The text critically analyzes the discourse of the Italian political party, the League led by Matteo Salvini, regarding immigration and its implications. The main points can be summarized as follows:
-
Misrepresentation of Immigration: The League claims that Italy is facing an invasion of immigrants, which poses a threat to national security and economic stability. However, this claim is false, as statistical data from 2018 shows that around 20,000 immigrants arrived in Italy during the year. In comparison, the number of attendees at the last Milan derby was four times this figure, indicating it's not an invasion.
-
Linking Immigration and Crime: The League suggests that immigration leads to higher crime rates. Contrary to this, according to the National Institute of Statistics, there has been a slight increase in the number of foreign residents in Italy (about 100,000 between 2014 and 2017) while crime rates have decreased. This correlation does not support the claim that immigration leads to increased crime.
-
Economic Impact of Immigration: The League argues that immigration places a burden on the economy, particularly concerning pensions. Contrary to this view, studies show that immigrants contribute significantly to the economy, forming approximately 9% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). They also pay more in taxes and social contributions than they receive in services and benefits from the state.
-
Prioritizing Italians: The League’s slogan “first the Italians” implies that the country cannot afford to support immigrants. However, considering the contribution of immigrants to the state’s finances, they could actually help fund the costs of integration and support systems. Moreover, it is difficult to believe that a rich and industrialized European country like Italy faces structural difficulties in covering these expenses.
The text highlights that the xenophobic discourse of the League is false but effective, leading to political gains despite potential negative outcomes such as an increase in violent actions against immigrants. The author questions whether society is willing to accept this price.
