall that separates the US from Mexico and the wall that separates Spain from Ceuta and Melilla. Why does the former make “more noise” than the latter?

“From the point of view of law, the US and Spanish walls are walls in the same way. From the perspective of immigrant protection, nothing changes, only different media hype. In the US, there have been problems with family reunification and unaccompanied minors. The Trump character may have caused the most hype, but the problem in Spain is that we do not know what will happen to African migrants who try to reach from the southern border, we do not know if they are welcomed or rejected, but the presence of a wall already represents a violation of the rules of international law.

What do you think about France’s rejection of immigrants in Ventimiglia?

“According to the rules of the European Convention on Human Rights, France cannot carry out mass rejections at its border with Italy. Of course, there is a violation of rights. They are prohibited rejections. “

What is the role of Frontex in this context?

“Frontex should ensure border security. Now it has only a surveillance role and I am afraid there will be no modernization of Frontex to assist the coast guards of each state. Migration in the EU is considered a problem that only affects some countries and not others”.