Migrants in Limbo: The inefficacy of Italy’s migrant housing framework

Since the beginning of the 2000s, hundreds of thousands of migrants have fled war, poverty, and political oppression en route to Italy with hopes for a better life. Disappointedly, many migrants to Italy are subjected to living in subhuman conditions, despite their expectations of a more prosperous life in Europe. Italian migrant welcome centres are criticized by the media, as many are captured exhibiting dirty, shared toilets and rooms sleeping eight individuals with no windows or any source of ventilation. The reason that many migrants to Italy must endure such strife is because of the government’s inadequate migrant housing system.

The Italian government reinforces an emergency narrative, expressing that the influx of migrants is unprecedented and is overwhelming their societal infrastructure. The government refers to the situation as a ‘migrant crisis ’ in order to take advantage of legal loopholes that disenfranchise migrants, especially with regard to their housing. Considering that Italy is one of the most sought-after European countries for asylum-seekers, it is imperative that the government finds a solution to their migrant housing failure–this success would take pressure off other EU member states and improve the qualities of life of many. Italy has the opportunity to be the leading example in migration management, and it should capitalize on it. 

Since 2014, a little over one million migrants arrived in Italy by sea. In 2022, 84,289 migrants submitted asylum applications to the Italian government, 56 per cent of whom were denied protection status. Only 13 per cent of applicants were granted refugee status in 2022. The lack of recognising these individuals’ legal statuses in the country leads to exploitation, especially with regards to housing.

Italy’s migration reception framework is based on three systems. The first system is the Programma Nazionale  Asilo (PNA). This ambitious, decentralised system was founded in 2000 and is largely reliant on local actors to maintain it. The Berlusconi administration founded the second system in 2002, the Sistema di Protezione per Richiedenti Asilo e Rifugiati (SPRAR) system, which is funded by the national government. This system intends to provide reception/housing centers, integration assistance, legal guidance, and other forms of general social welfare assistance. The main holdup with the SPRAR system is that it is difficult to sustain. It requires high-skilled staff and upkeep. These limitations restricted the amount of SPRAR centres that were created. In other words, the SPRAR system was not the solution to the ‘migrant crisis’ that the Italian state was looking for. As a result of these two insufficient systems, the Italian government introduced the Centri Accoglienza Straordinaria (CAS) system. This framework was created to temporarily manage the ‘migrant crisis’ and is supposed to be overseen by the Ministry of the Interior. The CAS system, because of its recognition as an ‘emergency’ response, isn’t held to the same legal standards as the PNA or the SPRAR systems. This scenario therefore creates various legal loopholes that the Italian state exploits, so it isn’t obligated to sufficiently allocate resources and funds to the thousands of migrants that are at the mercy of this system. In fact, in December 2017, it was estimated that 80.9 per cent of asylum-seekers in Italy were in CAS facilities, many of whom were subject to unacceptable health and safety standards. 

Similarly, the Italian government’s introduction of the ‘hotspot ’ system in April 2015 further complicates the status of thousands of migrants. The hotspot approach aims to fingerprint, identify and funnel migrants into third countries or back to their departing countries within 48 hours. The hotspot system, initially thought to be a pioneering innovation in migration management, was created in response to the European Agenda on Migration, which lacked any enforcement mechanisms or plans. As a result of this lack of organization, and the lack of legally binding language in the agenda, the hotspot system is not nationally implemented, and migrants are forced to stay there under inhumane conditions for weeks on end. 

The paradox of Italian migrant management lies here–migrants are in need of residency contracts to be active, participating members of society, but are ineligible for residency because the CAS and hotspot approaches are inefficient and inhumane. In Italy, residence contracts are needed to be self-employed, receive medical care, and be able to be reunified with family. In fact, Article 40(6) of the Italian Consolidated Law on Immigration holds that foreign nationals that have a long-term EU residence permit are to be granted a legal status equal to that of EU citizens. However, even when migrants qualify for long-term residence permits, there are not enough available accommodations to meet demand, creating long waiting lists for individuals seeking lodging. Furthermore, many regions require a minimum period of residency in order to qualify for public housing, many of which require multiple years of residency. For instance, Abruzzo Regional Law No.96 establishes that foreign workers can only be given access to public housing if they have resided in Italy for five years. As a result, migrants resort to informal means of work which hinders their ability to receive housing bureaucratically. 

In light of this discussion, it would be logical to recommend that the EU works with Italy to create an enforceable migration management system. In theory, the hotspot system could be efficient–the issue is that there is no legally-binding language obligating it to function as intended. The Italian government needs to get out of the protracted crisis mindset as it pertains to the migration issue–their government agencies and systems need to be held to a constitutional standard. This standard, as laid out in Article 3 of the Constitution, prohibits unfair discrimination and promotes the removal of social and economic obstacles to promote the full development of the self. The Italian government, through the Ministry of the Interior, needs to provide more enhanced enforcement strategies on the ground, especially in the main Italian metropolitan areas and southern regions where migrants are received most frequently, such as Lampedusa and Sicily. Moreover, the social welfare provisions provided for under the SPRAR system should be implemented nationwide, as supporting integration through Italian language and culture courses will allow migrants to become more productive members of Italian society, therefore increasing their chances of legally obtaining housing. 

Italy’s categorization of the migration issue as a ‘crisis’ enables their government, at both the state and local levels, to illegally mistreat migrants. Once the Italian government improves their migration management approaches, they will be able to more effectively provide resources to migrants, especially with regards to housing. The migrant housing paradox doesn’t serve migrants well, but with intentional changes in policy and leadership, Italy can become a leader for the rest of the world to follow.

             

Works Cited

“Ammassati in pochi metri quadri e con bagni fatiscenti, così vivono i migranti nel Cara di Bari: le immagini esclusive dall’interno.” la Repubblica, 11 Nov. 2024, https://bari.repubblica.it/cronaca/2024/11/11/video/ammassati_in_pochi_metri_quadri_e_con_bagni_fatiscenti_cosi_vivono_i_migranti_nel_cara_di_bari_le_immagini_esclusive_dall-423610364/.

Better Solutions Needed for Migrant Workers’ Makeshift Settlements in Italy | Human Rights Watch. 4 Apr. 2023, https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/04/04/better-solutions-needed-migrant-workers-makeshift-settlements-italy.

Castelli Gattinara, Pietro. “The ‘Refugee Crisis’ in Italy as a Crisis of Legitimacy.” Contemporary Italian Politics, vol. 9, no. 3, Sept. 2017, pp. 318–31. Taylor and Francis+NEJM, https://doi.org/10.1080/23248823.2017.1388639.

Ceccarelli, Valentina. “Viaggio nel CARA-Centro di Accoglienza per Richiedenti Asilo di Bari.” Cittadinanzattiva  una organizzazione, fondata nel 1978, 14 Nov. 2024, https://www.cittadinanzattiva.it/notizie/16778-viaggio-nel-cara-centro-di-accoglienza-per-richiedenti-asilo-di-bari.html.

D’Angelo, Alessio. “Italy: The ‘Illegality Factory’? Theory and Practice of Refugees’ Reception in Sicily.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, vol. 45, no. 12, Sept. 2019, pp. 2213–26. Taylor and Francis+NEJM, https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2018.1468361.

Fondo asilo migrazione e integrazione (Fami) | Ministero dell‘Interno. http://www.interno.gov.it/it/temi/immigrazione-e-asilo/fondi-europei/fondo-asilo-migrazione-e-integrazione-fami. Accessed 25 Mar. 2025.

Hoque, Nasibul. “Trapped by Italy’s Policy Paradox, Asylum Seekers and Other Migrants Can Fall into Exploitative Farm Labor.” Migrationpolicy.Org, 19 Aug. 2024, https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/italy-migrant-farmworker-exploitation.