Discrimination and Inequalities
There is a close relationship between inequality and discrimination. As Therborn points out: “inequality always means excluding some people from something. When it does not literally kill people or block their lives, inequality means exclusion: excluding people from the possibilities produced by human development” (Therborn, 2013: 21).
Unjustified exclusion is a form of discrimination which, if systematically exercised against minorities, leads to actual forms of racial segregation. Particularly odious forms of discrimination based on “race” by institutions and political, economic, or legal systems have been recorded both in formally democratic political systems and in relatively recent times.
In the Southern United States, Jim Crow laws and legal racial segregation in public facilities existed from the late 19th century until the 1950s; meanwhile, in South Africa, the abolition of the main segregationist laws was ratified in 1991, marking the end of apartheid.
However, according to some authors (Bartoli, 2012), not even democratic societies governed by institutions based on the principles of equality and justice are exempt from forms of “systemic” (or “democratic”) racism, which primarily affect certain types of people (for example, immigrants, Roma, or even the extreme poor).
In the Italian case, legal forms of exclusion derive significantly from the way the country has addressed the migration issue, framing it primarily as a matter of public order. This approach has also affected the administrative practices (often exclusionary) of local administrations regarding civil registration—and consequently access to municipal welfare services—for certain categories of people in conditions of administrative irregularity, as they lack official residency and therefore identification documents.
This condition particularly characterizes the Roma population of Bosnian origin (who fled the Balkan war in the 1990s) present in Rome.
Many families lack documents (they are de facto stateless) and have lived for a long time in camps that have been declared for closure by the Capitoline administration. Their children, born and raised in Italy, must apply for a residence permit upon reaching adulthood to remain in the country. This request, however, often encounters obstacles at immigration offices due to the lack of the family’s civil residency requirement; residency that is not granted by registry offices if one lives in camps officially declared for closure. As third-sector operators working with the Roma emphasize:
“Those who have not yet left but would like to do so find themselves caught in a vicious circle that is difficult to break.”
It is worth highlighting how this situation has paradoxical consequences: while, on one hand, it excludes this segment of the population from integration into the local community, on the other, it makes them permanently dependent on assistance, constantly exposing the Roma to social stigma.
In any case, the difficulty of regularizing one’s administrative position is not only a problem for the Roma: immigrants who, due to high rents, decide to live in occupied buildings also fail to establish their civil residency.
In fact, Article 5 of Law No. 80 of May 23, 2014—containing “Urgent measures for the housing emergency, the construction market, and Expo 2015″—the so-called Lupi Law, prevents utility companies from activating services in illegally occupied buildings, and therefore prohibits establishing residency in those buildings. Consequently, it does not allow for the issuance of identity documents to homeless persons.
(In this regard, precisely to allow people in conditions of vulnerability and housing precariousness to register their residency in occupied properties, the Mayor of Rome—who, it should be remembered, as a government official can promote administrative regularization since he has the obligation to maintain correct civil registries—has recently issued a directive aimed at allowing the administration to act in derogation of Art. 5 of the Lupi Law. Regarding this directive, however, the Prefect of Rome has requested the establishment of a technical committee for further study on its application.)
These cases, rather than describing forms of “systemic racism,” highlight the limits of national migration policy, which is heavily influenced by declarations of migration emergencies and the need to control entry flows. This situation has created an implementation deficit (Macioti, Pugliese, 2005), meaning a lack of implementation of integration policies for immigrants, even though they are formally provided for by the Consolidated Law on Immigration. This has meant that migrants’ rights—as Lydia Morris observes—”are no longer evident or absolute but are closely associated with control and are located on slippery ground subject to political negotiations” (cited in Macioti Pugliese, 2005 3rd ed.: 107). This means—as Pugliese emphasizes—that “if a more restrictive law is enacted—or simply a circular issued—(making it harder to remain in a regular status or simply imposing new conditions and documentation for access to a benefit), immigrants can lose a right they have already acquired” (Macioti, Pugliese, 2005: 107).
This situation, therefore, results in conditions of discrimination for those categories (migrants, but not only) that do not easily fit the criteria of merit established from time to time by governments.
Contribution by Dante Sabatino, on the occasion of the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination 2023.
Bibliography
C. Bartoli, Razzisti per legge. L’Italia che discrimina, Editori Laterza, Rome-Bari 2012
M. I. Macioti, E. Pugliese, L’esperienza migratoria. Immigrati e rifugiati in Italia, Editori Laterza, Rome-Bari 2005 3rd ed.
G. Therborn, The Killing Fields of Inequality, Polity Press, Cambridge UK 2013
