Hypocrisy on the left regarding migrants

Immigration policies cannot be limited to managing migration flows; it would be a lost cause from the outset because migratory pressure – given the number of people involved and the spirit that drives them – has always been, and continues to be, greater than the capacity to stop or repel it. We are unable to cope with it even within our own borders. In the first quarter of 2026, more than 100,000 non-EU citizens in the European Union were ordered to leave the country; the order was carried out for around one-third of those concerned. The remaining two-thirds presumably joined the masses of desperate, exploited people, with no present and no future. If millions of people across the world are prepared to risk death in order to emigrate, it means that this is not a matter of public order but a matter of humanity. The far-right forces, present in every country of the Union, ignore this aspect; their forebears cried out for ‘blood and soil’; they now shout for the defence of borders and ethnic integrity, fuelling a sense of insecurity with slogans about security in one of the safest countries in the world, and propose the forced return of migrants to their countries of origin or to third countries willing to take them in – ‘remigration’ – yet remain silent on the costs involved. No one mentions that the Conservative British governments led by Johnson, Truss and Sunak made their country’s taxpayers foot the bill – amounting to around 700 million pounds – for the scheme to forcibly transfer irregular migrants to Rwanda, covering funds paid to the African country, flights that never took off and administrative costs, before the asylum plan was finally scrapped in 2024.

The right-wing parties know full well that remigration, as a general policy in response to irregular immigration, is unworkable, just as the naval blockade proposed in Italy a few years ago was never feasible. Yet they persist with this security-focused approach, aided by the silence of the left. Perhaps the low point of this approach was reached with the Chisinau Declaration, adopted on 15 May 2026 by the Committee of Ministers of the 46 member states of the Council of Europe, which addresses torture in paragraph 23. The declaration is not legally binding, but it nevertheless reflects the convictions of the representatives of those countries: ‘The absolute nature of the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment stems from the fact that it concerns the most serious forms of ill-treatment. The minimum threshold of severity required for ill-treatment to be classified as inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment must therefore remain high and consistent, and be applied clearly and uniformly at all levels, whilst avoiding the imposition of unnecessary restrictions on decisions regarding the extradition or expulsion of foreign nationals. However, the assessment of the minimum level of severity remains relative and must be carried out by taking into account all the circumstances of the specific case”. In practice, a certain amount of torture is permitted, depending on the circumstances of the specific case. Recently, the Italian government has reintroduced the Chisinau Agreement as a guiding document for anti-immigration policies. Ultimately, the far right legitimises violence, proposes unworkable measures, remains silent on the failure to enforce expulsion orders, and hails the reduction in the number of arrivals – sometimes citing inaccurate figures – as a success of migration policies. It is unacceptable, but it is a policy. The left seems to have given up on tackling the issue politically. The debate seems to have narrowed to a clash between those who say ‘let’s turn back as many as possible’ and those who say ‘let’s take in as many as possible’. The Left seems trapped in a tangle of emancipation, work, rights and solidarity, and is unable to extricate itself because it fails to propose solutions that are realistically achievable. It appears to have only two ways out: either to continue criticising whilst remaining silent, or to follow the Right onto its own ground. The first option is suicidal; it forms part of the argument that one competes to win, not to govern. The second option was chosen by Mette Frederiksen, the Danish Prime Minister, a socialist. She has made family reunification more difficult, cut benefits, scaled back the right to asylum – granting it only on a temporary basis – and facilitated repatriation. Is this a path for the Italian left? I hope not.

Immigration policies do not stand alone; they must be viewed within the context of the country’s needs and its strategic objectives. The whole of Europe is experiencing a sharp decline in population, an ageing population and a shortage of labour for essential jobs. According to data provided by the ELA (European Labour Authority), millions of people across Europe will leave the workforce to retire in the coming years. In the four most populous EU countries – Germany, Italy, France and Spain – there is already a shortfall of between six and eight and a half million workers. Across the EU, there is a shortage of welders, construction electricians, registered nurses, plumbers, lorry and heavy goods vehicle drivers, carpenters, tilers, car mechanics and repairers, and joiners for the construction industry. In Italy, businesses – both large and small – are seeking around one million workers: primarily cleaners, labourers, farm workers, waiters, bricklayers, heavy goods vehicle drivers, plumbers, welders and maintenance workers. To facilitate this search, the EU Talent Pool has been established, with its regulations approved on 30 March. It is a digital platform designed to facilitate the recruitment of skilled workers from non-EU countries. Italy has joined the scheme through the Ministry of Labour. However, two issues arise. The EU Talent Pool only allows workers who already hold a valid professional profile to register on the platform. Furthermore, the EU Talent Pool is merely a platform; it does not replace national immigration laws. It is therefore necessary to follow the cumbersome procedures set out in the immigration quota decrees to obtain visas and residence permits, even for those who already possess the necessary skills and are sought after by an Italian company. The second problem concerns the lack of training in the countries of origin. Some Italian entrepreneurs have taken a radical step. They are training several hundred professionals in their countries of origin who are needed by their companies; once their training is complete, these individuals will be able to start working in Italy immediately. Perhaps an agreement is needed between the government, the regions, trade unions and employers’ associations to launch, initially on a pilot basis, training programmes in the countries of origin for the most in-demand and least complex professions, subject to a guarantee of rapid entry into Italy.

We must also turn our attention to the work required for the Italy of tomorrow. Together with the Futuri Probabili Research Centre, we have identified three sectors in our country that are certain to grow, for which skills are already in short supply today and which, due to demographic decline and an ageing population, will be even more in short supply tomorrow. We therefore need migrant labour. Some of the necessary professional skills could be developed in non-EU countries with a scientific tradition, such as India, South Africa or Serbia.

The first of the three sectors concerns energy. We need to develop expertise in renewable energy. Furthermore, in a few years’ time, we should begin building new-generation nuclear power stations. There is no shortage of nuclear engineers, but we have identified a further 39 specialist roles that do not currently exist and which are necessary for construction, ranging from specialist welders to maintenance engineers and nuclear laboratory technicians. The offices of the Ministry of Education, acting on the Minister’s instructions, have commendably taken steps to introduce energy-related courses in 115 technical colleges and higher technical institutes. Young people interested in this field will find that these institutions provide training that is both useful for their own lives and beneficial to the country.

A second sector in which Italy will need to develop expertise is agriculture. The depletion of water resources, the drying out of the soil and the growing difficulty in obtaining fertilisers mean that agriculture, too, must turn to new technologies. This is known as precision farming and aims to conserve water, cultivate the species best suited to the soil type, reduce waste and increase productivity in a sustainable manner through the use of big data, drones and machinery that does not require human intervention.

The third sector concerns the brain economy. Cognitive abilities, creativity and mental health, in a world that will be increasingly permeated by smart technologies, are becoming key resources for human development, particularly in ageing societies. In an economy increasingly based on knowledge, human capital depends on the ability to learn, innovate and adapt rapidly to change. The spread of artificial intelligence is shifting human labour, overall, towards complex and creative cognitive activities. Investment is therefore needed in education, lifelong learning, neuroscience and mental health care. Stress, neurological disorders and cognitive decline incur significant economic costs, reducing participation in social life and impoverishing the country. Brain health is therefore not merely a health issue, but also a strategic factor in economic competitiveness. Working not only for the next elections, but also for the country’s future, could rouse those affected from their lethargy and urge everyone to adopt immigration policies that successfully reconcile the interests of migrants with those of the country.

Luciano Violante, former President of the Chamber of Deputies