What was Italy's Immigration Debate in 2018 about?

Encyclopedia of Opinion

Question: What was Italy's Immigration Debate in 2018 about?
Position‹2 of 3›: Italy's immigration debate was about helping refugees in their own homelands
Argument1 of 3›: #ITALIANSFIRST - Help them in their own homeland

With Italy and its citizens still recovering economically, proponents of this view believe that the country should help its own people before welcoming immigrants and refugees.

The argument

Italy is still facing the consequences of the 2007 economic crisis and many Italians live in bad conditions. With these premises it’s hard to help both Italians and immigrants. There are no more jobs for Italians themselves - the government can't take care of others too. The Italian government should rather invest money in the development of African countries, so that people won't need to run away from their homeland.

Context

This hashtag was part of the Northern League's political campaign. At the beginning, this slogan was used to support anti-immigration policies that didn't accept any kind of immigrant. Over the years its supporters softened their position. Nowadays, they say that Italy can't make it alone and that the government should stop welcoming people. Some say that refugees are the only one who should be allowed in, some others say that even refugees should not seek for help in Italy.

Premises

[P1]Italy is still recovering from the 2007 economic crisis and lacks the jobs and resources needed to care for its own citizens. [P2] A government that cannot adequately support its own population cannot be expected to absorb and provide for large numbers of immigrants. [P3] Investing in the development of African countries would address the root causes of migration so people would not need to leave their homelands. [C] Therefore, Italy should help refugees in their own homelands rather than receive them domestically.

Counter-arguments

There is a European asset for refugees. It doesn’t cover all the expenses, but all the recent governments have wasted a huge amount of money in other projects. There is also a problem with tax evasion and corruption. There would be money, if only the government decided to take action against these issues. The idea of investing money in Africa is good - but if it's not done well, it could turn into a collaboration with governments that will just imprison refugees in countries like Libia, which is often being accused of several human right violations in refugee's camps.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Economic difficulty is real without establishing the resource constraint the argument needs. European funds are available for reception, and the domestic shortfall has other well-documented sources — tax evasion and misdirected public spending among them. [Rejecting P2] The zero-sum framing is assumed rather than shown. Reception costs are a small fraction of public spending, and the working-age arrivals the premise counts purely as a burden also contribute through work and taxation over time. [Rejecting P3] Development assistance is a reasonable long-term aim and not a substitute for obligations now. Its effects are measured in decades, it does not address people fleeing war or persecution rather than poverty, and delivered badly it has meant funding governments that detain migrants in conditions that have drawn serious human rights findings. [Rejecting C] 'Rather than' is where the argument fails. Development spending and asylum obligations are not alternatives — the second is a legal duty owed to people already arriving, which the first does nothing to discharge.