What was Italy's Immigration Debate in 2018 about?

Moderate Identitarism and legality issues

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
Argument‹3 of 3: Moderate Identitarism and legality issues

"Some immigrants can stay, as long as they don’t represent a threat to our national identity"

The argument

It’s good to accept some immigrants if they are able to work and live in an honest way. They must accept our laws and the fact that our culture comes first. If they are uncomfortable with the presence of the crucifix in public offices or with the conditions we impose on them, they should “go home." The supporters of this theory often oppose the building of mosques or any kind of cultural event that is not strictly Italian, with the excuse that immigrants can always “do that in their private life.”

Context

Northern League leader Matteo Salvini declared that he would allow the building of a Mosque only if the Muslim community accepted to write on its door that they will treat women with respect Northern League Senator Simone Pillon denounced a school in the province of Brescia for “teaching witchcraft to children” and “making them drink magic potions” because the students had attended some lessons about myths and traditions from Afghanistan and Pakistan. He later called for a parliamentary inquiry.

Premises

[P1]Immigrants should be accepted only if they work honestly and accept that Italian laws and culture take precedence. [P2] Those uncomfortable with Italian cultural symbols or conditions should return to their homelands rather than impose foreign practices publicly. [C] Therefore, Italy's immigration debate was about ensuring refugees who cannot integrate are helped in their own homelands instead.

Counter-arguments

Everybody must respect the Law. This doesn’t mean that mosques must be banned from Italy or that we cannot learn from other cultures. The majority of people who believe in the premises of this theory see every African as a potential rapist, every Muslim as a potential terrorist (or, at best, one who beats women), and Romani, Romanian and Albanian as a thief. This vision clearly lacks of realism, depth and objectivity. There is a serious debate among Law doctors about how to deal with actions that are considered crimes only by one culture. The debate is still open, and the people involved are too impartial to be considered supporters of a specific politic philosophy.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The premise runs together two requirements that come apart. Obeying the law is a condition the state may impose on anyone within its territory; accepting that one culture "comes first" is a demand about belief and public expression, which Italian law makes of no one — Article 19 of the Constitution guarantees the freedom to profess a religious belief and to celebrate rites in public. Opposing the building of mosques is therefore a position against the existing legal order rather than an application of it. [Rejecting P2] "Go home" is not available as a response to most of the people the premise addresses, many of whom are citizens, long-term residents or people holding protection status; and the same reasoning applied to Italians living abroad would license their expulsion for maintaining their own practices. Discomfort with a symbol displayed in a public office is also not evidence of unwillingness to work or to obey the law, which is what the premise sets as the test. As the counter-argument notes, the objections raised in practice tend to rest on generalised assumptions about entire national and ethnic groups rather than on anyone's conduct.