Dipartimento di Civiltà e Forme del Sapere

Laurea Magistrale in Scienze per la Pace: Trasformazione dei Conflitti e Cooperazione allo Sviluppo

Tesi di Laurea

EMBRACING DIVERSITY: THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A RECEPTION CENTRE IN GIOIOSA MAREA

Relatore Candidata Prof. Marcello Mollica Lucrezia Ferrà

Anno Accademico: 2016/2017 ABSTRACT

This dissertation is an attempt to investigate how the distance or the proximity to the reception centres for migrants could influence the perception of local residents about the presence of foreigners in their cities, and whether the different position of the centre could promote or prevent the process of integration. As a matter of fact, nowadays Italy has to deal with the migratory phenomenon and the reception of those who arrive on the Italian coasts seeking asylum or international protection. In order to manage this situation, Italy created a national Reception System. To analyse the topic I conducted a fieldwork in the village of Gioiosa Marea, in the Province of Messina, Sicily. Through the participant observation, and a series of interviews I conducted in the village, I investigated the opinions of citizens and local institutions about the place where to establish the reception centre. Data collected shows that the main purpose is to prevent the segregation of migrants in the space of the centre and their exclusion from the urban space of the village. Furthermore, evidence demonstrates that the process of integration requires a real effort by local authorities to promote the creation of deep relations between the guests of the centre and the local residents.

i INDEX

INTRODUCTION...... p. 4

1. MIGRATIONS AND ASYLUM 1.1 Right of Asylum and the European Union...... p. 9 1.2 Asylum and the Italian Legislation...... p. 17 1.3 Migration Flows in Sicily...... p. 22 1.4 Conclusive Remarks...... p. 24

2.THE SYSTEM OF PERMANENT EMERGENCY 2.1 The Italian Reception System...... p. 25 2.2 Reception Centres and Spatial Arrangements...... p. 33 2.3 The Case of Castell'Umberto...... p. 36 2.3.1 An Unprepared Village...... p. 37 2.3.2 Some Interviews in Castell'Umberto...... p. 39 2.3.3 Conclusions...... p. 44

3. THE RESEARCH 3.1 Research Methodology...... p. 46 3.2 Fieldwork...... p. 49 3.2.1 Gioiosa Marea and its History...... p. 51 3.2.2 Gioiosa Marea Today...... p. 55 3.3 The Interviews...... p. 60 3.3.1 Institutional Actors...... p. 60 3.3.2 The Citizens...... p. 66 3.3.3 Conclusions...... p. 72

CONCLUSIONS...... p. 75

ii BIBLIOGRAPHY...... p. 80

APPENDICES...... p. 86 Appendix A QUESTIONNAIRE...... p. 86 Appendix B ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF QUESTIONNAIRE...... p.87

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...... p. 88

iii INTRODUCTION

The aim of the present analysis is to investigate if and how the decisions taken at institutional level about the place where to establish a reception centre could influence and alter the perception of citizens about the presence of immigrants in their own towns and could allow to promote (or prevent) the process of integration in the local communities.

The necessity to investigate the migratory phenomenon is related to the fact that migration flows are an essential element of human history. People have always had the desire to move all around the world for several reasons. However, in recent years, we have been witnesses of the increasing phenomenon of forced migrations. According to the data of UNHCR, nowadays 65.6 millions of people are forced to leave their own countries. 22.5 millions of them are refugees and 2.8 millions are asylum seekers. They are obliged to abandon their country of origin because of wars, civil conflicts, and violations of human rights, violence committed by the institutions or different guilty parties. IOM - International Organization for Migration - defines forced migration as

“a migratory movement in which an element of coercion exists, including threats to life and livelihood, whether arising from natural or man-made causes (e.g. movements of refugees and internally displaced persons as well as people displaced by natural or environmental disasters, chemical or nuclear disasters, famine, or development projects)1”.

Actually, there is no universally agreed definition of forced migration since it is not a legal concept and it includes a variety of circumstances. On the contrary, the term “refugee” is well defined by law: as we will see in Chapter 1, the status of refugee

1 Definition available online on the website of IOM at the link https://www.iom.int/key-migration- terms#Forced-migration.

4 was recognised firstly by the Convention of Geneva, Art. 1 letter A, and it indicates a person forced to leave his country of origin because of the fear of being persecuted. Furthermore, it is necessary to make a distinction between refugees and asylum seekers: asylum seekers are people having applied for International Protection and waiting for the decision about their status; in fact, their applications could be rejected, or be accepted, recognising them as refugees or beneficiaries of Subsidiary Protection (UNHCR). In the present investigation I will refer to migration flows of refugees and asylum seekers because they are allowed to join International Protection and the system of reception. These migration flows are characterized especially by irregular migrations, often occurring through hopeless journeys by Eastern and Central Mediterranean routes towards Europe. Other States should grant these people the protection they need. Of course national politics are obligated to deal with this matter. In order to do so, reception systems2 are developed in each State, taking into account different levels of possibilities and capabilities. The systems of reception are based on the creation of centres to host people, granting different levels of accommodation: from those characterized by the only satisfaction of basic needs, to more complex forms of reception, proper of the centres that focus on integrating refugees in national society. The phenomenon of migration flows interests notably, as we are going to see in the following pages, “frontier” States of the European Union: in particular Greece and Italy, countries of destination.

As a matter of fact, the Italian mass media deals extensively with the migratory question, even if the information they give are often altered. The words used concerning migrants are alarmist, especially in regard to the topic of security. The

2 The term "reception" assumes a variety of meanings and it involves different forms of accommoda- tion. In particular the term reception conditions refers to “The full set of measures that Member States grant to applicants for international protection" while reception facilities to "All forms of premises used for the housing of applicants for international protection and other categories of migrants and Refugees". These definitions were elaborated by the European Migration Network (EMN) and they are available on line on the website of Migration and Home Affairs of the European Commission, ht- tps://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/what-we do/networks/european_migration_network/glossary_en.

5 general perception of the influx of migrants is that it will be combined with a growing risk of terrorism, criminality and social insecurity, creating an irreconcilable gap between “them” and “us”: the population's concerns are mainly related to culture, religion and use of public spaces (Barretta, Milazzo, 2016). This situation affects the feeling of citizens about the presence of foreigners; it does not matter if they are asylum seekers, refugees or not. This happens principally because of the process of politicisation the issue has been exposed to. It is not hard to realize that it has become an important battleground for political parties. They encourage the categorisation of refugees as a threat, leading the population to feel, in a sense, discriminated, since those who come from abroad are protected and supported by the Italian State, while citizens are often abandoned by national institutions. In general, the migratory phenomenon seems to be perceived especially as a problem. However immigrants, once arrived in Italy, are distributed over the Italian territory, where they come in contact with the residents of the localities in which they are accommodated. This is the reason why the process of integration should take place in local communities. To such an extent, in my opinion, it should be taken into account what citizens feel and think about the migratory phenomenon. In fact, the interest for the matter of my research originates from a basic observation. When the citizens of a town become aware of the fact that a reception centre is going to be established in their own territory, often protests and oppositions emerge. There are a lot of cases that prove it. One of the questions surged from this observation is: why do citizens show this kind of reaction? And the second question is: is it possible to prevent, or at least manage, this situation? In front of these questions I realized that there are a lot of studies and researches about the existing reception centres or the life inside them, but not so much about what happens before the establishment of the centres, precisely the moment citizens are informed - if they are informed by local institutions - of the future arrival of migrants. In order to prevent the emergence of hostility, local administrations could try to hide the presence of migrants - placing them in buildings out of urban centre. Furthermore, I was informed that a centre should be opened in Gioiosa Marea, the

6 field of my research, a small Sicilian village in the Province of Messina. A similar situation could emerge also there. As a matter of fact, in several Sicilian cities situations of tension between residents and the immigrants hosted in the centres already emerged, such as: Palermo, Porto Empedocle, Siculiana, Messina, Castell'umberto3. It should be stressed that Sicily is the main Italian Region that has always had to deal with migration flows, since it is the major area of first arrival for migrants in Italy. Therefore the atmosphere in Sicily is permanently overflowing with a climate of wait; it is uncertain when new arrivals will occur and where refugees will be hosted.

When I arrived in Gioiosa Marea I was not aware if the opening of the reception centre would be forthcoming or if the process had just started. The fact that the reception centre had not been opened yet, allowed me to focus on the citizens' opinions, on the matter, on the one hand, and on the means to facilitate the process of integration of the refugees, on the other hand. In order to conduct the research, I spent three months in Gioiosa Marea, from the 15th of October to the 12th of January. The methodology of participant observation allowed me to spend my time with local people and to observe the everyday life of the community from within. Furthermore, I conducted a series of interviews that gave me the opportunity to discuss with people the question in a specific way. Fortunately, the pre-existence of a network of relations made it easier to gain the trust of local people, and this is why they agreed on being interviewed. In order to explore the topic, I analysed the migratory issue from different points of view, both legislative and pragmatic, focusing especially on the question of reception centres. Gioiosa Marea might be the case through which the main issues of the coexistence of reception centres and local communities may emerge.

Here below I will present a summary of the content of each chapter that compose the

3 The facts refer to 2017 and they are reported by local newspapers in Sicily (see for instance Gazzetta del Sud or Tempostretto).

7 thesis.

In the first Chapter, I am going to explore the existing European legislation about the status of refugee and in general of those who seek International Protection, and its evolution. Subsequently, I am going to concentrate on the Italian legislation and the difficulties experienced by the legislators in creating an organic law on the matter. Finally, I am going to present a brief historical excursus on the presence of foreigners in Sicily and on the different features of migration flows.

In the second one, I am going to discuss the different features of reception centres which compose the Italian reception system for International Protection seekers. In detail, I am going to focus on the difference between SPRAR and CAS with concern on the decisions made about the place where to establish the centre. I am going to stress the implications that such a choice has in the promotion of the integration of the foreigners. In this regard I am going to report the story of the small Municipality of Castell'Umberto, a village in the northern part of Sicily.

Finally, in the third Chapter I am going to discuss my research. The first and the second paragraphs are dedicated to the methodological approach, based on participant observation, and to the presentation of the fieldwork. I am going to present briefly the history of Gioiosa Marea and the current composition of its society. In the final paragraph, I am going to report some of the answers of the citizens of Gioiosa, extrapolated by the interviews I conducted in the village and conclusions.

8 1. MIGRATIONS AND ASYLUM

1.1 Right to Asylum4 and the European Union

The recognition of refugee status has its roots in two main instruments of international law: the Geneva Convention, drafted in 1951 and entered into force in 1954, and its 1967 Protocol, relating to the status of refugees, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations. The Convention's merit lays in the fact that it gave, for the first time, a legal definition of the refugee's condition. The art.1 letter A of the Convention defines a “refugee” as a person who

“As a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951 and owing to a well- founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, Nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his Nationality and is unable, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a Nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it”.

The Convention is an attempt to recognise universally what are the rights granted to this category of people, beyond their ethnicity or their country of origin. Such rights revolve around healthcare, legal and social assistance and the recognition of civil, social and economic rights. The Convention also established the obligation of States to protect refugees; as a matter of fact, before the Convention set general rules, countries used to adopt different instruments to manage migration flows affecting them, especially as a result of radical changes, concerning land in particular. Between the two World Wars, the League of Nations preferred develop ad hoc policies, through agreements, protocols or conventions, addressed to particular ethnic and

4 Art. 18, Chapter II, Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union proclaimed on 7/12/2000. 9 national groups (Ferrari, 2004). However, the Convention presented temporal and geographical limits; the timing constraint derived from the fact that the notion of “refugee” addresses only people seeking protection because of events occurring before the 1st of January 1951. The Protocol of 1967 removed this limit and extended the application of the Convention also to events occurred after the 1950s. Moreover, each State could decide, upon signing the Convention, to apply its rules exclusively to events occurring through Europe or to extend its power to countries in the rest of the world. This way, a State could decide to grant protection only to citizens fleeing from other European States. The geographical limitation was adopted also by Italy, and remained into force until the Nineties (Bonetti, Morandi, 2013). The Convention established also the obligation of non-refoulement: a signatory State could not expel refugees or force them to return in the countries where they are persecuted. This principle applies both to recognised refugees and those who have not had their status recognised yet. There are accepted exception when the public order is threatened, or in the cases in which a refugee can be considered a threat to national security. At international level, the efforts to manage the phenomenon of refugees were not limited to the adoption of the Convention: in 1944, the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA) was founded, and it remained operative until 1947. It was followed by the International Refugee Organization (IRO), in operation until 1951, and by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), founded by the United Nations General Assembly in 1950 (Ferrari, 2004). Although the Convention is still the pillar of international legislation relating to the status of refugees, it leaves to signatory States wide autonomy in the application of its principles, since it did not establish common procedures; the Convention also excluded from the definition of refugee those people who, not being at risk of persecution, were still involved in situations that actually limited their freedom in their country of origin (Campomori, 2016). To deal with this situation, the European Union started a process aimed to create a set

10 of asylum laws designed to apply to all the Member States. It should be stressed that the EU has had discontinuous diligence concerning the issue of immigration, especially because of Nationalist tendencies that are widely spread throughout Europe even today. Member States find it difficult to relinquish part of their sovereignty in this matter, due to its impact on a national level (Einaudi, 2007). The first agreement underwritten to achieve the aim was the Dublin Convention (Dublin I) signed in 1990, after four years of preparatory works. The Convention established a system, still used in a reformed form nowadays, to determine which Member State is responsible for examining the asylum application “lodged in one of the Member States of the European Communities”: the system was designed to prevent an asylum seeker from applying to several Member States, and it established that the State through which the applicant entered the EU for the first time is responsible for the examination of applications (with exceptions, reported in the Convention, such as the case of family reunification). This geographical criterion means that asylum seekers are not allowed to choose in which State they prefer to find asylum, and this might be considered as a partial restriction of freedom. Furthermore, it creates a disproportioned burden that mostly affects European border States (first countries of entry, mainly Greece and Italy) (Einaudi, 2007). The following initiative was the recognition, through the Maastricht Treaty (1992), of Community competence in the field of immigration, particularly concerning the access of third-country nationals and the right of asylum, but since decisions were subject to the obligation of unanimity, the decision making process stayed paralysed. This situation continued until the signature of the Treaty of Amsterdam, developed in 1997 and entered into force in 1999, through which a common policy about immigration and the introduction of the Acquis of Schengen5 were formalized in European legislation: the elaboration of an Action Plan6 was assigned both to EU Council and Commission in order to establish common norms and procedures for asylum applicants, but also common standards for their reception. The determination

5 Through the Decision n 1999/435/EC. 6 Action Plan on how best to implement the provisions of the Treaty of Amsterdam on the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice (December 1998). 11 to create a Common European Asylum System (CEAS) rose from the Conclusion emerged during the European Council of Tampere in 1999 (Bonetti, Morandi, 2013). In the first phase, between 1999 and 2005, different legislative measures were adopted in order to harmonize the legal framework of Member States on the basis of common minimum standards for refugees. The first EU Directive issued in 2001 recognised Temporary Protection, an extraordinary measure adopted in case of mass influx. It applies to third-country nationals who need immediate protection but could not benefit from the definition of refugee7. Temporary Protection granted this category of immigrants access to employment, accommodation, family reunification, healthcare and education; this protection is valid from one to three years, and it does not preclude the recognition of International Protection (Bonetti, Morandi, 2013). In 2004, the EU Directive on minimum standards, for the qualification and status of third country Nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted introduced the notion of ”International Protection”8. This definition includes two different legal statutes, in order to grant protection even to those who are not included in the definition of the word “refugee”, as it was established by the Geneva Convention. The new status introduced by the notion of International Protection is Subsidiary Protection. The beneficiaries of Asylum are those who seek for protection because of the persecutions they faced in their countries of origin through institutionalized violence or other means, in particular victims of human rights abuses. On the contrary beneficiaries of Subsidiary Protection are those who, without being victims of persecutions, are at risk of serious injury in their country of origin. The definition of “serious injury” includes death sentence, torture or other forms of inhuman treatment, and serious and individual threat to life by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of armed conflicts. Originally these statutes generated different degrees of protection but the EU Directive of 2011 helped making them more similar

7 Council Directive 2001/55/EC on minimum standards for giving Temporary Protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons and on measures promoting a balance of efforts between Member States in receiving such persons and bearing the consequences thereof. 8 Directive 2004/83/CE adopted by the Italian legislation through Legislative Decree n 251/2007 (namely Qualification Decree). Later modified through the Directive 2011/95/EU. 12 (Mataloni, 2015). In Italy, for instance, refugees and beneficiaries of Subsidiary Protection obtain a residence permit valid for five years and renewable (for the beneficiaries of Subsidiary Protection, it is renewable only when the risk persists) and they are allowed the right to family reunification, the access to employment, education, healthcare and social assistance9. Immigrants who apply for International Protection submit to the frontier Police - or to the Police headquarter in charge, if the applicant has already entered the State boundary- their request, that is later presented to the Territorial Commission responsible for assessing; the commission will value the status of the applicants and what kind of protection is needed to grant them (Bonetti, Morandi, 2012). In addition, the Italian legislation recognises a further kind of protection: Humanitarian Protection10. The residence permit for humanitarian reasons, valid for two years, is issued by the Questor when "serious reasons of a humanitarian nature" exist. It is a residual form of protection applicable to those people who are not eligible for the Status of Refugees or Subsidiary Protection, but cannot be expelled by the State according to national, European or international norms. The permit can be issued by the Questor following the direct request of the foreign citizen or a recommendation made by the Territorial Commission that examines and rejects the applications for International Protection. This form of protection grants the foreign citizen access to health service and formation, and it can be converted into a residence permit for work, although it does not grant the right to family reunification (Guerrieri, 2016). It is necessary to remember other two EU Directives that compose the legal framework established in this first phase: the Directive laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seeker11 and the Directive on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee

9 Through the Legislative Decree 2014/18 (implemented by the Directive 2011/95/EU) modifying the Legislative Decree n 251. 10 Introduced in the legal system by the TU about immigration (Legislative Decree 1998/286). 11 Directive 2003/9/CE (namely Reception Conditions Directive), later modified by Directive 2013/33/EU. 13 status12 (Osman, 2015). The second phase of the CEAS started in 2007 with the publication of a Green Paper born from a public consultation that involved several stakeholders, including both the Governments and Non-governmental Organisations (NGOs). The starts of this second phase was promoted by the Treaty of Lisbon13, signed in 2007, that established, through the Art 78, that

"The Union shall develop a common policy on asylum, subsidiary protection and temporary protection with a view to offering appropriate status to any third- country National requiring international protection and ensuring compliance with the principle of non-refoulement. This policy must be in accordance with the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951 and the Protocol of 31 January 1967 relating to the status of refugees, and other relevant treaties".

The most important measures adopted in this phase focused on the review and the adjustment of the above-mentioned EU Directives, the strengthening of the role and the use of EURODAC14 (European Dactyloscopie) - the European asylum fingerprint database that simplifies the determination of the responsibility of a Member State for examining an applications comparing fingerprint dataset - and the introduction of a new Dublin Regulation (Dublin III15, 2014), that offered greater guarantees for applicants (such as the possibility claim against the transfer to another Member State and the stronger protection of family union). However, the new Regulation did not modify criteria for the determination of responsibility for examining asylum applications so that, once again, the encumbrance of migration flows was supported by Border States, particularly by Greece and Italy. In 2015, the mechanism of relocation was introduced in order to deal with the growing migratory pressure on these Member States and to counterbalance the system created through the Dublin 12 Directive 2005/85/CE (namely Asylum Procedures Directive), later modified by Directive 2013/32/EU. 13 The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). 14 Created through the Regulation (CE) n 2725/2000 later modified by the Regulation (CE) n 407/2002 e (UE) n 603/2013. 15 The Convention of 1990 was abrogated through the Council Regulation (EC) n 343/2003 later replaced with Regulation (EU) n 604/2013. 14 Regulation; the European Commission proposed to introduce an emergency response system based on "a temporary distribution scheme for persons in clear need of International Protection to ensure a fair and balanced participation of all Member States to this common effort", as defined by the European Agenda on migration. The relocation is conducted on the basis of a distribution key that takes into account the size of the population, the total GDP and the level of unemployment, the average number of asylum applications and the number of people resettled over the period 2010-2014. These indicators reflect the capacity of a Member State to integrate refugees and the level of the State's efforts made in the past. The relocation scheme was adopted in September 2015 with two Council Decisions providing the transfer of 120.000 applicants from Greece and Italy16. In a first moment, the implementation of the process was very slow, especially because of the lack of efforts shown by Member States, but in 2017 a change of course in the process17 was recorded, with an average of 2.300 relocations per month (from February 2017) and the total amount of 27.695 people relocated in the year (as of September 2017), 19.244 from Greece and 8.451 from Italy18 (Campomori, 2016). Finally, the cooperation and the agreement signed between EU and Turkey about the necessity to manage migration flows upon a coordinate manner, due to Turkey's role as first reception and transit country, should be mentioned: Europe agreed to allocate financial resources to Turkey in order to deal with the reception of migrants; on the other hand, Turkey agreed to meet the needs of refugees. As a matter of fact, "The Facility for Refugees in Turkey focuses on humanitarian assistance, education, migration management, health, municipal infrastructure, and socio-economic support19". The strengthening of the cooperation with Turkey is an attempt to externalize the control of migration flows beyond the borders of Europe and to stop migrants on departure (Associazione Studi Giuridici sull' Immigrazione, 2017). At the end of 2017 arrivals by sea in the Mediterranean area were 170.317

16 Council Decision (EU) 2015/1523 and (EU) 2015/1601. 17 For the detailed results it is possible to consult Reports of the European Commission. 18 Fifteenth Report on Relocation and Resettlement (6/9/2017, European Commission). 19 Managing the Refugee Crisis. The EU Facility for Refugees in Turkey (European Commission, the first agreement for the Facility was signed in March 2016). 15 (decreasing compared to the 362.753 in 2016) mainly in Italy (118.874), Spain (27.253) and Greece (29.085), especially from Nigeria (11.3%) and Syria (10.7%). The same decreasing trend is shown by the amount of applications for International Protection20.

IMAGE 1 First time Asylum Applicants (January 2016-September 2017) Source: Eurostat

Germany presents the highest number of first time asylum applicants (28% of the total amount), followed by Italy (20%), France, (14%), Greece (9%) and Spain (5%) but their number at the end of 2017 decreased by -55% compared to the same period of 2016. In any case, it should be taken into account that only Germany, among European States, is included among the top ten major refugee-hosting countries with Turkey, while all the others are countries from developing regions. As a matter of fact at the end of 2016 the population of refugees in the world stood at 17.187.500, and out of the 5.199.900 hosted in Europe, 2.869.400 were welcomed in Turkey21.

20 Data from UNHCR (27/12/2017). 21 Global Trends. Forced Displacement in 2016 (UNHCR). 16 1.2 Asylum and the Italian Legislation

What is the position of Italy in this European legislative context? The rise of a national legislation concerning asylum and International Protection was the result of a long and discontinuous process. The Art. 10 of the Italian Constitution (1948), establishes that

"Lo straniero, al quale sia impedito nel suo paese l'effettivo esercizio delle libertà democratiche garantite dalla Costituzione Italiana, ha diritto d'asilo nel territorio della Repubblica, secondo le condizioni stabilite dalla legge22".

Nevertheless, upon signing the Geneva Convention, Italy decided to exclusively apply the measures of reception to other European citizens, excluding third-country applicants. The institution responsible for the evaluation of asylum applications was the Eligibility Commission23. This geographical clause was abolished in 1990 with the emanation of the Martelli Law that finally allowed citizens of a third country to submit an application for asylum24 (Campomori, 2016). Moreover, the law implemented the guarantees for beneficiaries of asylum and the procedures of expulsion from the country. Until the emanation of this law, the management of migration flows was disciplined according to the Security Measures adopted in 1932 with the Testo Unico in the field of Security. However, in practice, the Martelli Law actually showed several limits; during the evaluation of the requests, asylum applicants were left alone (economical resources were insufficient and the waiting time to access a first reception centre excessive) and forced to make

22 "The foreigner who is denied in his own country the effective exercise of the democratic liberties guaranteed by the Italian Constitution has the right of asylum in the territory of the Republic, in accordance with the conditions established by law" (English transl. by C. Casonato, J. Woelk). 23 Commissione Paritetica di Eleggibilità (English translation mine), created through an exchange of notes between the Italian Government and the UN High Commissioner in 1952. 24 Law 1990/39 concerning “Urgent norms in matter of asylum, entry and stay of non-EU citizens and regularization of non-EU and stateless citizens already present in the territory of the State”. Through the Martelli Law the Italian policy tried to legislate for the migratory phenomenon. Indeed, it improved the conditions of asylum seekers and started to involve Regions and municipalities in the creation of first reception centres for migrants, but it neglected the measures for the integration of foreigners in the Italian society (Einaudi, 2007). 17 do with illegal residence on the territory waiting for the emanation of the so called “sanatoria”25 (Einaudi, 2007). The lack of a relevant legislation was due to the fact that until the Eighties, Italy was above all a State of origin or transit of migratory movements, not a destination country. Nevertheless, in the past Italy had already had to deal with the burden of refugees' arrivals as the result of international crises. The Italian response was to disregard the geographical clause recognising protection also to non European citizens: this was the case of the reception of Chilean citizens in 1973, forced to leave their country after the Putsch of Pinochet (Campomori, 2016). The emergency aspect is a feature of the Italian way to manage the growing pressure of migratory influx; this implies the adoption of ad hoc measures depending on the situation. For a long time the Italian reception system was supported by the efforts of the so called “third sector” and organisations based on solidarity. But even after the emanation of the Martelli Law, the Italian legislation and its institutions remained unable to deal with these phenomena and the Albanian crisis showed it explicitly in 1991. In that case the attitude of the Italian Government was unsuited to deal with the emergency: in a first time, the Government decided to grant residence permits for humanitarian reasons, disregarding the existing norms, but after a few months it proceeded to refuse migrants the access to borders (Einaudi, 2007). In 1993 Italy ratified the Schengen26 Agreement, while in 1998 the Turco- Napolitano27 Law was approved and then included in the "Consolidated Act on provisions concerning the immigration regulations and foreign National conditions norms”28. The Turco-Napolitano Law was the first attempt to create an organic regulation on migration. The law was important especially because it established the granting of residence permit for humanitarian reasons (Humanitarian Protection);

25 Until the Eighties Italy was not a country of destination for migration flows. As a matter of fact no legislation on migrations was elaborated. In these years the so called “Sanatoria” (that is a regularization) was the most used instrument to manage the migratory phenomenon: five “Sanatorie” were issued between 1978 and 1995 to rectify irregular situations. This situation promoted the increment of illegal migrations, since migrants were aware of the fact that sooner or later their irregular presence on the Italian territory would be regularised. 26 Law 1993/388 ratifying Schengen Agreement. 27 Law 1998/40. 28 Legislative Decree 1998/286. 18 moreover it created Centres of Temporary Permanence (Centri di Permanenza Temporanea CPT)29 for illegal and irregular immigrants waiting to be expelled from the country (Einaudi, 2007). In 1999, once the phenomenon of refugees arriving from Kosovo started, the project “Azione Comune” was launched. It was supported by the EU and by the Interior Ministry, and it involved several actors aiming at the activation of a network of services on the Italian territory in order to deal with refugees' reception. The management of the project was entrusted to the Italian Council for Refugees in coordination with different associations such as Caritas, Casa dei Diritti Sociali (Cds) and the Centro Italiano per l'Educazione allo Sviluppo (Cies). The strengths of the project were several: it favoured the creation of small or medium reception centres; it involved the participation (even if only partially) of local administration; it established common standards for the reception of refugees. In 2000, the participation to the project was extended to all refugees, independently from the Nation of origin (Campomori, 2016). On the basis of this positive experience, the National Action Plan on Asylum (PNA) was created in 2001 as the result of a Memorandum of Understanding between UNHCR, ANCI (Associazione Nazionale Comuni Italiani)30 and the Department for Civil Liberties and Immigration (Ministry of the Interior). In 2000 the implementation of Italian legislation on International Protection was the result of the adoption of UE Directives31: in particular Italy recognised the Subsidiary Protection (EMN, 2012). In 2002 the Bossi-Fini Law came into force, introducing in the Italian reception system several modifications32. The law disciplined the institution of a National Fund for Asylum Policies and Services and the establishment of Territorial Commissions in charge of the evaluation of asylum applications. Furthermore, thanks to the law, the PNA was incorporated in the Protection System for Asylum Seekers and

29 Temporary Detention Centre. 30 National Association of Italian Municipalities. 31 In addition to the cited "Qualification Decree", it is important to remember the Legislative Decrees 2005/140 and 2008/25. 32 Law 2002/189 implemented by the D.P.R 303/2004. 19 Refugees (SPRAR)33, nowadays the main feature of the Italian reception system (EMN, 2012). Moreover in these years the Italian politics of Bilateral Agreement started; the several agreements with Libya were aimed at prevent migrants from departing the country thanks to the role played by the Libyan Coast Guard. This cooperation, started through the Treaty of Amity between Italy and Libya (2008), cost to Italy a sentence by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg in 2012 (Polchi, 2012). The new Memorandum of Understanding signed in 2017 to combat illegal migration caused a series of objections, especially after the media divulged the measures of detention used in Libya as a form of migrants “reception”. In the next months, Italy should be held accountable for its decisions both by the EU and ONU (Camilli, 2017). Lastly, barely over (2013), the “Emergency North Africa” should be mentioned, an organisation founded to deal with the increasing arrivals on Italian shores from 2011. In this case, as in the past, the Italian Government delegated the management of migration flows to the Department of Civil Protection34. It elaborated a Plan for the Reception of Migrants coming from North Africa that provided for the distribution of people over the national territory on the basis of an equal distribution that took into account also the regional resident population. Different stakeholders took part in the elaboration of the Plan: State, Regions, local authorities and other personalities coming from the national system. The Plan provided for the possibility to accommodate up to 50.000 migrants although, as of December 2012, the people assisted were only 16.84435 (Campomori, 2016). Which rates of immigration did Italy have to deal with between 1997 and 2016?

33 A clear description of SPRAR is given in Chapter 2. 34 Through the OPCM n 3933 (2013). 35 Data from the Civil Protection Department. 20 IMAGE 2 Migrants arrivals by sea and asylum seekers in Italy (1997-2016) Source: Elaboration of ISMU on data from Ministry of the Interior and UNHCR36

Despite the fact that 2017 saw a reduction in the amount of arrivals by sea compared to 2016 (118.874 arrivals compared to the 181.436 of the previous year), in recent years the rates of arrivals and reception of migrants seem to be excessively high. It is necessary to underline that in recent years the arrivals of migrants seeking for asylum or humanitarian reasons are becoming predominant (overcome only by arrivals for family reunification): in 2016 the arrivals and the requests of residence permit for work purposes were down to a record low, only the 5.7% of the total number of issued permits (the half of 2015) while the permits for protection were the 34% (in 2015 they were only the 28%)37. This situation shows that the composition of migration flows has changed. Furthermore, data reveals that there is a growing tendency to reject applications for International Protection: in 2013 only the 29% (on 23.634 examined applications, while total amount of requests was of 26.620), was

36 The table reports the amount of arrivals of migrants, the numbers of asylum seekers and the amount of applications examined, from 1997 to 2016. 37 Data from Istat (https://www.istat.it/it/files/2017/10/Cittadini_non_comunitari_Anno2016.pdf?ti- tle=Cittadini+non+comunitari++-+10%2Fott%2F2017+-+Cittadini_non_comunitari_Anno2016.pdf).

21 rejected while in the 2016 the 60% (compared to the 39% of 2014 and the 58% of 2015). 2016 showed the largest amount of applications, precisely 123.600. However, 2017 seemed to reach a new record: in the first semester of 2017 the applications were 77.44938, 44% more than in the same period of 2016, showing similar rates in the refusal of requests (from 57% to 61%)39. Both in 2016 and 2017, Nigeria, Pakistan, Gambia and Senegal remained the main countries of origin of applicants and the most issued residence permits concerned Humanitarian Protection (Ministry of the Interior, 2017).

1.3 Migration Flows in Sicily

Sicily is a land that has always experienced different aspects of migratory phenomenon. It was land of origin of those who emigrated towards Northern Italy and Europe to seek their fortune; a land of arrival and residence, in particular for populations coming from Tunisia in the Sixties and from Eastern European Countries in Nineties; a land of transit for those who, especially today, escape from their countries of origin (in particular from African countries) to seek protection due to the instability of these countries. The Island experienced foreign immigration since the end of the Sixties with the arrival of workers from Tunisia. They took up residence in the Province of Trapani and found employment in traditional sectors, such as fishing and farming (in the following years, their presence led to the emergence of protests and tensions with the local population, especially in Mazzara del Vallo). In this period the creation of a sort of a migratory chain started: the arrival of workers was followed by the arrivals of their families and of other compatriots (Einaudi, 2007). Since the Seventies flows from Asia, in particular from the Philippines, have added to these. These flows were mainly composed by women, who were later employed as

38 Report on International Protection in Italy 2017 (Caritas, Italiana, ANCI, Cittalia, Fondazione Migrantes, Central SPRAR Service in collaboration with UNHCR). 39 Data from the Department for Civil Liberties and Immigration (Ministry of the Interior, last access: 28/12/2017). 22 domestic servants. Foreigners gradually began to be employed in those working sectors the Italians rejected, considering them humiliating. During the Eighties, Sicily seemed to be a region of destination and transit, but also a land of emigration for its citizens, and this allowed foreign citizens to play an important role in the economic structure of the Region. Since the Nineties, people from Eastern European countries started to arrive on the island. In these years there was a growing number of forced migrants coming to Sicily especially through channels of illegal immigration. Particularly, the end of the Nineties showed a growing trend in the number of migrants coming by sea to the Sicilian coasts (Castronovo, 2016). In 2017, 119.247 arrivals affected Italy and a large number of them took place in Sicily: of the 18 Italian harbours affected by arrivals, 8 are in Sicily, 4 in Calabria, 3 in Apulia, 2 in Campania and 1 in Sardinia, as showed by the following figure.

IMAGE 3 Italian harbours affected by the arrivals (2017) Source: Department of Public Safety

Sicily is the first among Italian Islands for number of foreign residents: in 2017 they were 189.169, increasing their number in comparison with the 183.000 of 201640. In 2016, the presence of non-European foreigners amounted to 113.474 persons allocated mainly among the Province of Palermo (22%), Catania (20%), Messina (15.7%) and Ragusa (13.6%). The main countries of origin were Romania, Tunisia,

40 Data from Istat (http://dati.istat.it/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=DCIS_POPSTRRES1). 23 Morocco e Sri Lanka. The beneficiaries of a residence permit for International Protection or humanitarian reasons were 18.893 (the 28.3% of the total) while the total amount of those who joined a residence permit were 66.764 (2016)41. The measures adopted at regional level on the reception of migrants are a Regional Decree, that establishes "structural and organisational standards for reception centre of second level reserved to Unaccompanied Minors" and a Comprehensive Plan concerning measures to be adopted in order to facilitate the access of migrants to employment and social integration (the result of an agreement between Regions and General Directorate for Immigration and Policy of Integration, for the years 2014- 2020). Despite the lack of organic institutional previsions about immigration, Sicily in practice takes the responsibility to support and give reception to those who enter Italy by sea.

1.4 Conclusive Remarks

Numbers show that Italy, especially Sicily, is nowadays obliged to deal with the migratory phenomenon, being a country of destination for migration flows. The legal framework on asylum and International Protection, both at European and national level, is permanently in evolution. This creates an unstable system of reference for the reception of migrants in the Italian territory. As a matter of fact, the complexity of the Italian reception system is linked to the features of the existing legislation on the matter. The topic of emergency that characterises the reception system reflects the measures adopted by the policy makers to manage the migration flows that affect Italy. In view of the existing legislation, once migrants arrive on the Italian coasts where are they accommodated? Which services are they granted? How are they allocated over the Italian territory?

41 Data available at the link http://www.integrazionemigranti.gov.it/leregioni/sicilia/Pagine/Regione- Sicilia.aspx (www.integrazionemigrati.gov.it Vivere e lavorare in Italia, Ministry of the Interior, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Labour and Social Policy). 24 2. THE SYSTEM OF PERMANENT EMERGENCY

2.1 The Italian Reception System

The institutional overview related to the migrant reception system in Italy is extremely complex and above all, continuously subject to re-adaptation and reorganisation. However I believe that it is important to attempt to clarify this disorienting and confusing subject: the confusion results from the definition of reception centre, which can encompass several aspects, very different from each other. In the following paragraph, I am briefly going to describe the constellation of centres which compose the Italian reception system. Firstly, it should be underlined that the reception system in Italy adopts a two-tier approach: the First Reception, that includes Hotspot, CPSA (Centro di Primo Soccorso e Accoglienza)42 and collective Centres (CDA-Centri di Assistenza and CARA-Centri di Accoglienza per Richiedenti Asilo)43, and the Second Reception, the SPRAR (Sistema di Protezione Richiedenti Asilo e Rifugiati)44. However, recently the CAS (Centri di Accoglienza Straordinaria)45 have been introduced in order to manage the unavailability of places in the second level of reception. When migrants arrive to the Italian coasts, they are first brought to the Hotspot, First Aid and Identification Centre, that is an assembly point for migrants in which health checks, procedures for identification and registration (photo/fingerprint) are done and information activities on the applicable legislation on immigration and International Protection are promoted: then, if the migrant requests it, the procedure for asylum application starts. Hotspots were established in August 201546, although the

42 First Aid and Reception Centre. In the following Chapter, the translations of the acronym of reception centres are reported from websites of Institutional Organisations even if a different terminology is often adopted. In that cases I selected what seems to be similar to the Italian definition. 43 Accommodation Centres and Centres for Accommodation of Asylum Seekers. 44 System of Protection of Asylum Seekers and Refugees. 45 Extraordinary Reception Centre. 46 Established with Legislative Decree 2015/142 for the Implementation of Directive 2013/33/EU on standards for the reception of asylum applicants and the Directive 2013/32/EU on common procedures for the recognition and revocation of the status of International Protection. 25 procedure for their activation has been particularly problematic (in January 2016 only three of the six hotspots expected were running47). Hotspots were accompanied by the First Aid and Reception Centres (CPSA) which perform the same tasks. Today, these operative centres are set in Lampedusa (Sicily), Pozzallo (Sicily), Trapani (Sicily) and Taranto (Apulia) but, owing to the approval of the Minniti- Orlando Decree48, the creation of new structures is already planned for the near future. A time limit for the stay of asylum seekers in these centres is not provided by law, since it only provides that they stay “as long as necessary” to complete procedures. This aspect sparked, in the past, several protests towards the long procedures that forced many migrants to remain in these first-reception structures for an excessively long time. The few migrants who do not apply for International Protection are transferred to CPR (Centri di Permanenza e Rimpatrio)49, that have replaced the older Identification and Expulsion Centres (CIE)50. The law provides an increment in the number of these centres up to a maximum of 20. The aim is to simplify the procedures to repatriate the so-called economic migrants: in fact, these individuals do not leave their countries of origin for humanitarian reasons, thus their presence on the Italian territory is considered illegal. In these centres may be detained also those applicants who, for different reasons, could be considered dangerous for the public order and the security, or they present the risk of absconding51. A specific legal framework is reserved to the case of unaccompanied minors: given their particular vulnerability, these minors are reserved, according to the availability of the system, a facilitate access to the SPRAR, even when they are not beneficiaries of International Protection52.

47 Report of the Parliamentary Committee of Inquiry on the reception system and identification and expulsion system, as well as on the detention conditions of migrants and on the public resources employed (Doc.XXII-bis, N.6, 3 May 2016). 48 Passed on April 2017. 49 Return Detention Centre, definition elaborated by Asylum Information Database (AIDA, last access: 14/01/2018). 50 Identification and Expulsion Centres, created by Law n 40/1998 called also Turco-Napolitano Law. 51 "In the EU context, existence of reasons in an individual case which are based on objective criteria defined by law to believe that a third-country national who is subject to return procedures may abscond" elaborated by EMN and available on line at the link https://ec.europa.eu/home- affairs/content/risk-absconding_en. 52 Especially the Legislative Decree 2015/142 completed with the law n 47 of April 2017. 26 Asylum seekers, instead, with the exception of the case previously cited, are accompanied in the first 48 hours after their arrival (according to theoretical prescriptions, but what happens in practice is often very different) in First Reception Centres, collective centres also known as Regional Hub. This category includes also CARA and CDA. These centres too are governed by the legislative Decree 2015/142, in which it is specified that here all the procedures for identification, the formalization of asylum application and the start of the examination procedure must be completed (Colombo, 2017). Once again the law does not provide any temporal term of reference. It is necessary to underline that this system of acronyms is not permanent, nor static; the legislation on reception centres is ever-changing and new forms of centres are continuously introduced, although they often share their functions with the already existing ones. Therefore in the end, there is no a great difference between CARA and Hotspots, or between a First Reception Centre and CAS. Returning to the path of migrants, applicants can join the SPRAR, a system created through a Memorandum of Understanding signed in 2001 by the Department for Civil Liberties and Immigration of the Ministry of the Interior, ANCI and UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees) that established the PNA, already mentioned in the previous Chapter. In addition to refugees, also those who received Humanitarian and Subsidiary Protection can join the SPRAR. The beneficiaries of Humanitarian and Subsidiary protection are allowed to join the SPRAR for a minimum of six months (extendable to twelve), while asylum applicants are granted accommodation until the ultimate result of the assessment of their application. If their application is rejected, and they do not file an appeal, asylum seekers have to leave the SPRAR system. The applications are examined by the Territorial Commission for the recognition of International Protection; nowadays there are 20 different commissions over the Italian territory. The commission usually evaluates applications through hearings of the asylum seekers. One of the main problems of the Italian reception system is related to the excessively long waiting period between the submission of the protection request and the response of the Territorial Commissions.

27 The law established that the examination of the application should take place 30 days after its submission and the final result 30 days after the hearing. This does not happen in practice: the system is often under stress because of the great number of applications, thus waiting periods get longer (Surace, 2016). The main feature of the SPRAR is the creation of a network of reception projects involving several stakeholders (both voluntary sector organisations and local institutions), in order to provide assistance and support to beneficiaries of International Protection. It guarantees an “integrated reception” and the development of personalized programmes of integration, in order to go beyond the provision of board and lodging. The aim is to promote a process of empowerment of those people who are hosted in the reception system. The ultimate goal is to give them self- autonomy, and to improve their integration in the Italian society. The integration process is promoted through ten pillars, considered indispensable services: linguistic- cultural mediation, social assistance, health specialist assistance, job placement services, training services, legal guidance and information, material reception conditions, housing services in local communities, placing minors in the schooling system, orientation and guidance to the local services53. The system is coordinated by the Central Service, established with the support of the Ministry of the Interior and entrusted to ANCI. Local authorities are willing to take part in the reception system, applying (through a public notice) to access the National Fund for Asylum policies and services, controlled by the Ministry of the Interior. In case of positive result of the evaluation, local authorities will publish a call for proposal in order to select the projects and the managing body for the reception. However the ability of the system to offer reception facilities is too low compared to the number of applicants for International Protection; this situation is caused by the limited expansion of SPRAR and creates a permanent emergency state. This is the reason why in 2014 the Italian legislation established, through Ministerial Circulars, CAS, Extraordinary Reception Centres. Contrary to the SPRAR, the creation of CAS depends exclusively on the Prefecture. The Prefect selects the place and the adequate

53 Decree of the Ministry of the Interior (10 August 2016) containing the arrangements for local authorities to access to National Fund for Asylum policies and services. 28 building to set up the centre, choosing among the privates who offer to host refugees; furthermore, the Prefect chooses the cooperative that will manage the reception centre. These dispositions depend on the fact that the CAS is a temporary and extraordinary centre and the procedure of activation are supposed to be rapid compared to the SPRAR. However the CAS has to grant a series of services such as: board, laundry service, transport service, communication service, psycho-social assistance, legal information and activities to support integration54. In this case the promotion of integration is limited to the activation of an Italian language course, information about Italian territory and society, and the planning of leisure activities. It is clear, then, that temporary centres offer lower standards in terms of reception if they are compared to the SPRAR. Theoretically, the CAS is not a centre of first reception, but it is a temporary solution to host those who are waiting to be assigned to the SPRAR. However, practice shows a different situation: because of inefficiency in the managing of the reception centres, the system is always overflowing, and the CAS, from temporary solution, has nowadays become a permanent accommodation for a large part of those who apply for International Protection (Colombo, 2017). Another important difference between the SPRAR and the CAS shall be stressed: the system of allocation of refugees over the Italian territory. To support a proper and equal allocation, the SPRAR is provided with a system of distribution based on demographic proportionality. The Ministry of the Interior developed a National Plan for the allocation of applicants for International Protection defying, at the regional level, a percentage of benchmark. On the basis of this percentage, to each Region is assigned an amount of accommodation to grant in the SPRAR network depending on the percentage of access to the National Fund for Social Policies55. The distribution on a local level is based on this quota, and it is determined as the following scheme shows.

54 Scheme of tender dossier for the management of immigration reception centres (as an attachment of the Decree n 13 signed by the Minister of the Interior Minniti in February 2017). 55 Agreement between ANCI, UPI and Conference of Regions (2014) and Agreement concerning Criteria for Regional allocation between Government, Regions and local authorities (2014). 29 IMAGE 4 SPRAR National Plan for the allocation of applicants in the Italian municipalities SOURCE: SPRAR Central System56

In 2016, an agreement developed by ANCI and the Government established a standard amount of 2.5 applicants every 1000 residents. The fact that the criterion takes into account the demographic dimension of each municipality favours the process of integration. This depends on the fact that often, when the number of guests is too high compared to the local population, citizens perceive reception as a form of invasion. The principle adopted is to limit the number of people hosted in each municipality, and at the same to subsidize all the Italian local authorities to take part of the system. The objective is to promote a real integration in local communities. During the foundation of CAS these considerations are set aside, since the priority is to allocate as many people as possible on the territory; the criterion followed concerns exclusively the availability of buildings for the establishment of these temporary centres. This situation often implies a disproportionate amount of guests compared to local population, making it more difficult not only to manage the reception, but also to improve their integration. The Department for Civil Liberties and Immigration specified that the guiding principle in the reception of migrants is to

56 The image shows the distribution criteria adopted for the allocation of migrants over the Italian territory: villages that count until 2000 residents have to host a fixed rate of 6 migrants; towns that count more than 2000 residents have to host a number of migrants elaborated on the basis of a Regional distribution keeping into account the percentage of access to the National Fund for Social Policies; towns of Metropolitan area have to host an amount of 2.0 migrants every 1000 residents. 30 consider integration as a complex process, starting from the first level of reception. This is specified by the National Plan of Integration for Beneficiaries of International Protection (Ministry of the Interior, 2017). But, in practice, the promotion of the process of integration remains an exclusive feature of the second reception and it is granted only to those “lucky”, ones who are able to join the SPRAR system (Colombo, 2017). As seen in the previous pages, there is an imbalance between the applicants for International Protection and the capacity of the SPRAR to host them. The Government reaffirmed several times the necessity that Italian municipalities endorse to the system. Indeed, the SPRAR would allow to manage the reception in an orderly and organized way. In order to support the participation of local authorities the law provides encouraging measures such as the safeguard clause57: local authorities that adopt the SPRAR or that express the will to participate are not obliged to adopt additional reception systems. The strength of this clause is linked to the fact that nowadays, local authorities are intimidated by the possibility of the establishment of a CAS in their town. As a matter of fact, they would not be able to control and limit the amount of migrants, nor to decide where to establish the centre; this would certainly lead to protests and tensions within the local population. For a lot of Mayors this possibility could not be advantageous from an electoral and political point of view (Colombo, 2017). Despite the measures adopted in legislation, numbers show that CAS is nowadays in Italy the most used tool through which the State deals with the reception issue. This is dangerous, since it produces a disorganized and unbalanced system. Indeed, according to data, the SPRAR system is currently able to host 27.506 persons, in addition to 3.110 minors and 654 persons with disabilities or mental disorders for a total of 31.270 beneficiaries. They are allocated through 775 projects managed by local administrations, Provinces, Unions of Municipalities, Mountain Communities

57 Introduced by a Directive of the Ministry of the Interior concerning Norms for the start of a sustainable system of allocation for asylum seeker and refugees on national territory through the SPRAR (11 October 2016). 31 and other bodies. 1.100 local authorities are involved in the system58. The CAS instead, host 137.218 individuals all over the Italian territory (73% of the total)59. In the first semester of 2016 the beneficiaries of the SPRAR were 23.496, and those of CAS were 96.701; CAS experimented an increment of presences in the amount of 40.517 units60. In Sicily, the projects of SPRAR are 111, of which 13 take place in the Province of Messina (2 in Barcellona Pozzo di Gotto, 1 in Capo D'Orlando, 1 in Castroreale, 1 in Fondachelli Fontina, 3 in Messina, 2 in Milazzo, 1 in Montalbano Elicona, 1 in Pace del Mela and 1 in Rodì Milici) for a total of 6.853 beneficiaries over the territory61. Sicily hosts the 19.4% of beneficiaries hosted in Italy (the second Region is Lazio which hosts the 19.3%). The CAS in the Region hosted 4.593 beneficiaries, the 3.3% of those hosted at national level (in this case, the leaders are Piedmont and Campania with 13.077 and 12.987 presence).

58 Data available on-line on the database of SPRAR Central System. Last access: 15 January 2018, http://www.sprar.it/progetti-territoriali?sort_order=id+asc. 59 Data refers to the end of 2016 and is available in the Report on International Protection in Italy (2017) elaborated by ANCI, Caritas Italiana, Cittalia, Fondazione Migrantes, SPRAR Central Service in cooperation with UNHCR. For the sake of completeness, the Oxfam Report “The Italian Lottery of

Reception. The system of the permanent emergency” published on the 8th of November 2017 estimates the presence in the CAS at 136.477. 60 Ibid. 61 Ibid. This data is significant because Gioiosa Marea, where I conducted my research, is a village in the Province of Messina. As a matter of fact, the presence of reception centres in the Province is important because it implies that the citizens of Gioiosa are constantly aware of what happens in the neighbouring villages where reception centres are already established. 32 2.2 Reception Centres and Spatial Arrangements

The world of centres that compose the Italian reception system is complex and the differences between various types of centres are not very evident. This is caused by several limits of legislative regulations, and also by the scarce ability to manage the centres. Indeed, in practice, it is possible to identify common critical points in the dimension of the centre. Firstly, the existence of reception centres is legitimate on the basis of two precepts: Emergency and Impermanence62. They are places in which ordinary laws are interrupted in the name of the Emergency. This implies that the available spaces are impersonal and sterile, created not for the comfort of people hosted, but to respond only to material necessities (distribute meals, ensure sleeping accommodation, and so on). These places are also considered as temporary, so hosted people are compelled to live in a state of uncertainty and pending, especially when waiting for the residence permit (Paone, 2008). These issues are pointed out by the definition that Michel Agier gives of the centres. He affirms that centres and camps are

“[...] spazi minimalisti perché rivelano l'emergenza umanitaria o sicuritaria, spazi in forma di deserto di sensi, non sono mai pensati come un mondo possibile di relazioni sociali e politiche che creano una comunità fra gli umani63” (Italian transl. by Sonia Paone)

Centres of reception can be seen as the non-places identified by Marc Augé: in these spaces there is a lack of social and cultural connections among people, depending on the fact that they do not share a common identity; besides, between the place and the history and the culture of each person, there are no links. These spaces are

62 The term “Impermanence” is used to highlight the fact that reception centres are not permanent accommodation for migrants, who, theoretically, will have to leave the system of reception sooner or later. This is the reason why the centres are not designed to give them a sense of stability. 63 "[…] minimalist spaces, since they unveil the humanitarian and security emergency; spaces void of feelings, they are unsuited for creating a world of social and political relations in which a community of human beings can be established” (English translation mine). 33 characterised mainly by a sense of anonymity and solitude. There does not seem to be the opportunity to develop a sense of belonging (Natassja 2016, Dotti 2017). This situation depends not only on interior features of the centre, but also by the bonds with external elements. Indeed, the people hosted in a centre are “placed” there; they often have no real relationships with local residents, not belonging to the urban space. They are confined in the space of the centre, isolated from the rest of the town. This situation tends on the one hand, to sharpen the loneliness of those people who are hosted in the centre; on the other hand, it amplifies the distance between migrants and local citizens. As a matter of fact, evidence shows that the position of the centre in the towns is usually outside of the urban space, in the outskirts, in order to gain the largest facilities and to avoid the proximity with local population, preventing the emergence of objections. The aim is, in a way, to hide the presence of migrants - and this actually seems to be the fate of all those who are considered undesirable, such as homeless people - from the eyes of citizens. When this is not possible, they are concealed within the spaces of the centres, preventing their presence in the urban space, a presence that could be considered annoying (Sossi, 2002; Paone, 2008). Therefore, another interesting point emerges: how do local residents live the presence of a reception centre in their own town? A common tendency is that of NIMBY, Not In My Back Yard: people that support this inclination do not doubt that granting accommodation to those who are in the system of reception is a necessity, but they define themselves favourable only if the centre is placed far away from them. Indeed, the responses of citizens are usually two: the first one is to oppose to the establishment of a reception centre through protests and critics; the second one is to ignore the presence of the foreigners, pretending that they are not there. This happens because the space of the centre fosters the creation of labels and stigma: the individual disappears in favour of the group. People hosted in the centre are often not considered individuals with a personal identity, personality, preferences or opinions, but exclusively as members of a homogeneous group (Paone, 2008). This misunderstanding is caused both by prejudices and by a stereotyped idea of

34 immigrants. In order to go beyond these conditions, it is necessary to reconsider the current system of reception, based especially on temporary structures. Indeed, this system produces and encourages marginality. A similar outcome is shown very distinctly by the propagation of informal encampments, created by those who leave the system, for whom the only solution is to occupy buildings or to create houses from recyclable materials. Life in these encampments is characterised by misery and unacceptable sanitary conditions. For immigrants, to be excluded from the reception systems, means to lack opportunities in terms of accommodation, work and healthcare (Medici Senza Frontiere, 2016). Furthermore, it is necessary to encourage the people hosted in reception centres to build deep relationships with the communities in which they are included, through physical proximity with local citizens and situations of meeting and exchanges.

35 2.3 The Case of Castell'Umberto

In the following section I am going to report the story of the Extraordinary Reception Centre (CAS) in the Municipality of Castell'Umberto. When I was already in Sicily to conduct my research on the reception of migrants in Gioiosa Marea, I learned about the story of another reception centre, precisely the CAS set in Castell'Umberto, thanks to a lawyer who deals also with legal assistance and defence of migrants. Castell'Umberto is a small municipality, counting 3.050 residents, situated near the Nebrodi National Park, 660 meters above the sea. Castell'Umberto is situated in the Province of Messina and it is 30 kilometres far from Gioiosa Marea. Like in the most villages in the surroundings, the central part of the village is very limited: stores, churches, municipal office, Post Office, public facilities are concentrated in a scarce space because the population resides especially in the countryside. Moreover, the creation of the village was due to the existence of a previous urban centre, like in the case of Gioiosa Marea. Originally, the populated area was called Castania but as a consequence of natural disasters, and especially a series of floods, the village was transferred in a new locality and it took the name of Castell'Umberto, thanks to the Royal Decree of 1865. The arrival of refugees in the small community caused a series of protests that shone a light over the current system of reception. I decided to report this story, because I believe that it could explicitly show how the distance (or proximity) of the urban area to the reception centre can alter the perception of local residents. Furthermore, it is necessary to underline a fundamental question: what happens when spatial decisions related to the reception of migrants in the small community are not negotiated or mediated with local residents?

36 2.3.1 An Unprepared Village

It all started with a phone call from the Prefect of Messina to the Mayors of Sinagra and Castell'Umberto. The Prefect informed them that, giving the extraordinary amount of asylum seekers arrived on the Island, 50 migrants were to be accommodated in an old hotel in the village called “Il Canguro”, and that the reception centre for the migrants would be managed by three cooperatives from Palermo. To be more exact, the hotel is situated in the Municipality of Sinagra, but it is very close to the residential area of Castell'Umberto (about 500 meters away). The message immediately sparked a strong reaction in the Mayor of Castell'Umberto, Vincenzo Civa, who found himself unprepared: the belated notice was sent when the migrants were already hosted in the hotel.

IMAGE 5 The Mayor of Castell'Umberto published a post on Facebook64 SOURCE: Facebook

64 “Important and urgent communication. The Prefecture of Messina just notified me that, because of a unilateral act and without warning, thirty migrants will be transferred during the night, to the hotel “Il Canguro”. I believe this decision is wrong, since it did not involve local institutions, regardless of the repercussions on our community. The management was entrusted to a Cooperative from Palermo. I'm going there where, wearing the mayoral sash, I will block the entrance of the Hotel with my car, and there I will stay”. 37 “I am upset because I am the Mayor of this village and the Government literally went over our heads,” said Civa during an interview, before launching his protest through a post on Facebook. In a short time, many citizens gathered outside of the hotel with the Mayor to support his protest. In particular, the protesters barricaded the entrance to the hotel with their cars, preventing the electrical generator and electricians to enter, thus leaving the migrants without lights. The Mayor also found the solidarity of the institutions of the other villages of Nebrodi area. The operators and the migrants remained locked inside the structure till dawn. At first it seemed that the migrants were unaccompanied minors, but the Prefecture quickly denied the rumours specifying that the migrants were all men and adults. The protest of Civa was not directly against the migrants, as he explained several times, but against the Prefecture and the selection of the structure. The Mayor stressed the fact that the hotel was not habitable and that it depended on the municipality for the supply of water and electricity. Only because of a temporary permission issued by the firefighter department, it became possible, after an inspection, to safely access the building. Sometime after, a spontaneous movement of citizens rose from the bottom, in response to the actions pursued by the Mayor, a movement called “Coordinamento senza frontiere65” that included different people, regardless of their social background, professional figure and political affiliation. The aim of the Coordination was to restore the citizens' honour after they were accused of being racist and above all to explain to the guests of the centre that they were welcome. As a matter of fact, the Coordination's activities, still running nowadays, focused mainly on the promotion of moments of meeting between migrants and members of the local community. In order to achieve their aims, the members of the Coordination also adopted initiatives of strong impact such as “Aggiungi un posto a tavola66” through which residents, every Sunday, alternately welcome a guest of the centre to have lunch in their home, in order to encourage mutual understanding and gradually destroy prejudices and stereotypes.

65 “Coordination without frontiers”. 66 “Add another place at the table”. 38 2.3.2 Some Interviews in Castell'Umberto

During my fieldwork I spent two days in the village in order to collect more detailed information on the situation in the hotel “Il Canguro” and to understand what citizens think about the presence of the reception centre for migrants.

I arrived in Castell'Umberto in the morning of 20th November 2017. I called the Mayor Civa: at that time he was not there, but he told me to go to the municipal office and talk with his assistants. The municipal office is close to the main square, IV Novembre Street, and to the church in the centre of the village. I talked with two assistants that told me the events of the summer and gave me some newspaper articles: both said that the village had been described as racist, because media distorted the reality exposing the facts from a single point of view in order to sell the story to the public. This is an important aspect, since almost all the people I spoke with and interviewed (both institutional actors and common citizens) stressed the negative role played by media in the case of Castell'Umberto. While I was talking to them, a traffic warden arrived. She said that she had spent a lot of time with the migrants hosted in the centre, and was willing to answer some questions.

“I live, with my family in the same street of the hotel, so when immigrants arrived, my husband and I tried several times to enter the structure, but in a first time one of the operators working in the centre made it impossible, I don't know why. The situation changed when this person was discharged from his role, so we started to visit the guests. They are both Muslims and Christians, very sweet and happy to see smiling faces. They arrived here with nothing, they needed clothes, they needed to discover the place where they had been brought to, and they needed to learn how to use a map, because they were completely disoriented. I took them around the town several times to show them the land and where they are.”

She told me that the guests of the centre call her “Mama”, because she is one of the

39 first people they spoke to, they told her their story, why they have left their country, their families and their friends, how their journey was, describing the deep suffering of losing friends among the journey on the boat and the efforts to pass Libya. She also bought clothes for them and goods they needed, and she is still trying to get other people to help her:

“Some people are very kind and helpful, even if they don't know them personally, but others refused to help me. I think that it is a problem of racism, they don't want to help these men because of the colour of their skin. I say that because in the past a lot of Albanians, Romanians, and Polish came here, but this kind of reaction has never occurred. So the real problem is that these people have black skin.”

Moreover, she told me that she encountered many difficulties in the relationship with the “Coordinamento senza frontiere” because, although she tried to cooperate with the members of the group several times, they tend to exclude her out of the movement. No one ever told her the reasons for this exclusion. While we were talking, the Mayor of Castell'Umberto arrived in the office. I explained him the main purpose of my research and why I was interested in the case of Castell'Umberto. Despite the presence of the CAS, the local administration decided to take part in the network of SPRAR. The Mayor believes this to be the most excellent system to address reception's difficulties.

“SPRAR Guidelines establish that local administration can entrust the design and the management of a reception centre to Cooperatives or Associations. But it also allows to opt for an integrated management, creating a partnership with them. We decided to follow the second path in order to keep a real control on the centre.”

The local authorities identified two apartments sited in the urban centre to host two families. The Mayor stressed the fact that the decision to host only families is not

40 linked to the different perception that local citizens could have of the immigrants' presence, although it is possible to observe that, for instance, the arrival of adult men has a different impact on communities compared to the arrival of categories perceived as “unthreatening”, such as families, children or women.

“I believe that when the eight immigrants provided by the SPRAR's system of allocation arrive, the community will have the maturity to welcome them, the same maturity showed in the past, with the arrival of migrants from Eastern European countries. We grant, at institutional level, the possibility that the 25% of beneficiaries of the projects created to address the problem of new forms of poverty could be people migrated from other countries.”

However the Mayor Civa pointed out the reasons that led him to start the protest. These are not linked to a problem of racism, but exclusively to the fact that the Prefecture does not involve the local authorities in the reception process. The Prefect justified the decision underlying that the centre is administratively sited in the Municipality of Sinagra. The Mayor of Castell'Umberto had avoided visiting the centre not because of the presence of guests, but to contest the legitimacy of the centre. The Mayor told me that Castell'Umberto has one of the highest rate of poverty and unemployment in the Nebrodi area. Indeed, the emergence of protests among vulnerable groups against the arrival of immigrants was predictable. According to him, this is precisely why reception needs a real effort from all the stakeholders involved in the system: institutions from local to national level and civil society. In order to create a sustainable reception system it is necessary to take into account both the dignity of the hosted people and the longings of communities that are supposed to receive them. Moreover, he highlighted that currently the men hosted in the CAS daily take part in the social life of the community frequenting the football pitch and public places, such as the public library. After the meeting with the Mayor of Castell'Umberto, I contacted the volunteers of the “Coordinamento senza Frontiere”, that invited me to attend the Italian language course in the centre, in order to interview volunteers and to meet the guests. The 41 hotel is very close to the residential area; as a matter of fact, it is situated beside the main restaurant of the village and close to the school of Castell'Umberto. The Coordinamento was born from the will of the volunteers to welcome the new guests in the community and to support them through the process of integration. The next day, I had the opportunity to meet the members of the Coordinamento and some of the guests of the centre. The evidences outline a different situation from that asserted by the Mayor. Actually, the people hosted in the CAS are willing to move in the urban space out of the centre, but their presence is neglected by the local citizens. Only the members of the Coordinamento talk and spend their time with them. The following day, I tried to talk with the citizens of Castell'Umberto. They were very welcoming, even if I often noticed a reluctance to speak about this argument, especially when I tried to interview the Parish Priest (who did not agree to meet me). One of the citizens told me his experience.

“I was having dinner with my friends in “La Baracca” (a local restaurant, close to the centre). We were eating, when we started to hear some noises coming from the hotel “Il Canguro”. We all knew that the hotel was definitively closed. We didn't realise what was going on, because the lights were out. However, there were rumours about the possible appearance of immigrants for a while. When we noticed that the shutters were open, we understood that they had arrived.”

In their opinion, the main issue that caused the protest is not linked to the fact that the centre is so close to the village, but to the fact that the arrival was not organised in an appropriate way.

“[...] I was out of the hotel to sustain the protest that night. I would have protested even if that had happened in another town, because the problem is not the place but the system of reception.”

All the citizens agree on the fact that it is not a question of racism; mass media talked

42 about racism, defining Castell'Umberto a racist village, only in order to sell the story to the public. Indeed, citizens affirmed that if the SPRAR should be adopted, they will have a different reaction, since they would be informed and guided through the process of integration. They highlighted that “the real promoters of the process of integration are the members of the Coordinamento, since the Cooperatives would like have guests to stay locked in the hotel all day long”. In their opinion, another important issue is the lack of interest of those who manage the reception centre for the well-being of the guests. In fact guests are willing to go out of the centre and spend their time in the village, but they are excluded from the life of the community because of the lack of relationships with citizens. Only the volunteers are trying to build “bridges” between local residents and migrants through the use of public and common spaces in order to create a true dialogue. The last person I interviewed was the Mayor of Sinagra. The Mayor of Sinagra was accused several times by the Mayor of Castell'Umberto of indifference to the situation of the centre. For the Mayor of Castell'Umberto, this is explained by the existing agreement between the Mayors of Nebrodi area and the Prefecture. The agreement provides villages that already host a centre of reception in their territory an exemption from welcoming additional immigrants. The Municipality of Sinagra would benefit from this clause by not having to deal with the management of the reception centre, since in practice it is not situated in the urban area of Sinagra. The Mayor of Sinagra denies this possibility. As a matter of fact he asserted that, even if the procedure to take part to the SPRAR is temporarily arrested, he supports the reception system through other forms of hospitality.

“The local administration signed a memorandum of understanding with the Prefecture, thanks to which the guests of the CAS (ex hotel “Il Canguro”) will take part in a series of activities here in Sinagra.”

He recognised the fact that the citizens of Sinagra have a minor perception of the presence of migrants because of the distance between the village and the centre. However, he highlighted that, had the CAS been established in Sinagra, citizens 43 would have been hospitable. According to him, the citizens of Castell'Umberto were hospitable too, despite the awful example given by their Mayor (“Despite the protests of their Mayor, the citizens of Castell'Umberto, were particularly hospitable”; “What happened in Castell'Umberto was exaggerated by the Mayor's behaviour, who insulted me when I tried to call him […] and he encouraged the citizens to assault me […] the Chief of Carabinieri escorted me and apologised in the name of the Mayor of Castell'Umberto”).

IMAGE 6. The point circled is where is situated the CAS- Ex hotel “Il Canguro” in order to show how it is close to Castell'Umberto.

2.3.3 Conclusions

The most interesting aspects of this story are two. The first one is the fact that the decision to set up the centre (CAS) was made by the Prefecture and not by the Mayor of the village. The unexpected arrival of foreigners caused apprehension in the population and in the institutions, who were not prepared to receive them. The second aspect is linked to the position of the CAS in the urban area: it is sited administratively in the Municipality of Sinagra, but in practice it is close to Castell'Umberto. This happened because the two villages are neighbouring: the side of the road where the Hotel is situated belongs to Sinagra while the other side belongs to Castell'Umberto. This situation entailed a lack of clarity about the

44 responsibilities of each part and pushed Mayors to blame each other. The will to report the story of Castell'Umberto rose from the fact that it shows explicitly what could happen when the decision to establish a reception centre, and its position, is not made by local authorities. Both citizens and institutions ignored an imminent arrival of immigrants, and for this reason their reaction was excessive. The result is the existence of a reception centre situated in the urban area of a village, but whose guests are still marginalized from the local community. The difficulties encountered in Castell'Umberto are linked also to the main features of the CAS. It depends on the fact that temporary centres, as previously explained, often become permanent solutions for the reception of immigrants even if they preserve the features linked to the concept of emergency. Thus, the spaces of the centre are impersonal, and they are not designed to host people for a long time. It is necessary to consider also that these centres, as in the case of Castell'Umberto, are not established on initiative of local authorities but of the Prefecture. The Prefect is not aware of the existing problems of municipalities, nor of the local population. Furthermore the rapid procedure of establishment, a feature that distinguishes CAS from the SPRAR, does not permit to prepare the village for the arrivals. In conclusion, migrants are still relegated in the reception centre, unable to integrate themselves in the communities because of the lack of support of local institutions (not involved in the reception), and the incompetence of the managing authority. On the other hand, citizens get tied up in a net of stereotypes and prejudices that only dialogue and proximity could reduce.

45 3. THE RESEARCH

As already said in the previous Chapter, the successful integration of migrants in a new community depends on a series of factors. In order to successfully insert a group of migrants in a community, a large number of policies need to be developed, such as a housing policy, a labour market policy, and especially a space policy. The last one is crucial since it allows to plan the distribution of migrants in the urban space, thus preventing the risk of segregation on the one hand, and decreasing the incidence of conflicts that may arise due to forced proximity with the local population on the other hand. Through a series of interviews, reported later in the Chapter, I tried to identify the criteria used by the Mayor and the municipal administrators to select the ideal position of the reception centre. However, the interviews also focused on the threat perceived by citizens because of the proximity of this centre, and on their opinion on the matter.

3.1 Research Methodology

In order to conduct my research I spent three months in Gioiosa Marea, from the 15 th of October to the 12th of January. In this period I have had the possibility to discover the village and its history, to meet new people and talk to them, and to become familiar with the migratory phenomenon. I also had the opportunity to visit a residential community for unaccompanied minors twice, to converse with the young girls hosted in the centre in Francavilla (near Catania, in the southern part of the Island), and, as previously said, to visit the CAS sited in Castell'Umberto. The first month was spent collecting material on the history of Gioiosa Marea, its customs and traditions, both through bibliographical research and the citizens' contribution. The sources used for the historical part are collected in the public library of Gioiosa Marea. The consultation of these sources posed a challenge since 46 the beginning of the project; the position of the library is, indeed, unknown to most of the citizens. Information on the population, such as demographic trends, composition, and distribution of commercial activities over the area, was collected through the Civil Registry Office of Gioiosa Marea. Information on the village's inhabitants was also gathered though a personal diary I have kept throughout my permanence in Gioiosa, in which I collected thoughts and opinions on the village. The main focus of the research was developed through a series of interviews, whose composition was chosen according to the informant; in order to interview institutional figures, I used semi-structured interviews. The three assessors out of four I was able to interview, were posed the same questions in order to compare each answer, although each interview was developed according to the level of preparation of every informant on the matter. At the end, I interviewed more than twelve informants, four women and eight men during single interviews and two mixed groups of informants for the group interviews I was able to record.

 Caveats: Among institutional figures, I choose to interview members of the executive, voluntarily excluding the members of the Municipal Council, belonging both to the minority and the majority.

In other instances, the interviews assumed an informal tone. This was the case, for example, of two key informants; they were posed mostly open ended questions, in order to collect the major amount of information. Because of this, their interviews were significantly longer. The interviews were scheduled in order to converse with the main institutional figures (the Mayor and his Assessors), with the Parish Priest (due to the role played by the Church in the community), and with the owners of restaurants and bars (in order to individuate the position of the main commercial activities, and to gather information on the citizens' opinions in their habitual environment). To represent the opinion of different age groups, I decided to interview, through a focus group, the youngsters of the Youth Council of Gioiosa

47 Marea (composed of people aged between 16 and 30) and the older students from middle school. Twenty students of a class of the Comprehensive School “Anna Maria Sidoti” in Gioiosa Marea, aged between 13 and 14, were supposed to fill a semi- structured questionnaire composed of ten questions67. The questions revolved around the topic of Reception, especially in the terms of the students' perception of a hypothetical proximity to a reception centre. I came in contact with the teachers first, to explain my intentions and to make sure of their support. Although my early attempts to book a meeting with the Principal failed, once I was finally able to speak with him, I decided to bring him a draft of the questionnaire; both the topic and the students' age required, in my honest opinion, the Principal's approval of the questionnaire68. To my surprise, the questions I had submitted remained unread. According to the Principal, it was impossible to submit the questionnaire; first of all, I would have had to submit a written request to the teachers' council (that, I later discovered, had been held exactly one day before our meeting), and later wait for the students' parents approval. The whole process required at least three months, thus the project would not have been completed until early April. Furthermore, it would not have been possible to omit the name of the school from the questionnaire, posing several issues in terms of anonymity and privacy. Although I believe that the issue could have been easily solved by requiring a written authorization from the students' parents, the Principal's doubts focused on another issue; the questionnaire submitted to secondary school students usually revolve around the youngsters' food habits and similar topics, while my research focused on an entirely different topic, considered nowadays a "delicate issue". In the Principal's words, this would have caused the institute many problems since, he stated, "many students are children of magistrates and lawyers". I decided instead to submit the questionnaire to every parent I had already interviewed during the research, asking if they would have allowed their children to fill the questionnaire, if they would have perceived it as a violation of their privacy and if

67 The questionnaire was developed in collaboration with a colleague of the University of Pisa. 68 My colleague of the University of Pisa, who collaborated in the creation of the questionnaire, was present during the meeting with the Principal. 48 they considered my questions unsuited for children.

The interviews were recorded approximately over ten days, from the 10th of

December to the 20th of December. This decision was not casual; my main concern was that the citizens, knowing about the interviews, would have tried and change their answers. In that case, the interviews would have been rehearsed and, thus, not completely spontaneous. My interviews in Gioiosa Marea allowed me to confirm what I had witnessed in Castell'Umberto; the citizens of both villages found the topic of reception a difficult one. This difficulty is strictly linked to a series of preconceptions we, as society, have in terms of what is right, what is wrong, and how our opinions are perceived by the majority. I was able to observe recurring expressions during the interviews; informants who claimed to be contrary to the reception of migrants in their village often paused to make sure they were not being perceived as racist, through expressions such as "Do you understand what I am saying?", or "Maybe I am not being clear.", "Maybe you disagree with me.". Many informants expressed both the desire to diffuse their opinion and the fear of being perceived as racist.

3.2 Fieldwork

First of all I believe that it is important to outline a historical background of the village where the research was conducted. Then, I am going to present the village from different points of view: demographical composition, electoral trends and space administration. To introduce Gioiosa Marea and its inhabitants I decided to report some extracts from my personal diary.

"[...] the whole afternoon was spent drinking coffee and meeting people. Locals seem to be welcoming and social people [...] from the beginning, they welcomed us with passion, and tried to be as helpful to us as possible." 49 October 13th

"[...] today I was walking by the cemetery, like every morning: here, the cemetery is always crowded, and today even more than usual. [...] walking by I noticed a new stand, but at first I did not realise what it was selling; when I got closer, I was surprised to discover a candy stand, one that would belong in a festival. For the first time in my life, I saw a candy stand in front of a cemetery. [...] this sparked a reflection in me: why is today a merry day, and not a mourning one?" November 1st

"A funeral director is planning to open his office right in front of the doctor's office. Locals are trying to dissuade the Mayor, since, according to them, funeral agencies are bad luck and to open one in front of the doctor's office would result in the certain death of his patients. The Mayor is still trying to explain to them that the agency is a commercial activity like any other, but they are irremovable." November 8th

Gioiosa Marea looks stuck in the past; to me, this is evident in the close relationship that people have to their local traditions, such as the Novena, in the period of Christmas, the Carnival or the typical products consumed during festivities (for example, the “Cuccìa” cooked on Santa Lucia, December 13th). I believe that it depends on the fact that the major part of the population residing in the village nowadays is old, since younger people are now living in the urban Sicilian cities for reasons of study or work, or they moved to other Regions or States in order to find better conditions of life. While on the one hand the glorious, economic past of Gioiosa Marea is reflected in the architecture of the village and in the variety of commercial activities (and, during my interviews, the rich and glorious past of the village was often recalled), on the other hand this past is no more reflected in the reality of the village. The tourism demand is ever-changing, and nowadays there are towns near Gioiosa Marea (Capo D'Orlando, for example) able to answer to a more 50 up-to-date demand through shops and entertainments destined to young people, while Gioiosa remains a memory of its past. This is reflected in the economic situation in Gioiosa: not only have several local activities been closed for good, but, during the last years, five gaming rooms were opened in the city - and the more poverty, the more desperate the citizens are, the more attempts to live a better life playing slot machines hoping for a win.

3.2.1 Gioiosa Marea and its History

Gioiosa Marea is a municipality in the Metropolitan City of Messina, in the Region of Sicily. The topic of migration is typical of the village's history. Its history began in 1364 with the rise of Gioiosa Guardia, a town on the top of Mountain Meliuso. The village was permanently abandoned in the late eighteenth century after a series of natural disasters, the last of which was a terrible earthquake that forced its original inhabitants, called Gioiosani, to migrate towards the shore. The exodus occurred over the course of twenty years, and only in 1800 could the first small urban centre rise. The history of Gioiosa Marea began precisely in 1094 when the Abbot Ambrogio, leader of the Monastery of Patti, was granted by Count Ruggero D'Altavilla – who had freed the Island from the Arab dominion in 1062 – the control of the area of Meliuso and Monte Guardia (later called Gioiosa Guardia). The debate on the legitimacy of this concession would later become decisive for the history of the village; it eventually led to the quarrel between the ecclesiastical power and the public officer of Gioiosa nominated by the King. In this first period the Church benefited from the favour of the population; this support, however, slowly decreased from 1131 onwards, when the monastery was transformed into a bishopric. This turn of events, along with the fight between Angevins and Aragonese, led in 1318 to a first, bloody revolt. In 1361 the King granted the capitania of Patti to Vinciguerra d'Aragona. The capitanie had been introduced in all of the state-owned cities by Federico III. Vinciguerra began the fortification of Monte Guardia in order to defend

51 the area of Meliuso, and gathered the population of the countryside in the village. In 1366 he had Joiusa Guardia built, and he later obtained the land as a fief, at first, and as a concession later in 1371. After his death in 1397, the control of the land was passed onto his son Bartolomeo, who was later nominated Bishop of Patti, alongside his son Giovanni, in order to reinforce their authority. Bartolomeo, however, refused to swear to King Martino and, in 1399, he was defeated at Capo d' Orlando, losing all of his concessions. Despite the re-election of Giovanni as Bishop of Patti, his power was short-lived; in 1400, indeed, King Martino had already re-established the authority of both the Church and the bishopric. In this period, an old debate strongly re-emerged: on the one side, the Church claimed its rightful authority over the land in the name of the concession made by Count Ruggero; on the other side, the citizens of Joiusa Guardia defended their ownership of the land, since Vinciguerra had founded the village after Count Ruggero's concession to the Church. In the following years, however, the Bishop's hold on the land did not decrease (Mollica, 2003). In 1442, Alfonso of Aragona confirmed the signoria of the Bishop of Patti, who was even granted the right to elect the Captain, the judges and the other public positions. The Bishop acquired the right to demand tributes as Lord of the land of Giojosa, thus officially re-establishing his control over the land. The Bishop's control lasted until the abolition of the feudal rights at the end of the nineteenth century. The population's life conditions became increasingly harder due to the Bishop's demands, and a larger amount of revolts occurred. In 1445 the King granted the captaincy of Giojosa to Andrea Gorgona, who attempted to improve the population's life conditions. Soon after, however, the Bishop claimed his own authority to the point that the Crown Council affirmed that the authority over the election of the Captain belonged to the Bishop, not to the Crown, and Gorgona was removed from his position. Although the Gioiosani constantly attempted to gain their independence, even making several complaints to the Tribunal of the Royal Court of Sicily throughout the sixteenth century, these trials always seemed to end in favour of the Bishop. In the first years of the sixteenth century, a partial peace was established between the bishopric and the Gioiosani thanks to the election of a new Bishop:

52 Vincenzo Napoli da Troina. He benefited from the favour of the citizens because of his efforts to improve the quality of their life; during the famine that struck the village in 1647, he used his own resources to buy wheat in order to distribute it among the poor and the needy. Nevertheless after his death the quarrels between the Bishops and the population re-emerged. Throughout the seventeenth century, the village of Gioiosa was gradually improved; not only did new buildings, both private and public, appear, but the population increased. As a result, the area of the village considerably expanded (Mollica, 2003). In 1721 a first change in this static situation occurred: the Crown unexpectedly refused to grant the Bishop of Patti the title of Baron of Jojusa Guardia, and nullified his jurisdiction on the land. Despite this, nothing changed for the population that was, de facto, still subjected to the ecclesiastical power. Meanwhile, in 1700 the village centre was moved from Gioiosa Guardia to the coast, more precisely in the location of Ciappe di Tono: in 1786, with the government's approval, the first affluent families began to build houses in the new locations and, two years later, the city council too moved in order to deal with the design and edification of the necessary buildings. Efforts from the Curia to promote works of embellishment and reconstruction of the old Gioiosa to avoid the gradual abandon of the village were pointless. The main cause of this exodus is found in the series of unfortunate events that happened to Guardia, the last of which in 1783, in the form of a terrible earthquake (notably, the fourth one in barely a quarter of century). Actually, the persistent calamities now seem to have been accelerators of a process which had already been planned for a long time by the Bishops and the most eminent families (Mollica, 2003). The new Gioiosa was built with partial recycle of Guardia's materials and even following the same criteria on an urban level (the churches are located in the uptown, while the houses near the sea), albeit considering the various peculiarities, firstly the presence of the sea in the new venue. Even from the administrative point of view, the new Gioiosa never differed much from Guardia, to the point that the union of politics and religion remained decisive; the civic administration belonged to the Mayor,

53 nominated by the Bishop and with no real authority (de facto a merely representative figure), and to three jurors also nominated by the Bishop. Finally in 1812 this situation changed with the emanation, in Sicily, of the law for the abrogation of the angarici and perangarici rights, which nullified the feudal rights, so that Gioiosa seemed to finally escape from the Bishop's hold. This freedom was short-lived, though; in 1815, with the restoration of Ferdinando on the throne, the first Mayor, the baron Carmelo Todaro, and the citizens of Gioiosa saw the revocation of the 1812's Constitution and the re-establishment of feudalism. In the following years, the State coffers got increasingly scarcer and the Church kept on inflicting new taxes in an attempt to sustain them, causing frequent riots and popular insurrections, especially in 1820; in addition to this, in 1829 a terrible epidemic fell over the Island. This situation developed in 1848 into an actual revolution (King Ferdinando's attempt to shut down the tensions emerged over the entire Island with the definite abolition of the legge del macino was useless) and this resulted into a partial escape of Gioiosa's population to the countryside. Nevertheless, through during the nineteenth Century the population of the village constantly rose; this expansion was only put on hold by the epidemic of cholera that struck the Island in 1854. Between 1841 and 1842, the village of Gioiosa finally saw the definitive abolition of feudalism. From this moment on, and especially between 1850 and 1857, the efforts of the village were put into the construction of the main street, a particularly difficult feat since it required the perforation of Calavà Cliff. The village witnessed the passage of the Mille, accompanied by the local marching band. During the new reign, in 1866, a new law on religious property was promulgated, and the incomes of the convent, the monks and the seminary were transferred into the State coffers. Only in 1890, with the election of the new Mayor, the attorney Giuseppe Natoli Gatto, were the State coffers finally balanced. At the end of the century a religious awakening occurred, alongside a new interest in marketing and urban improvements; local craftsmanship and trade acquired a new importance, especially thanks to the construction of the railway system. Although during the fascist period a war memorial was erected in the village centre, the war did not have a great impact on the village. The main threat

54 was instead posed by the Allied landings between July and August 1943; the great part of the Nazis had already fled the Island, but a single soldier started shooting from the Church of Saint Nicola in order to stop the landing of an American ship coming from the Ciaule Tower; as a result, the attacked ship began bombing the village of Gioiosa, fortunately ending the fire without too many casualties. After the war, in 1946 the fascist Ignazio Natoli Rivas was elected Mayor: during the war, he had attempted to stop the advance of the American general Patton by deploying a group of young soldiers on the top of Calavà Cliff. Fortunately, they were never handed any weapon (Mollica, 2003). In this period, the famous carnival of Gioiosa gradually became the main attraction of the village and of the bordering areas (one of the most famous costumes is "il Murgo", a figure who, dressed in tailcoat and top hat, conducts a small orchestra). The economy of Gioiosa still relied in this period on agriculture, fishing and trade. Only in the 60's did the Gioiosani begin to rely on tourism, when the clean water and the astonishing landscape surrounding the village began to attract visitors from all over the world. In the 70's tourism became the main source of the village's economy, with a growing number of locals hired in the tourism industry. Nowadays it still appears to be the main origin of income in Gioiosa Marea.

3.2.2 Gioiosa Marea Today

Nowadays, Gioiosa Marea has 7.005 inhabitants, 3.000 of whom residing in the urban centre. The other 4.000 inhabitants are distributed in the neighbouring hamlets (Galbato, San Giorgio, San Francesco, Maddalena, Casale, Santo Stefano, Piana, Saliceto, Santa Margherita, Russa, Marotta, Schino, Acquasanta, Casani, Cicero, Francari, Landro, Magaro, Malagotta, Torretta, Balsima, Cicà, Fico, Fontane, Lauro, Mangano, Palombaro, Puleci, Rocca, San Filippo, San Leonardo, Santa Lucia). The village is clearly divided by the main street, Umberto I street. The division is between the high part of the village, where the ancient churches are located, and the

55 low part towards the sea, that was, in the past, the area of the residences, especially the poorest ones (traces of the old fishers' harbour are still visible). The most surprising feature of this area is the position of the train station and the railway line, both of which run along the beach; the only division between them is a massive wall that hides the beach from the eye. Nonetheless, the crystal clear sea of Gioiosa Marea is visible from several panoramic viewpoints: a beautiful terrace and the provincial road that runs along the village are the most breath-taking examples. As already said, the tourist industry is the main source of income of the village; this is clearly stated by the most important commercial activities: souvenir shops, bars, and small shops selling local products are all scattered along the main street. In the composition of the village, as in its history, the religious influence is indisputable: the urban centre counts four churches (Chiesa di Santa Maria delle Grazie, Chiesa Madre di San Nicolò di Bari, Chiesa della Catena, Chiesa del Convento), although they are not all in function. The demographical trends of the village apparently reflect national trends: the most represented age groups comprehend citizens between 40 and 60, and 60 and 75, and it is possible to observe a decreased birth rate69. Concerning the presence of foreigners in the village, there are 290 foreign residents, 158 of which are EU citizens from Romania, Poland, England, Germany, France, Finland, Portugal, Slovenia and Ireland. 133 residents are, instead, non-EU citizens from India, Belarus, Morocco, Russia, Ukraine, Sri Lanka, Egypt, China, Albania, Congo, Honduras, Switzerland, Tunisia, Senegal, Pakistan, Malaysia and Guinea (CRO, 2017). The distribution of foreigners over the territory is not significant, but there is a slight difference to be observed between the distribution of EU citizens and non-EU citizens; while 59.5% of EU citizens reside in the village centre, the percentage of non-EU citizens residing in that area is 52% (CRO, 2017). Among foreigners there is a higher percentage of women, especially among non-EU foreigners: while women represent 65% of the total, men are 35% (CRO, 2017). This data is summarized in the following graphics.

69 Data reported in this paragraph was collected through the Civil Registry Office, indicated by the acronym CRO. 56 EU Country Males Females Total Romania 62 55 117 Poland 0 17 17 England 5 2 7 Germany 4 3 7 France 2 2 4 Finland 2 1 3 Portugal 0 1 1 Slovenia 0 1 1 Ireland 1 0 1 76 82 158

Non-EU Country Males Females Total India 13 18 31 Belarus 2 16 18 Morocco 8 8 16 Ukraine 3 11 14 Russia 2 11 13 Albania 4 8 12 Sri Lanka 5 3 8 Egypt 3 3 6 China 2 2 4 Congo 0 2 2 Honduras 0 2 2 Switzerland 1 1 2 Tunisia 0 1 1 Senegal 1 0 1 Pakistan 1 0 1 Malaysia 1 0 1 Guinea 1 0 1 47 86 133

It is interesting to outline an analysis of electoral flows70, with the main focus on the programmes the different political parties presented in recent elections, especially concerning the topic of migrations and reception. I decided to take into account exclusively Regional and Political elections, voluntarily excluding Administrative

70 All data was collected through the website of Assessorato Regionale delle Autonomie Locali e della Funzione Pubblica, Servizio Elettorale (http://pti.regione.sicilia.it/portal/page/portal/PIR_PORTALE/PIR_LaStrutturaRegionale/PIR_Assesso ratoRegionaleAutonomieLocaliFunzionePubblica/PIR_DipAutonomieLocali/PIR_Elezioni). 57 elections (since, in these cases, the main national topics are often obscured by more local issues, and the votes are influenced by personal relationships rather than by ideal affiliation).

The last three Political elections resulted in a majority of votes for centre right coalitions. In February 2013, 34.94% of the votes were given to the coalition between Partito della Libertà (PDL), Lega Nord and La Destra, opposed to the 24.42% obtained by Movimento 5 Stelle and the 24.21% by Partito Democratico (PD), Centro Democratico and Sinistra Ecologia e Libertà. In April 2008 the turnout had been similar, with 56.29% of the votes obtained by the coalition between PDL and Movimento Autonomia Sud. This last party had signed in 2006, alongside Lega Nord, the so-called Patto per le Autonomie. 28.77% of the votes had been obtained by PD and its ally, Italia dei Valori. Successive results confirmed the situation established by the Political elections in 2006, that had witnessed two opposed coalitions; the alliance between Forza Italia, Lega Nord, Alleanza Nazionale, Fiamma Tricolore and some minor parties, supported by the 63.9% of the votes, and Italia dei Valori, Rifondazione Comunista, Ulivo and minor parties, which had gained only 36.10% of the votes. During the elections in 2013, the alliance between Lega Nord and PDL presented a 23-point programme that ranged over several topics, from justice to welfare, public spending, but no mention of migration policies. The only mention to "immigration" can be found under the voice "safety", and it reads: "Improving the efforts to achieve legality, opposing clandestine immigration and predatory criminality". The alliance included the party Fratelli d'Italia, whose programme openly referred to the topic of migration, highlighting the need for a better control of migration flows and of the frontiers, for a strong opposition to illegality and the need to preserve and respect Italian culture, traditions and religion. In 2008, PDL still addressed the migration topic in terms of "safety mission"; together with increasing the presence of the police over the country, the resources to employ in safety, and the security systems in public businesses, the programme included the increment of CPT, the opposition to illegal immigration, the connection 58 between residency permit and work contract, and incentives for the establishment of Italian language, culture and law courses destined for migrants. Lega Nord, that, as already said, supported the Movimento dell'Autonomia del Sud, destined an entire section of the programme to the topic of immigration, still addressing it, however, in terms of national security. Their aim was to increment the power of Mayors concerning the topic of immigration, granting them the power of expulsion from the country. They also aimed to grant the police control over national borders and deny the right to vote to non-European citizens, thus linking the "increment of criminality" to a "massive and uncontrolled illegal immigration". It is important to observe how parties such as PD did not mention migration flows entirely, although in the section "Azione di Governo 10", the party claimed to work towards a reduction of the gap between centre-north and south in terms of services and infrastructures, in order to "fully take advantage of the south as a natural, logistic platform in the Mediterranean". In 2006, the coalition supporting Silvio Berlusconi presented a campaign programme revolving around the need to oppose terrorism and preserve the national identity. Once again, the migration phenomenon was only referred to in terms of national security and opposition to illegal immigration; the programme also highlighted the need to sign bilateral agreements with the countries of origin. The Regional election flows are not as predictable; although the winner of the elections in 2008 was the Centre-Right candidate Lombardo (Movimento per le Autonomie del Sud), in 2012 the winner was Rosario Crocetta (La Rivoluzione è già iniziata), member of PD. In November 2017, the Right was once again favoured, with the election of Nello Musumeci; in the Municipality of Gioiosa Marea he obtained 49.56% of the total votes (Diventerà Bellissima). Concerning Regional elections, it is interesting to highlight the entire omission of the topic of migration from both campaign programmes and debates, regardless of the candidates' political affiliation; even those parties whose campaign had revolved around this topic omitted it from their programmes. Nowadays, national politic frequently needs to address the topic of migration, and it is one of the main debated

59 topics among political parties; especially in Sicily, citizens are forced to continuously face the issue of immigration, since they live on an Island with a strong welcoming tradition.

3.3 The Interviews

In this section I am going to report the words of Gioiosa's citizens in order to represent the village and the migratory phenomenon through their eyes.

 Caveats: My research focuses exclusively on the Centre of Gioiosa Marea. It does not take into account the territory or the population living the hamlets.

In the following paragraphs, I will try to highlight common and crucial points emerged from the interviews. The questions I asked were mainly about:

i. Type of accommodation: single building or several flats. ii. Reasons to avoid segregation and favour integration? iii. Citizens' reluctance to share urban space. iv. Division/sharing of public spaces.

3.3.1 Institutional Actors

I met the Mayor Ignazio Spanò and the Assessors71 in their respective offices at different times. They were all very helpful, willing to talk to me and answer my questions. To me, this is the reflection of open minds and a strong interest in the issue. I met the Mayor in his office on a Saturday afternoon.

71 The names of the Assessors were omitted to grant them anonymity, and because their names are not relevant in the reporting of the interviews. 60 He told me that the process to establish the SPRAR system had come to a halt: the city council claimed to approve the SPRAR, but the announcement calling for cooperatives volunteering to manage the centre had not been spread yet. Thus, the process will need to be started in 2018. He told me that the administration had submitted a formal request to host exclusively family units, in order to make the process of integration easier. The adults of the families could, indeed, be hired for the hard jobs citizens do not apply for anymore, while the children could be enrolled in school, increasing the possibility of contacts between new families and citizens, and decreasing the latter's resistances. The Mayor also explained why he approves of the SPRAR in his village; his reasons are mostly humanitarian, born from the awareness of migrants' conditions. He is aware of migrants' reasons for fleeing their country in search of a better life, and he is convinced that Italian citizens, more than any other country, should be sympathetic because of their past as migrants. This applies to Sicilians as well, since in most families at least a member has fled from the Island in search of fortune. He also believes that the SPRAR could be able to discourage other illegal forms of reception. Concerning the spatial issue - where to establish the centre - he seemed to have several thoughts:

"It is important to integrate them in the community, so that they aren't alienated and marginalised in a building outside of the city. They need to be able to feel part of the community, to be among local people, to go out in the morning and meet local people, talk with them and discuss, they need to actually integrate. This is why I think that the SPRAR system is the best solution72."

He continued:

"It would be great to have ten family units, three residing in the east, three in the west, and three in the south, all over the land, not only in Gioiosa but also in San

72 N° 11 (number used to indicate a chronological order in the personal scheme of interviews), 16/12 (date in which I conducted the interview). 61 Giorgio73. They don't need to be gathered in a single place but instead to be spread all over the territory and to live as citizens, and I think this is the best kind of reception74."

The reduced number of migrants to host through the SPRAR and the reception of family units will make the distribution over the territory easier. Actually, many structures in Gioiosa Marea could be used as a reception centre but the Mayor aims at a "spread reception": this way he could avoid exclusion and segregation, while granting integration. He also wants to avoid another phenomenon; by gathering these people in a single place he would risk two consequences. On the one hand, these families may create a group too compact to be integrated in another community; on the other hand, citizens may perceive from this group, composed of almost thirty individuals, a massive threat. According to the Mayor in order to create a positive environment in the village for the arrival of migrants, the crucial decisions to be made concern the choice of the place, the choice of the cooperative and, in general, the management of the centre. He is prepared to support his choices and face any opposition.

The first Assessor I was able to interview confirmed that the news of possible arrivals in the village had been spread through a discussion of the city council. According to Assessor One, the main issue to address concerning the migration phenomenon is strictly linked to misinformation, encouraged by mass media; this misinformation has contributed to create a false image of migrants, portrayed as violent criminals, and at the same time a false image of the reception system. According to the Assessor One, it is not an issue originated by racism per se, rather by a sort of xenophobia. At the same time, however, Gioiosa Marea is a village accustomed to strangers because of its success as a tourist attraction; nowadays there are several black players in the football team, and they are perfectly integrated in the community.

73 San Giorgio is the major and most populated hamlet of Gioiosa Marea. 74 N° 11, 16/12. 62 Concerning the most favourable position for the centre, the Assessor One agreed on the necessity to establish it in the village centre. In particular,

"There is a structure that is not a propriety of the Municipality, but it is propriety of two public institutions: the previous Municipality of Messina and the Azienda Sanitaria Provinciale (ASP)75. It has already been used in the past by the municipality, but it needs to be restructured since it is dilapidated. It is in the city centre [...] so it would be easier to control it compared to a building in the hamlets76."

"Control" is the keyword that introduces a new issue, one that did not emerge during the Mayor's interview; indeed, establishing the reception centre in the village centre would mean having better control over the happenings that may occur inside the centre. Control is also the reason why the Assessor One believes that opting for a single structure, rather than several flats scattered over the village, would be a better solution. Although the main need is to have better control over the structure, the need to avoid segregation is not being overlooked; shortly after, the Assessor One told me establishing the structure in the village centre would certainly encourage dialogue and integration in the community. Concerning the issue of the accessibility of public places to migrants, the Assessor claimed to approve of it, but to be aware of the tensions that may arise among the population. The Assessor One also claimed to be aware of the key role the administration plays in the management of hypothetical conflicts.

The second Assessor I interviewed told me that, although the arrival of migrants could alarm the citizens, it would only be temporary. The reason is that Gioiosa Marea, with its favourable position in the Island and being the third tourist attraction in terms of reception capacity after Taormina and the Eolie Islands, is one of the most advanced cities of the Island. It arguably is an open-minded village because, 75 Local health authority. 76 N° 9, 15/12. 63 according to the Assessor, "it has always been open to the world". Although reluctantly, the Assessor Two admitted that several citizens have already expressed disagreement towards the arrival of migrants; the inhabitants of a hamlet of Gioiosa Marea had heard that their area had been chosen for the establishment of the centre and they claimed - reported the Assessor - nuatri cà nun vulemu a nuddu (Sicilian for "we do not want anyone here"). Obviously, they were convinced the rumours that have been spreading through the village since last summer were true, but in reality, as already said, the best position for the centre has not been chosen yet. According to the Assessor Two, the best solution would be "Creating a structure or using an abandoned one, in a place between the outskirts and the actual village centre". Thus, according to the Assessor Two, they should be hosted close enough to the community in order to come in contact with it, but at the same time far enough as to make sure their presence remains "unobtrusive". The Assessor Two had not personally considered the possibility of employing several structures such as flats, but agreed that it would certainly represent a first attempt at integration. The Assessor Two believes that the wrong choice could develop in the failure of the whole reception system. Deciding to employ the abandoned countryside would certainly lead to isolation, and the Assessor Two observed:

"[...] being in a foreign country, with its different culture, different habits, and people they've never seen before, they are already isolated. Gathering them in a refuge, controlled by the police, [the centre] would become a prison, and that is not our goal77."

The role of the public administration is crucial to avoid isolation; it has to carefully supervise mainly the management of the centre, but also the choices that will be made in the organization of the arrivals, and how the solutions will be communicated to citizens. The Assessor Two explained that the administration had decided to install a video surveillance system in the urban area, but they had avoided starting the installation in conjunction with the arrival of migrants; they were afraid, indeed, that

77 N° 10, 15/12. 64 citizens may have linked the two events and label the newcomers as dangerous. This is due to the fact that reception centres are often provided with a system of surveillance. This is adopted in order to control the activities and the life inside the centre, but it may be perceived by the local population as proof of the necessity, in a way, to protect themselves from the migrants hosted in reception centres. The Assessor Two believes that the opportunity, with the SPRAR, to neatly organise reception is what brought them to it; by not adhering to the system, there is the risk of unexpected arrivals. These would force the administration to improvise and find an accommodation that may become, in the Assessor's words, one of those "weird reception centres, something between a prison and a lager". According to the Assessor Two:

"When the structure is inadequate, when the solution is improvised, the migrants feel this uncertainty because, without an adequate organisation, there are several shortcomings78."

That may foster discontent and encourage violence. These consequences are clear even to citizens, and the fear of them pushes them to say "we do not want them here".

The same vision of the SPRAR was shared by the third Assessor I interviewed. The Assessor Three, as the Mayor, believes that the reception of exclusively family units would be significantly easier to manage, and that a "second reception" means they would be able to welcome those migrants who have already successfully passed a first selection. With the SPRAR, Gioiosa Marea should be able to welcome and host up to fifteen people. The decision to open a reception centre has already created a crack between the citizens and the administration; when they first started talking about the SPRAR, the citizens replied by posting comments and videos on social networks, content that does not reflect the administration's aim. According to the Assessor Three, their decision will certainly be instrumentalised, especially by

78 Ibid. 65 political parties in order to criticize the current administration. During the interview, the idea that emerged was similar to that of the colleagues; the main aim is to prevent the creation of a "ghetto area" and the isolation that such a result would entail. Furthermore, it is crucial to find accommodation in the village centre for the new families so that neither they nor the citizens feel they are being treated differently. Compared to the previous interviews, this one was especially characterized by the informant's reticence to express opinions on the welcoming of future migrants.

3.3.2 The Citizens

During my interviews with citizens, I observed a dialectic expression recurring whenever I asked about their awareness of future arrivals in their village: curtigghiu. They explained to me that this expression indicates the rumours that start spreading in a small place when a news is considered worthy of attention. "When important news start spreading here in Gioiosa Marea, in a few minutes everyone knows what is going on"; the arrival of migrants is certainly important news. Since the end of summer, rumours about this possibility have been ongoing, but it is known that, once a piece of news starts spreading, it loses its original meaning; alterations and modifications often create uncertainty, more than encourage awareness.

The first citizen I interviewed was the Parish Priest. He told me that he had been living in Gioiosa only for a couple of years, so everything he knew had been passed onto him by local people. I asked him how, in his opinion, the village would live the future arrival of migrants. According to him, there will probably be great differences between the reactions of young and older people; while youngsters will probably be open and welcome the foreigners without prejudices, older citizens are more likely to be influenced from the deceptive messages spread by mass media. Furthermore, evidence shows that they fear new citizens might "steal" their already scarce resources.

66 "Some people tell me that Gioiosa was once considered a "second Taormina". But when I arrived, I found a decaying city, economically underground; everyone told me that once Nazionale Street was full of shops, and that people from Capo d'Orlando or Brolo and the neighbouring villages wanted to move here. Nowadays people want to go away79."

According to him, this reality is reflected in the establishment of several gaming rooms that attract most of the youngsters in the village, who spend their time seeking fortune. He thinks that helping migrants when local people themselves have a lot of difficulties might create discontent towards the administration. But it is only a matter of time, in his opinion: if the migrants will be given the opportunity to integrate in the community and create relationships with locals, the result will be a gradual but definitive integration. The citizens of Gioiosa are for the most part practising believers, and the precept of reception and welcoming those in need is in line with Christian religion. This means that the Church (together with other voluntary associations) may play a crucial role by creating meetings and organising events to create a contact between immigrants and citizens. This is why it is so important, for the Parish Priest, to avoid the segregation of migrants; by isolating them from the community, it will be impossible to create that relationship that may favour welcoming and integration. It is human nature for individuals to create a compact group when they are excluded from the mass, and this is why it is crucial to place the structure in the village centre. Even better would be to have an equal distribution over the area, to easier their integration. I decided to report what I believe is an important observation about distance:

"Distance is crucial; not only actual distance, but also the spiritual distance from a community that is close, hidden from the eye. And because I don't see what is going on, I don't have to worry about it. The structure in Galati80 is an example:

79 N°3, 13/12. 80 Galati Mamertino is a village in the Province of Messina and it is 50 kilometres far from Gioiosa Marea. 67 [migrants] were in an Agritourism in the outskirts of the city, but they couldn't get out of there, so people didn't care that much about it81."

This, in my opinion, highlights another crucial point to acknowledge concerning the exclusion of migrants from the community: while it is important to place the centre where the migrants could have contacts with the local reality and effectively become part of the community, it becomes irrelevant when the space inside the centre is not managed in the right way. In fact, the centre cannot become a cage; migrants have to be allowed the opportunity to find a shelter, but also to live in the outside world as effective members of the community. This is the job of the managing cooperatives: to create the best conditions inside and outside of the centre. Several informants exposed doubts concerning the behaviour of the cooperatives supposed to manage reception centres; one of the main requisites to apply for the management of a centre is linked to the cooperatives' "demonstrated experience in the sector". This encouraged a perverse system of management that brought most of the centres under the control of few, important cooperatives, instilling doubt that reception has become more a source of income than a humanitarian mission. This is not the place to investigate the validity of these affirmations, but the press has often acknowledged these doubts. As a consequence, the faith in cooperatives and reception centres has gradually decreased, as they are seen as mere attempts to steal from the State's resources - regardless of the humanitarian values these two institutions strive towards. Every informant I interviewed during my project agreed to the necessity to support refugees; it is impossible to consider Gioiosa Marea a racist place. According to most people, the issue lies in the dimensions of the village: in this kind of places all of the citizens are familiar with each other and deep relationships of trust are already established. Thus, the citizens are generally afraid of people they are not familiar with because this relationship of trust lacks, regardless of the colour of their skin. They talked to me about:

81 N° 3, 13/12. 68 "Two men who arrived at the reception centre in Sant'Angelo di Brolo82. When they got out, a girl took care of them, helped them find a job and new friends. They used to frequent Gioiosa because of their friends and in the end they remained here. Now they play in the football team and work in a restaurant83."

Most informants explained to me that Gioiosa has always been accustomed to immigration, as already said, particularly from the East, and that those people are nowadays perfectly integrated in the community. Only one of the informants claimed that it is not correct to compare these two types of migrations; on the one hand, the arrival of asylum seekers is different because of how they and their country of origin are perceived by the citizens. On the other hand, according to the informant, there is an issue posed by the small-town mentality of Gioiosani, an issue linked to the fear of foreigners addressed in the previous paragraph. The Gioiosani are considered lazy people, and the locals often associate themselves with the playing card Five of Swords that is, in the card game Briscola, an inconclusive card.

"[Gioiosa Marea] lived a tourism boom during the '70s, and it was considered the most important centre after Taormina. Then, the administration disfigured the territory by building without criteria, without a local strategic plan, and a phenomenon of internal migrations and emigrations started. The citizens of Gioiosa were more cultured because they had witnessed a rising tourism demand in the '60s, and in the '70s this demand assumed a more international nature. [...] migrations from the countryside to the village occurred, but the mentality remained the same, while the more cultured minds of Gioiosa emigrated84."

The idea that the arrival of migrants will be accepted over time continued to emerge during these interviews, and the youngsters in particular perceive these arrivals as an opportunity to grow and come in contact with new cultures and ways of living. The 82 Sant'Angelo di Brolo is a village in the Province of Messina and it is 18 kilometres far from Gioiosa Marea. 83 N° 7, 14/12, M (male), Owner of a Bar. For the citizens' interviews I reported also their gender and their jobs. 84 N°1, 10/12, F (female), Doctor. 69 consequence they fear the most is the loss of job opportunities; they ask themselves, "How can these people integrate in the community on a working level when citizens have themselves troubles in finding a job?" and, "Will young people be forced to emigrate in order to work?". The owner of a restaurant explained to me that, during the winter, she is often forced to fire her usual employees because she is not able to pay them all. She told me that citizens feel abandoned and unprotected, and they believe most of what they need is instead offered to immigrants.

"It is not a matter of racism, the colour of the skin is not a problem. These citizens are rightly angry because they see immigrants being helped in any possible way, while the people in need right beside us are completely overlooked. This is why they are angry85."

Concerning the issue of the best place for the centre, the answer of the citizens was unanimous: the main aim is to avoid the segregation of the immigrants, favouring a structure in the village centre. The reasons behind this belief are, however, diverse:

a. According to some of the informants, it would be an error to host the immigrants in the hamlets, since it would be much harder to control and limit any illegal activity. This concern derives from the false belief that reception centres offer a situation of poverty, thus the immigrants hosted in these centres would need to find a source of income in criminal activities. Other informants believe the migrants to have violent traditions that would push them towards these activities. These latter informants highlighted the need for a strict control of the activities inside and outside of the centre, in order to grant the citizens safety. One of the informants also claimed to approve an increment of the police over the territory;

b. Other informants believe in the necessity to avoid segregation since

85 N°5, 14/12, F, Owner of a Restaurant. 70 immigrants need to have the opportunity to meet new people and make themselves known, in order to construct deep relationship with local residents and overcome stereotypes and prejudices;

c. Others believe that being gathered in a single, isolated structure may force them to create a compact group, making it even harder to come in contact with the world outside of the centre and become part of the community. The possibility of the creation of cohesiveness among the guests of the reception centre, is perceived as a sort of threat by a part of local residents;

d. Most of the informants think that, being the population in the hamlets reduced in comparison to the village centre, and composed mostly of old people, the resistance to immigration would be much stronger in the hamlets. In the urban area, instead, the presence of immigrants would not be perceived as too dominant, and the opposition would reduce over time.

Only one of the citizens I interviewed claimed that the best solution would be using one of the already-existent structures in the peripheral hamlets; Gioiosa Marea is a tourism attraction, and the establishment of a reception centre right in the village centre might create problems for the economy. According to the informant, the presence of immigrants in the urban centre might cause protests from the owners of commercial activities, afraid that this kind of foreign presence might discourage tourists from visiting Gioiosa Marea. Secondly, according to the same informant, immigrants might take advantage of the presence of tourists and transform the village centre into a piazza di spaccio - a place where to involve tourists in illicit activities, such as drug dealing. Furthermore, the countryside is, for the most part, abandoned; according to this informant, immigrants might be employed in farming activities, in order to re-qualify the countryside on the one hand, and employ them in some kind of activity on the other hand. Several informants told me that under the previous administration rumours had already spread about the possible individuation of an

71 acceptable structure to host migrants, a disused school building in one of the hamlets of Gioiosa Marea, San Francesco, 5 kilometres far from the village centre. The current administration, however, has strongly rejected this hypothesis.

"Since it would have meant keeping them marginalised from the community, far from the city. The area in San Francesco is only inhabited by old people, who would have probably been alarmed by their presence [...] the idea was to gather them far from the public eye86."

Furthermore, all of the informants agree with the necessity to distribute immigrants over the village, avoiding gathering them in a single structure. Only two informants claimed that, according to them, the position of the centre in the village would be irrelevant in the process of exclusion or integration of the immigrants.

3.3.3 Conclusions

During the interviews for my project, I encountered many difficulties. While some of the interviews have been easy to conduct, and particularly the ones with institutional figures, in other instances I was able to observe reluctance from the informants when asked to express their opinions. In one instance, the informant did not allow me to record the interview, although I had frequently assured anonymity; the owner of a bar did not want to be interviewed, but let one of his employees speak in his place. This last informant doubted that my interviews were part of a thesis research; he was convinced, instead, that I was creating a dossier, commissioned by someone. This fear is probably born from the perception of the topic of migrations as a "delicate" topic, and being interviewed on this topic might mean being judged. After all, the topic of immigration is continuously addressed in Italy, and it concerns Sicily more than any other Region; this is why it was so difficult, over the course of

86 N° 11, 16/12. 72 my interviews, to maintain the topic on the issue. In one instance, for example, I met one of the informants in a bar, and all of the costumers decided to contribute to the discussion, making it extremely difficult to record their answers. However, this episode highlighted how much the citizens are aware of the necessity to acknowledge the issue. It is possible to observe the common opinions emerged from the interviews; first of all, although none of the Assessors I interviewed addressed the humanitarian reasons behind the reception of immigrants, they insisted that nowadays, reception is almost a forced decision, imposed by the regional and the national Government. All of the informants agreed on the impermanence of any opposition derived from the arrival; the establishment of relationships with the immigrants as members of the community will eventually discourage any objection from the citizens since, as already said, the Gioiosani are inherently welcoming people. This is the reason why both the citizens and the administration are planning to establish a series of meetings, in order to prepare the citizens for the future arrivals and introduce the guests of the centre to the community. They also agreed on the necessity to avoid isolation that could eventually fuel hypothetical arguments between citizens and migrants. Most citizens are in fact concerned about the supposed "inherently violent behaviour" of immigrants, regardless of their country of origin, culture or religion, thus they are convinced that isolating immigrants from the community would not allow the administration sufficient control over their activities. At the same time, the necessity to avoid gathering them in a single structure emerged; the reasons behind this preference are not clear, since they could revolve both around the desire to encourage integration, and the "fear" instilled by a solid group of immigrants. It is important to observe how both the administration and the citizens are unaware of the modalities that characterize the migration phenomenon and the Italian reception system, particularly the SPRAR. None of the informants knew the exact amount of immigrants they are supposed to welcome, with their answer revolving around ten and thirty. I observed this uncertainty during the interviews with the administration that should be able to give an exact prediction. Partly, this uncertainty could derive

73 from the uncertain Italian legislation and guide lines on the matter. This confusion is understandable from the citizens, mostly because of the specific knowledge required by the question, but the local Institutions, that are managing the establishment of the centre and of the reception solutions, are hardly excusable. During the interviews also emerged that the SPRAR is only aimed at the reception of families, but this is a misunderstanding; as already seen, in fact, the SPRAR is oriented towards the reception of asylum seekers and refugees in general, regardless of their genre, age or marital status.

74 CONCLUSIONS

The increment of forced migrations toward Europe in recent years, made it necessary to develop systems of reception able to grant asylum seekers and refugees the protection they need. Indeed, the object of this investigation was to analyse the deep relationship between the urban space and the presence of a reception centre for asylum seekers. In detail, I tried to identify the reasons guiding institutional actors in choosing the appropriate place where to establish a centre of accommodation on the one hand, and to detect the opinions and preferences of locals with regard to the establishment of the centre on the other hand.

With this aim, I conducted a research in the village of Gioiosa Marea, situated in the northern part of Sicily. In order to direct it, I spent three months in the village: initially, I conducted a historical research on the books available at the public library; later, I focused on the demographic analysis, in particular on the composition of local population in terms of presence of foreigners; I finally committed, in the last part of the research, to interviewing local residents and local institutions. In a few days, I conducted twelve interviews, both meeting single people and groups. The people I got in contact with covered a wide range of ages. For completeness, I was thinking to include also a class of 13-14 aged students, and to submit them a short questionnaire, so that I would be able to take note of their opinions. As explained in Chapter 3, this was not possible because of the opposition of the Principal of the local school. However, the time spent in Gioiosa, and the participant observation allowed me to understand the general perceptions and feelings about the future arrival of migrants.

During my interviews, I realised that the majority of people was awkward when discussing the issue, because of the fear to be considered racists. This fact showed me that I was asking about a “sensitive” topic, entailing ethical judgements. This was visible in the reticence of a few interviewed to answer my questions, often reducing the material I was able to collect. Moreover, the time constraints played a

75 fundamental role in this respect. The consequences of the establishment of the centre in Gioiosa, should be analysed keeping into consideration what happens at regional, national and European level in regards to the features of the reception system. As a matter of fact, the necessity to develop this theme rises from the fact that nowadays local authorities are obligated to deal with the migratory issue and the question of migration management. The current system of reception in Italy seems to be characterised by permanent emergency. Indeed, the system is based on a complex plan of centres: as seen in Chapter 2, CAS, SPRAR and CARA or CDA are just few of the amount of acronyms that compose the Italian reception system. The substantial problem rises from the fact that the system is permanently under stress, because the number of available accommodation is critically lower than the amount of applications. To deal with this problem, it resorts to temporary solutions. In particular, a deep difference exists between SPRAR and CAS: the SPRAR is a network of centres concerning the second level of reception, that promotes a whole integration of migrants in the local communities, especially because it implies the participation of local authorities that can decide where to situate the centre and prepare accurately the population in order to avoid the emergence of protests; the CAS is a temporary centre, established by the Prefecture without the consultation of local administration, choosing the place where to site the centre exclusively on the basis of the availability of facilities.

A case I had the opportunity to analyse while I was in Sicily, shows this distinctly: the case of Castell'Umberto, a village not too far from Gioiosa Marea. The establishment of a CAS in the urban area caused the opposition of residents and institutions (in particular, the Mayor led the protest) because the population was unprepared to the arrival of migrants. The peculiarity of the case concerns the fact that the area where the centre was placed is administratively part of the Municipality of Sinagra (distant 11 kilometres from Castell'Umberto) but it is extremely close to Castell'Umberto. The Mayor's protest originated from two elements: firstly, the

76 Prefecture neglected his role autonomously deciding where to place the reception centre, without taking into account the characteristics of the local community and territory; second, the fact that despite the centre being part of Sinagra, the Mayor of the village did not take an interest in the situation. Indeed the most interesting point is that the citizens of Sinagra do not perceive the presence of the centre even if it is placed in their territory because of the distance between them and the guests of the reception centre. This shows that physical distance could effectively alter the perception of citizens. However, during the interviews I conducted in Castell'Umberto, the major problem emerged was related to the features of the system of reception, in particular to the use of temporary centres: a village of 3.000 residents was obliged to host 50 refugees, decreasing their number exclusively as a consequence of the protest. The other crucial point that citizens highlighted was that, in spite of the proximity between the centre and the village, the guests are confined in the space of the centre: because of the inability of those who manage the centre, no deep relationships were created with local people, preventing a real process of integration in the community. Fortunately, a voluntary movement of local residents - emerged as a consequence of the protest of their fellow citizens - is trying to deal with this situation by promoting a series of activities involving both locals and the guests of the centre, in order to reach the aim of the integration.

The topics of emergency and impermanence are characteristic of the way Italy has always dealt with the migration phenomenon, creating several problems to the city obliged to deal with the reception of refugees. In Chapter 1, I showed that this depends on the fact that the Italian legislation on the matter, despite the recognition of the necessity to grant protection to those forced to leave their country - through the signature of the Geneva Convention - and the recognition of the Directives of EU on the status of refugees and International Protection, has attempted for a long time to create an organic national law, but it never succeeded. The most important contribution to the implementation of national legislation came from the decisions

77 taken at European level (such as the recognition to grant protection also to those who were not covered by the definition of “refugee” as elaborated by the Convention of 1951). However, even though migration movements have changed their features over time, Sicily has always been affected by migration flows, due to its geographical positions. The data I collected during my research shows that all people agree on the necessity to host these people. Concurrently the data shows also that distance or proximity to a reception centre can alter the perception of locals about the presence of migrants in their own territory. As a matter of fact, only two people during the interviews argued that the position of the centre in the village was not important. The others highlighted the necessity to prevent the physical segregation of guests both in regard to the place in which the centre will be established (it is important to choose a place in the urban space and not in the countryside) and to the necessity to allow guests to frequent public spaces. Some people have already expressed some doubts about their use of public spaces: in particular the problem concerns the hygienic conditions and the necessity to prevent the spread of rare diseases (this is what happened also in the case of Castell'Umberto, concerning the use of the toilette of the public library). The local authorities will be responsible for managing and mediating the possible conflicts that may arise in these cases. Moreover, an element stressed by the interviewees was that the guests will be accepted in the local society in so far as they will be able to integrate themselves and assimilate in the local culture. If they will be willing to frequent and meet locals, they will be welcomed in the community. On the contrary, I believe that they will be able to integrate themselves only when their presence will be accepted by residents. If the residents will be willing to create moments of meeting with the guests and to make them feel welcome, then the natural course of events will lead to a complete and real process of integration. Despite this, stereotypes and prejudices about who “refugees” are and “what they want” among some members of the population of Gioiosa Marea persist, often because of a lack of correct information. On the basis of critical points and conclusions emerged from the research I

78 conducted in Gioiosa Marea, it is possible to highlight some recommendations, addressed in particular to the local administration:

1. It would be necessary to prepare the local community for the arrival of migrants explaining their provenance and the reasons behind their arrival. Furthermore, it would be necessary to inform the population about the main features of the Italian reception system;

2. It would be necessary to establish the reception centre in the urban space in order to prevent the segregation of migrants in the countryside and to encourage the creation of deep relations between the guests and the local residents. In order to achieve this aim, once the centre is established, the local administration should promote moments of meeting between the community and the guests of the centre;

3. It would be necessary to distribute migrants over the centre of the village, favouring several flats for the accommodation of foreigners in Gioiosa. This could reduce the negative perception of their presence in the village supporting the process of integration.

In my opinion, it would be interesting to investigate the same matter once the centre is established: I am considering going back to Gioiosa Marea in order to observe if the purposes of local authorities will be respected and if the perceptions of locals will have changed, on the basis of the decisions made. The hope is that all the stakeholders involved in the process (local residents, institutions and those who will manage the centre) will be able to embrace the diversity of those who will be hosted in the centre, preventing the building of walls and reducing the distance, both physical and platonic, between them and local residents.

79 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Agier, M., 2003 La ville nue: Des marges de l'urbain aux terrains de l'humanitarie, translation by S. Paone, Città in frantumi. Sicurezza, emergenza e produzione dello spazio, FrancoAngeli, Milano, 2008, p.87

Einaudi, L., 2007. Le politiche dell'immigrazione in Italia dall'Unità ad oggi, Editori Laterza, Roma-Bari.

Kottak, C. P., 2012. Antropologia culturale, McGraw-Hill Companies, Group Italia, Milano.

Mollica, M., 2003. Dal monte di Guardia a Ciappe di Tono e San Giorgio, Armando Siciliano Editore.

Paone, S., 2008. Città in frantumi. Sicurezza, emergenza e produzione dello spazio, FrancoAngeli, Milano.

Semi, G., 2010. L'Osservazione partecipante. Una guida pratica, Il Mulino, Bologna.

Sossi, F., 2002. Autobiografie negate. Immigrati nei lager del presente, Manifestolibri, Roma.

80 SITOGRAPHY

ASGI-Associazione Studi Giuridici sull'Immigrazione, 2017. I nuovi orientamenti politico-normativi dell'Unione Europea, la prospettiva di nuove radicali chiusure al diritto d'asilo. Available at: https://www.asgi.it/wpcontent/uploads/2017/09/2017_9_Articolo_politiche- _UE_ok.pdf

Asylum Information Database (AIDA), http://www.asylumineurope.org/ [Last access: 14 January 2018].

Assessorato Regionale delle Autonomie Locali e della Funzione Pubblica (Servizio Elettorale), http://www.elezioni.regione.sicilia.it/regionali2012/home.html [Last access: 18 December 2017].

Barretta, P., Milazzo, G., 2016. Notizie oltre i Muri Quarto Rapporto Carta di Roma. Available at: https://www.cartadiroma.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Rapporto- 2016_-cartadiroma_EMBARGATO-FINO-ALLE-13-DEL-1912.pdf

Bonetti, P., Morandi, N., 2012. La Protezione Sussidiaria, Scheda Pratica ASGI. Available at: https://www.asgi.it/wp- content/uploads/public/protezione.sussidiaria.morandi.bonetti.11.marzo.2012.pdf

Bonetti, P., Morandi N., 2013. Lo Status di Rifugiato, scheda ASGI. Available at: https://www.asgi.it/wpcontent/uploads/2014/04/1_013_scheda_rifugiato_asgidocume nti.pdf

81 Camilli, A., 2017. Perché l'accordo tra l'Italia e la Libia sui migranti è sotto accusa, Internazionale (online). Available at: https://www.internazionale.it/notizie/annalisa-camilli/2017/11/29/italia- libia-migranti-accordo

Campomori, F., 2016. Le politiche per i rifugiati in Italia: dall'accoglienza all'integrazione. Missione impossibile?, Social Cohesion Papers, n° 2 (online). Available at: http://www.socialcohesiondays.com/wpcontent/uploads/2016/09/OCIS_SCPAPER02 2016DEF.pdf

Casonato C., Woelk J., 2008. The Constitution of the Italian Republic, Faculty of Law-Department of Legal Sciences (University of Trento). Available at: http://www.jus.unitn.it/dsg/pubblicazioni/costituzione/costituzione %20genn2008eng.pdf

Castronovo, A., 2016. Genesi e sviluppo dell'immigrazione in Sicilia. Alcune chiavi di lettura, Dialoghi Mediterranei (online). Available at: http://www.istitutoeuroarabo.it/DM/la-genesi-e-lo-sviluppo- dellimmigrazione-in-sicilia-alcune-chiavi-di-lettura/

Colombo, F., 2017. Il sistema di accoglienza dei migranti in Italia, spiegato per bene, Lenius (online). Available at: https://www.lenius.it/sistema-di-accoglienza-dei-migranti-in-italia/

Dotti, M., 2017. Le periferie al centro della vita, Vita (online), interview with Marc Augé (2016). Available at: http://www.vita.it/it/article/2017/03/07/marc-auge-le-periferie-al- centro-della-vita/142686/

82 EMN (European Migration Network) National Contact Point for Italy, 2012. Organisation of asylum and migration policies in Italy, edited by IDOS Study and Research Centre, Roma. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/sites/homeaffairs/files/what-we- do/networks/european_migration_network/reports/docs/emn-studies/migration- policies/it_20120412_organisationasylummigrationpolicies_en_version_final_en.pdf

Eurostat, http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat [Last access: 27 December 2017].

Ferrari, G., 2004. La Convenzione sullo Status dei Rifugiati. Aspetti storici, in Asilo: dalla Convenzione di Ginevra alla Costituzione Europea, Roma. Available at: https://www.unhcr.it/wp- content/uploads/2016/01/10giovanni_ferrari__convenzione_rifugiat_1951_.pdf

Guerrieri, F., 2016. Asilo politico, protezione sussidiaria e umanitaria: quali sono le differenze?, Lenius (online). Available at: https: //www.lenius.it/asilo-politico-protezione-sussidiaria-umanitaria- quali-le-differenze/

Guerzoni, M., ed. by., 2010. Le città degli altri. Spazio pubblico e vita urbana nelle città dei migranti. Available at: http://www.urbancenterbologna.it/images/stories/collanaeditoriale/05_Cittadeglialtri. pdf

Immigrati.Stat (Istat), http://stra-dati.istat.it/Index.aspx [Last access: 28 December 2017].

International Organization for Migration (IOM), https://www.iom.int/ [Last access: 14 January 2018].

83 Mataloni, G., 2015."Seconda fase" del Sistema europeo comune di asilo, la normativa europea vigente in materia d'asilo, in Il diritto d'asilo: i sistemi di protezione dei richiedenti asilo e dei rifugiati (Università degli studi di Padova, online). Available at: http://unipd-centrodirittiumani.it/it/schede/Seconda-fase-del-Sistema- europeo-comune-di-asilo-la-normativa-europea-vigente-in-materia-dasilo/334

Medici Senza Frontiere, 2016. Fuori Campo. Richiedenti asilo e rifugiati in Italia: insediamenti informali e marginalità sociale. Available at : http://fuoricampo.medicisenzafrontiere.it/Fuoricampo.pdf

Migration and Home Affairs, European Commission, https://ec.europa.eu/home- affairs/index_en [Last access: 13 January 2018].

Ministry of the Interior, http://www.interno.gov.it/it [Last access: 6 January 2018].

Natassja, 2016. The refugee camp: transitory non place, in A sense of place, Travel studies (online). Available at: http://travelstudies.org/the-refugee-camp-a-transitory-non-place/

Open Migration, http://openmigration.org/en/ [Last access: 29 December 2017].

Osman, O. S., 2015. "Prima fase" del Sistema europeo comune di asilo (1999-2005) – un breve excursus della normativa Europea in materia d'asilo, Il diritto d'asilo: i sistemi di protezione dei richiedenti asilo e dei rifugiati (Università degli studi di Padova, online). Available at: http://unipd-centrodirittiumani.it/it/schede/Prima-fase-del-Sistema- europeo-comune-di-asilo-1999-2005-un-breve-excursus-della-normativa-europea-in- materia-dasilo/239

84 Oxfam Briefing Paper, 2017. La lotteria Italia dell'accoglienza. Available at: https://www.oxfamitalia.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/La-Lotteria- Italia-dellaccoglienza_Report-Oxfam_8_11_2017_Final.pdf

Polchi, V., 2012. Strasburgo, l'Italia condannata per i respingimenti verso la Libia, LaRepubblica.it (online). Available at: http://www.repubblica.it/solidarieta/immigrazione/2012/02/23/news/l_italia_condann ata_per_i_respingimenti-30366965/

Sistema di Protezione per Richiedenti Asilo e Rifugiati (SPRAR), http://www.sprar.it/ [Last access: 15 January 2018].

Surace, M., 2016. Domande d'asilo in Italia: tanti dinieghi ≠ infondatezza, Open Migration (online). Available at: https://openmigration.org/analisi/domande-dasilo-in-italia-tanti- dinieghi-in-prima-istanza-non-bastano-per-parlare-di-infondatezza/

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA), https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/ [Last access: 7 January 2018].

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), https://www.unhcr.it/chi-aiutiamo/richiedenti-asilo [Last access: 13 January 2018].

85 APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRE

Negli ultimi anni sono arrivate tante persone dall'Africa e dall'Asia in Italia per via delle guerre e della povertà nei loro paesi. Soprattutto la Sicilia è interessata dai flussi migratori a causa della sua posizione geografica e deve quindi confrontarsi con l'accoglienza di queste persone. Come vivono le popolazioni locali questa situazione? Con questo questionario vorremmo sapere cosa ne pensate voi.

1. Hai già sentito parlare d'accoglienza? Dove? (Scuola, casa, in TV, ecc.) 2. Secondo te è giusto accogliere i migranti che arrivano sulle coste Italiane? Perché sì/perché no? 3. Con gli sbarchi arrivano anche dei ragazzi/delle ragazze come te. Vorresti che venissero a scuola con te? Ti piacerebbe conoscerli? Perché sì/perché no? 4. Gli arrivi dei migranti ti rendono insicuro? Spiega perché sì/perché no. 5. Descrivi l'immagine che hai del "migrante": da dove arriva, perché arriva qui, che aspetto ha, in quale religione crede? 6. Cosa penseresti se dei migranti arrivassero a Gioiosa Marea? Secondo te sarebbero accolti bene? 7. Se fossero accolti in un centro vicino alla tua scuola ti sentiresti meno al sicuro? 8. Secondo te sarebbe meglio ospitarli in una struttura lontano dal paese? Perché sì/perché no 9. Cosa proveresti penseresti nel veder girare nel centro del paese questi stranieri? 10. Ti darebbe fastidio se usassero la tua palestra per fare sport o la tua piscina per nuotare? Perché?

86 APPENDIX B ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF QUESTIONNAIRE87

Many people have arrived in Italy from Africa and Asia in the last few years as a consequence of war and poverty in their country of origin. Especially Sicily is involved in these migratory fluxes because of its geographical position and has therefore to organize the reception of those people. How do the local people live this situation? With this questionnaire we would like to know your opinion.

1. Have you already heard of reception? Where? (At home, on tv, at school, etc.) 2. In your opinion is it right to take in the migrants arriving on the Italian shores? 3. Also young girls and young boys arrive here by sea. Would you want them to come to school with you? Would you like to get to know them? 4. Do these arrivals make you feel insecure? Please, explain why they do or they don't. 5. Describe the image you have of the "migrant". Where does he come from? Why does he come, what does he look like, what is his religion? 6. What would you think if some refugees were hosted in Gioiosa Marea? Would they be accepted? 7. Would you fell less safe if they were hosted in a centre close to your school? 8. In your opinion would it be better to host them in a centre in the outskirts? If yes, why? 9. How would you feel if they frequented public spaces in the village? 10. Would you be annoyed if they frequented, for instance, your gym or your pool? If yes, why?

87 The questionnaire was developed in collaboration with a colleague of the University of Pisa. My questions are highlighted in bold. 87 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank the Prof. Marcello Mollica, for his patient guidance and his continuous support during this project. Thank you for the precious suggestions.

I would like also to thank the Mayor Ignazio Spanò for his willingness and kindness; Giuliana, Davide, Anastasia, Basilia, and the other wonderful persons I met during these months. A special thanks goes to the interviews, citizens and institutions, who took some time to answer my questions and made it possible to realize this research. Thank to Gioiosa Marea and its inhabitants for welcoming me cordially.

Another important thanks goes to my colleague Anna, who shared this experience with me.

Last but not the least, I would like to thank my family for their support, especially my sisters, Valeria and Viviana, who were always by my side to encourage me and cheer me up.

88