Discriminations 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).
And unjustified exclusion is a form of discrimination which, if systematically exercised against minorities, leads to real forms of racial segregation. Particularly heinous forms of discrimination on the basis of "race" by political, economic or legal institutions and systems have occurred 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 1991th century until the XNUMXs; while in South Africa, the abolition of the main segregationist laws was ratified in XNUMX, bringing about 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 racism" (or "democratic"), which especially affect certain types of people (for example immigrants, Roma or even the extremely poor).
In the Italian case, legal forms of exclusion derive to a significant extent from the way in which the country has faced the migration problem, referring it above all to a problem of public order. This approach has also had effects on the administrative practices (often rejections) of local administrations in terms of registry registration, - and consequently access to municipal welfare services - for certain categories of people in conditions of administrative irregularity, because they do not have registered residence and therefore of identification document.
This condition particularly characterizes the Bosnian component of the Roma population (who fled the war in the Balkans in the 90s), present in Rome.
Many families have no documents (they are de facto stateless), and have been living for a long time in camps that have been declared to be closed by the Capitoline administration. Their children, born and raised in Italy, must apply for a residence permit when they come of age to remain in the country. This request, however, often encounters obstacles at the immigration offices due to the lack of the requirement of the registered residence of the family; residence that is not granted by the registry offices if you live in camps officially declared to be closed. As third sector operators working with Roma underline:
“Those who have not yet gone out but would like to do so find themselves entangled in a vicious circle that is difficult to break”.
It is appropriate to underline how this situation has paradoxical consequences: if, on the one hand, it excludes this component of the population present from integration into the territorial community; on the other, it makes it permanently assisted, constantly exposing Roma to social stigma.
In any case, the difficulty of regularizing one's personal position is not only a problem of Roma: even immigrants who, due to the high cost of rents, decide to live in occupied buildings are unable to fix their registered residence.
In fact, article 5 of law 23 May 2014 n. 80 - containing "Urgent measures for the housing emergency, for the construction market and for Expo 2015" - the so-called Lupi law, prevents service companies from activating utilities in illegally occupied buildings, and therefore forbids establishing residence in those stable. Consequently, it does not allow the issuance of identity documents to homeless people.
(In this regard, precisely to allow people in conditions of fragility and housing precariousness to be able to register residence in occupied buildings, in Rome the mayor - who, it should be remembered, as a government official can promote administrative regularization as he has the obligation to correctly keep personal data records - has recently issued a directive aimed at allowing the administration to act in derogation of article 5 of the Lupi law. On this directive, however, the prefect of Rome has requested the establishment of a technical table for further information on its application.)
These cases, rather than describing forms of "systemic racism", highlight the limits of national migration policy, strongly conditioned by the declarations of migratory emergency and by the need to control entry flows. This situation has created a problem of implementation deficit (Macioti, Pugliese, 2005) that is to say poor implementation of integration policies for immigrants, even though they are formally envisaged by the consolidated text on immigration. This meant that migrants' rights – as Lydia Morris observes – “are no longer self-evident or absolute but are closely associated with control and are located on slippery ground subject to political negotiation” (cited in Macioti Pugliese, 20053rd ed.: 107). This means - as Pugliese underlines - that "if a more restrictive law - or simply a circular - is promulgated (which makes it more difficult to remain in a condition of regularity or which simply imposes new conditions and new documentation for access to a benefit ), immigrants can lose an already acquired right” (Macioti, Pugliese, 2005: 107).
Therefore, this situation determines conditions of discrimination for those categories (migrants, but not only) that are ill-suited to the conditions of merit set from time to time by governments.
Contribution by Dante Sabatino, on the occasion of the World Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination 2023.
REFERENCES
C. Bartoli, Racists by law. The Italy that discriminates, Editori Laterza, Rome-Bari 2012
MI Macioti, E. Pugliese, The migratory experience. Immigrants and refugees in Italy, Editori Laterza, Rome-Bari 20053rd ed.
G. Therborn, The Killing Fields of Inequality, Polity Press, Cambridge UK 2013
