Numbers that on the surface are not stratospheric, if compared to those much higher of the “migratory galaxy of the poor”, but are notable all the same. Not just because, given the profound, heterogeneous economic-social and political-cultural composition of the countries of origin, the question is if there is and what is the basic common denominator behind this emigration of “wealth”. But above all why the arrival of these foreigners, even if rich, have created negative reactions in the host countries that are no less serious than those provoked by the embarkation of the “other type” of poorer and notably more desperate immigrants. The proof of which is that fact that in recent years all the countries most affected by the phenomenon, the United States, Canada and Australia first and foremost, until recently quite relaxed about it all, have been forced to adopt a harsh turn of the screw to put the brakes on what the most hardened critics have disparaging called “cash for citizenship immigration”.

In the light of the facts the truth is that put under the spotlight of respective public opinion, the national authorities have had to accept that the policy of easy visas for “immigrant capitalists” has not produced the predicted and promised positive effects for the economy and employment. For the simple reason that, as explained in the American think-tank document, the super-rich immigrants, as is the case for all the others, have the sole, egoistic objective of achieving a better standard of life for themselves and their families by changing country.

What is the situation in Libya now?

The country is unstable, fragile and insecure. It is mainly the immigrants, internal displaced people and many everyday Libyan citizens who are paying the price for this. We work on a daily basis with the United Nations and the local authorities to guarantee them assistance and protection. The main challenge in this stage is to make Southern Libya more stable.

Is it the case that in Libya many immigrants dream of returning to their country rather than moving to Europe, but do not have the economic means to do so?

Undoubtedly. So much so that the IOM programme for voluntary repatriation has been extended to respond to the mountain of requests by immigrants to organise and sustain the cost of the return journey from Libya to the country of origin. They often have to address bureaucratic as well as economic difficulties. Many immigrants, particularly those living in rural Libyan areas, are in fact not able to get into contact with their Embassy in Libya to obtain the documents that they need for repatriation. This is behind the IOM’s recent decision to start an “On-line Consulate” that we hope can speed up the issuing procedure for travel documents.

How many immigrants have been involved to date in you repatriation programme?

From the beginning of 2017, we have helped 8,100 people coming from 24 countries. The goal is to reach 12,000 by the end of 2017. For this reason, we have decided to extend our programme to voluntary repatriations.

What changed for the IOM after the Summit on Immigration in Paris on the 28 August 2017 that brought together European and African leaders?

It offered significant political support to a complexity of activities and initiatives that the IOM has already put in place thanks to generous funding from the EU and the countries that are part of it. However, this is not all. To this, we should add, as stated in the conclusion of the Summit, the promise of support to the work of the IOM in Libya to build dignified infrastructure for refugees and immigrants and look into forms of assistance other than detention in the traditional holding centres.

A “snip” that is even more brutal taking into account the fact that 45,000 is a threshold that as a rule, the government cannot violate but is not obliged to reach. The reason for which, given the current climate, the real risk exists that the United States may accept a number of refugees that is even lower than that announced within the next 12 months. A picture that is not just negative but outright dire to the point that many pro-refugee humanitarian organisations, despite disappointment and bitterness, have without letting it be seen or heard, breathed a small or rather tiny sigh of relief. Amongst many, the anything but remote fear was that President Trump, in heed of the most extremists of his entourage, might even have let the 1^st of October pass. This being the last day under the law for the launch of the new immigration plan, and without coming to a decision, freeze the status quo to close the door to immigrants for not just one but two mandates.

A new route, indicative of the efficiency of the machinery of organized criminality. One that is destined to be more and more travelled even if not by the record numbers registered in 2015 in the Balkans (more than one million migrants) and that in the Central Mediterranean (Libya-Italy) that in the last three years has witnessed an average of 150,000-200,000 trips a year.

Compared to the previous ones, the new Turkey-Romania corridor has two handicaps.

The first: crossing the Black Sea is no day trip. Given that its very name comes from its danger. So much so that the ancient Greeks called it “inhospitable”. Compared to the Mediterranean, downpours and storms are sudden and violent. According to the Turkish Coast Guard, the last shipwreck, just a few days ago at 64,000 miles from Kefken (North-Western Turkey), took the life of twenty or so Iraqi immigrants. Numbers with which even the most pitiless human trafficker has to deal with because if word passes amongst potential immigrants that you leave but never arrive in Europe, the list of potential “customers” will take a nose dive.

The second: Romania is a member of the European Union but not of the Schengen area. Amongst bordering countries, the only one that is a member is Orban’s Hungary that is not an ideal destination for immigrants. Consequently, it is highly likely that many, after having spent a fortune to risk their life in crossing the Black Sea, end up in the Romanian dead end, without reaching the desired port of call. A contradiction that undoubtedly will discourage departures from Turkey in the long term.

1) Opening legal channels for the entrance of economic immigrants coming from those countries who have shown that that are not willing to accept the repatriation of their citizens who have illegally entered the EU. By far and large, this is the greatest change arriving from the EU executive. Until today, it was more concerned with creating norms and security strategies to combat illegal influxes.

2) Exploring, in collaboration with private and corporate sponsors, legal channels for the entrance of refugees. By 2019 an EU allocation of half a billion Euro for selection of immigrants in the countries of origin for redistribution in Europe in collaboration with UNHCR.

3) Guaranteeing solidarity to the countries more exposed to migratory pressure. The obligation to redistribute the 160,000 refugees arrived in Greece and Italy, ended on the 26 September 2017 with a very low number of transfers, less than 30,000. In this light, the Commission has asked for the reformation of the Dublin Regulation that with the prohibition of requesting asylum in the first country of arrival has transferred the weight of the humanitarian emergency onto Mediterranean Europe. In the meantime, it supports and incentivizes the countries that decide on a voluntary basis to share with Rome and Athens the duty of accepting those fleeing war and persecution.

4) Improving and strengthening the capacity of the member countries to repatriate illegal immigrants. Given that almost 70%, with the expulsion order in pocket, are illegally resident in the EU.

5) Supporting and encouraging investment and development in Africa.

The Brussels document will perhaps not be a revolution. However, it is certainly a step in the right direction. It is a change in focus from emergency to governance of the migratory flows. It takes into consideration that what has been happening in the Mediterranean since the Arab Spring of 2011 is not an exception. Rather, it is the start of a complex of challenges that the African continent at the height of a demographic boom poses to the Old Continent.

A truth that demands reflection. Because the causes triggered by such malcontent are not, as many still persist in believing, only material in nature. That could be resolved by a loosening of the purse strings and an increase in public spending. They are mainly cultural-existential in nature. They concern the identity of entire social groups that having been excluded from the game by advanced aged, low level of education or ethnic origin, are opposing the dominant wave of post-material values and pro-diversity multicultural cosmopolitism professed by the elite. That for many years have undervalued or, worse still pretended not to see, the estrangement produced between the “left behinds” by immigration that in space of a few years has changed the lifestyle, demographic profile, languages and customs of what they have always considered home. If things stand as they are, given that no-one can wind back the hands of time, there are essentially two dangers from which one must be protected.

The first is that of the rabble-rousers that, exploiting the fears and tensions of this world in revolt, seek consent by “selling” as the future the nostalgia of good times that are no longer.

The second, less loutish but no less dangerous, of those that prefer to adopt the non quietare e quieta non movere approach (don’t shake up what is calm, but calm that which is agitated) are waiting for the night to pass.

Germany: The Law of 15 July 1999 reforming the regulation on the means of concession of citizenship in force since 1913, established that the children of immigrants born in Germany acquire civil status if one of their parents has lived on a stable basis in the country for at least 8 years and has regular permission to stay or unlimited residency for at least 3 years.

France: The Law of 1998 has partially reforming the regulation on the granting of citizenship in force since 1889, established that the children of immigrants born in France acquire civil status if one of the two parents in born in France. If this is not the case, the child will automatically acquire French citizenship when they reach legal age and if at this time, they are resident in France or have generally been resident for a period (continuous or discontinuous) of at least 5 years, from the age of 11 onwards. The public authorities and the education institutes are required to inform the interested parties on the relevant legal dispositions.

The United Kingdom: The Law of 1981, reforming the regulation on the means of concession of citizenship in force since 1913, established that the children of immigrants born in Britain acquire civil status if one of their parents have the right to settle in the United Kingdom. There are two alternatives if this is not the case. The first, if one of the parents successively become a British citizen or are granted the right to settle, the child can request naturalisation, but before they reach legal age.

The second, the child can request civil status if he or she has lived in the United Kingdom for the first 10 years of life, not being absent for more than 90 days in each of these years.

Spain: Implementing Article 11 of the Constitution of 1978, the Spanish Government has approved various laws on the means of acquiring citizenship. Based on which the children of immigrants who are born in Spain acquire civil status even if their parents were not born in Spain and do not have citizenship.

For the simple reason that by and not after the 1^st of October his administration must in fact establish the maximum number of refugees that America intends to accept in the next 12 months. A decision that is anything but simple. In the first place because it is the offspring of the law with which the new resident of the White House, just having moved in, had blocked the arrival of exiles and refugees from some of the largest and most stricken Muslim countries causing chaos. Which the Supreme Court will soon rule on from a constitutional point of view.

Particularly thanks to a scoop two days ago by the New York Times, we came to learn that the issue is far away from being resolved because of profound internal divisions between the various departments of the new administration. A source of debate is the study released by the Department of Health and Human Services, bitterly contested and criticized by the hawks of Trump’s inner circle, according to which, and based on the data, refugees are in fact a source of income for state revenue rather than being a drain. Not a cost but a resource. Given that according to the authors of the document, prepared for the President but never to reach his hands, between 2005 – 2014 the army of refugees, subjecting the cost of services used from the total of taxes paid, apparently brought a net surplus of more than 63 billion dollars to the treasury of the land of stars and stripes.

A figure that is not only enormous but if true, would make life difficult for the hard nuts in Washington committed to lowering the threshold of 10,000 entrances conceded by President Trump to placate the wave of claims following the first phase in January when he halved the last quota of 110,000 exiles under President Obama. It’s all still up in the air. The only certainty being, however, that this time Donald will not be able to wash his hands of it all, as was the case with the DACA, not deciding and passing the buck to Congress.

1) In the last years many European states decided to abolish the circonscription, but now we start to register some step back. For example, since next month Sweden has decided to introduce again the circonscription. How do you explain this change of mind about military service?
This is an interesting question. I attribute this change to geopolitical shifts; the increase of the Russian threat and the decline of the American support. For a period of time now, Russia has been investing more and more resources in military buildup. The potential Russian threat became more pronounced with the annexation of Crimea and the destabilization of eastern Ukraine. Russian activities in the Middle East, and involvement in some level of cyber warfare, contributed to this perception of threat. Simultaneously, Trump’s unpredictable foreign policy and America First agenda indicated to EU members that American support is not a guarantee.
For a long period of time, military threats on European soil (not terrorist threats) were hypothetical. Consequently, EU members decreased their military expenses and armed forces, allowing the US to take most of the burden of defending the continent. The new situation, where there is a real threat, and more uncertainty of American aid, convinced policy makers to change their tunes and to act. In the debate what is the reason for this policy move there are three potential explanations: security and strategic need, economic benefits, or social benefits. I see conscription as part of a security strategy that may have economic and social implications, rather than a novel social or economic policy. Security need brought conscription and not radical social or economic reform.

2) According to your study, the stereotype on circonscription (waste of time; postpone the entry to world of the work etc.) are true or false?
I believe that it depends on profession of the individual within the armed forces and of course the armed forces themselves:after all, not armed forces are equal. There are some bad models and some good ones. Generally, we can argue that armies became more specialized and professional. This corresponds with developments in warfare, as war became more complex and more and interconnected. Soldiers are required to master various skills and technologies in order to be effective in operating elaborate systems. They also need to be able to operate in a team, communicate and coordinate efforts among units. Later on, after military services,those skills and experience can prove valuable when trying to enter the  workforce. Professionalization was accelerated, especially within the combat service support and combat support elements of the armed forces. Those elements represent about 90% of soldiers, and many of them include units where the stereotype of service is a waste of time are more common. Many armies today emphasize the skills and experience gained in service, along with access to new technologies in their recruitment brochures or promotion commercials. In Israel, for example, the demand for technological units increased dramatically, given recruits view how service in those units pay off later in the job market, especially in the hi-tech industry. In fact, the preference for the technological units became so high that the Israeli Defense Forces recently issued a new set of benefits for combat units to increase the motivation and long term gain for those soldiers. Nonetheless, it is important to emphasize an important point. The transferability of those skills and experience into the job market is contingent on the market’s acceptance and recognition of those skills. In Israel it happened organically, yet a country that will make a switch from professional to mandatory conscription will have to help businesses with this translation, at least in the beginning.

3) For State like Italy that became from nation of emigrants to a target for mass immigration, do you think circonscription could be a way to integrate the son of immigrants, the so-called second generation?
Yes it can, but only with relevant reforms within the military and in the political system. The military is an organization designed to train civilians into soldiers, and not to train civilians into becoming better, or more informed, civilians. In order to do so, the armed forces will have to go through a significant change. It is not enough to recruit and hope for the best. The system has to adapt. First, in order to promote the integration of second generations, or any other social group, the armed forces will have to create tailored socialization programs that target the needs and challenges of each group. Second, the Italian armed forces are very big, but with conscription they will become significantly bigger. They will have to find a way to utilize those people in a way that will be efficient and meaningful both for the armed forces and the conscripts themselves. Given that, at their current capacities, the armed forces don’t need many more people, the moment the military has so many new recruits it will be very easy for it to treat them as surplus and cheap labor. This will be inefficient and promote the stereotypes of service as a waste of time. Proper planning can help avoid this pitfall. Third, using military service to provide individuals not only socialization but also skills that they can later use as civilians will help both integration and the appeal of service. Finally, not only will the military have to adjust, but also the political system. It will have to help re-brand this policy and military service in general. Moreover, they will have to promote supportive legislation to make it work.

A painful deferment that regardless of the words expended in justification is the offspring of a political culture frozen in time. One that instead of thinking of the Italy that could be, prefers or hopes to milk one extra vote from that which is no longer. A weakness that with a little craftiness the supporters of ius soli could use to win the war after having lost the battle. In what way? By taking seriously the arguments of their adversaries. For whom, exploiting the fears of Italians about the current highly critical situation at the borders, it is child’s play to continue to defend the old rule of citizenship based on ius sanguinus against the risks of invasion inherent in that of residence. In short, as in the times when one left rather than headed for Italy, for these individuals an Italian is only so if a child of another Italian rather than having been born in the country. With the result of leaving in limbo and without identity thousands and thousands of babies and children of immigrants who for years, along with “Italians”, have studied, played, worked and watched the soccer matches.

A situation that can be remedied, setting aside the ideological iron fist, sacrosanct but useless, and adopting an approach that is not perfect but a compromise with ius temporis. Simply reducing the minimum number of years of legal presence in Italy that the law now requires of their parents to achieve citizenship (e.g. from 10 to 4, as for EU immigrants), eliminating by parallel, every form of potential and arbitrary bureaucratic discretion in the relative procedure of concession. They are Italians and so are their children. Maintaining the peace of mind of the enemies of ius soli.

The taking of a position that even if, out of short-sighted instrumentalism, one could label as a turnaround with respect to the purported, traditional non-conditional openness of the Catholic Church, undoubtedly signals a complete change, a positive consequence. In first place because, at least for the moment, it puts an end to the clamorous and in many ways poisonous debate of recent weeks against the actions of the Italian Government orchestrated by certain NGOs. That don’t realise that by continuing to say “no” to the rules established by Italy, in accordance with Europe, on the rescue and transfer activities of in the Mediterranean they risk reducing and belittling the noble ends of their existence to that of a rather transparent syndicate of immigrants.

But above all because Pope Francesco’s word finally shed light on the error of those who, on the right, say “no” to immigration whatever is the case. As well as many on the left, who pull their hair out and shout claims of betrayal against anyone who claims that immigration must be regulated if possible. Particularly to ensure that those “who make it” are not only the queue jumpers but also the weakest and most deserving.

However, not only the EU Judges, have lifted the spirits of the spokesperson of the UNHCR. The conclusions of the Paris summit on migration held on 28 August have also helped. Because “for the first time the most important EU countries (Spain, Germany, France, Italy) sat down around a table to analyse, in a serious and profound manner, solutions for the management of migrants and refugees towards Europe with their African partners”.

The French capital has in fact witnessed decisions that are not only important but without precedent.

That foresee, amongst other things, the involvement of the UNHCR (in collaboration with the IOM) in the management and assistance of asylum seekers in Chad and Niger. Where “we will have a double mission for which the details are still to be negotiated with the European and African governments and institutions. The first: strengthen and implement the system of refugee acceptance in Chad and Niger. This means, for example, that we will verify and ensure that those who are accepted in these countries are guaranteed the standards established by the Convention of Ginevra of 1951. The second: select amongst the refugees already registered in our camps in Nigeria and Chad (as well as in other African countries) a list of particularly vulnerable subject to be re-sited via legal channels, based on a commitment stull to be formalised in EU countries”. This last aspect considered by Carlotta Sami to be “crucial”. For the simple reason that “if we put the brakes on illegal departures we must take responsibility for opening legal channels for the refugees. Based on the refugees that the UNHCR has registered in Western, Eastern and Central Africa, we estimate that our list of most vulnerable people and therefore candidate for re-siting could reach 38,000”.

But which European countries are prepared to accept responsibility?

“The answer will come from the outcome of negotiations started in Paris that are still to be concluded. In the first instance, we are asking for 40,000 placements”.

Who will help out those migrants who live in the Libyan hell on earth?

“We consider Libya to be an insecure country. For those who are in conditions of extreme emergency we are considering the option of activating, as is already the case in Costa Rica and Romania, an Evacuation Transit Mechanism (ETM) that will see the emergency transfer of people at high risk towards Niger: it is an essential protection tool.

In general, our local staff offer assistance, coordinated by Roberto Mignone who has been the new representative of the UNHCR for Libya since June. Assistance to migrants and refugees imprisoned in Libyan detention centres to which we have partial access. To the more than 200,000 homeless people, to those who are intercepted in the sea and disembarked in the country and select possible candidates for re-siting. In this context, it is essential to extend the channels of humanitarian access”.

And how would you respond to the Italians who, for right or wrong, feel threatened by the new arrivals?

“School, training and work even for those requesting asylum that are waiting for an answer to their request for protection. We cannot continue to leave them for months if not for years in a veritable state of limbo that risks turning into a formidable pool of black market labour, if all goes well. Or illegal activity, when things go wrong”.

The European magistrates have rejected the two objections, in terms of method and merit, advanced by the plaintiffs. Let’s look at the reasons behind this.

With respect to method, the governments based in Bratislava and Budapest have considered the judicial basis that the European Council chose to adopt the relocation plan. An observation considered to be unfounded by the EU judges because, as the sentence states, the contested decision was legally taken based on Article 78 of the Treatise on the operation of the European Union. That states, “when one or more member States must address an emergency situation characterised by a sudden influx of citizens from other countries, the Council, upon the proposal of the Commission, can adopt temporary measures to the benefit of the State and the member States concerned”. This was in fact the case.

With respect to merit, Slovakia and Hungary point the finger against relocation as it is not suitable in resolving the refugee emergency of Athens and Rome. The truth of which, in their opinion, is confirmed by the fact that of the 160,000 relocations anticipated, there have been little more than 25,000 to date. A flop, the reaction of the judges that however, does not certify the inefficiency of the measure as it stands. Rather, it shows the complete “lack of cooperation of certain member states” that the EU Council “could not predict”.

The moral of the tale. The EU judges, believe that relocation should be defended and sustained. If it has functioned little and poorly to date, it is the fault of those countries (Hungary, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Poland and Romania) that have opposed it. In the same way, the EU Commissioner for Immigration, Dimitris Avramopoulos states, “if they do not change their approach with respect to relocation we will move forward with the latest step of the infraction procedure, with deferment to the EU Court of Justice”. Sentiments echoed by the President of the European Parliament, Antonio Tajani, who stated “solidarity is not a one-way street; no we need to move ahead with relocations and the infraction procedures”.

All well that ends well? Up until a certain point. Because the much cited 160,000 relocations must be implemented by and not beyond the 25 September. After this date, the relocation mechanism could disappear in the blink of an eye given that the temporary regulation will expire (the EU Council decision of two years ago) that introduced it. Want to bet that who lost the battle today, may just win the war tomorrow.

The first: cancelling the DACA would mean retroactively nullifying a right, in this case to non-deportation, already legally conceded by a President, even if an “enemy”. That convinced more than a million of young students and illegal immigrant workers to come into the open asking to be admitted to the programme by formal request with an application with their name, surname and mobile phone number. Who, however, if Donald decides to put into action that promised at election time, would turn into easy prey of the surge of expulsions threatened daily, and in some cases put into practice, by the new administration.

The second: trigger a new, harsh arm wrestle with the more “illuminated” and modern part of the world of business. Those who, sensing danger, gave the hi-five to a document-manifest by Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook) signed by 384 heads of industry including Jeff Bazos (Amazon) and Tim Cook (Apple). With which, highlighting the fact that 57% of tech workers are born abroad, he deliberately recalled, in the guise of a warning, that touching the DACA would mean dealing with the declared opposition of 18 states, first and foremost New York and Washington. With all the consequences to follow.