Cities of Exclusion: Are Local Authorities Refusing Asylum Seekers?

  • Chiara Marchetti
Part of the Migration, Diasporas and Citizenship book series (MDC)


The chapter examines the public discourse and the administrative acts carried out by local institutions in front of the arrival of asylum seekers in their territories, with a specific attention to what happened since 2016, when a national allocation plan required all 8000 Italian municipalities to do their part. The different sets of arguments raised in refusing asylum seekers have been clustered in six different categories: Nationalistic arguments; securitarian arguments; assumptive arguments; utilitarian arguments; bureaucratic arguments; and paternalistic arguments. The widespread effect is to turn asylum and reception into a key political issue, even more sensitive at a local level, since it can easily be connected to personal safety and security of local citizens.


  1. Ager, Alistair, and Alison Strang. 2008. “Understanding Integration: A Conceptual Framework.” Journal of Refugee Studies 21 (2): 166–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allievi, Stefano. 2010. La guerra delle moschee. L’Europa e la sfida del pluralismo religioso. Venezia: Marsilio.Google Scholar
  3. Ambrosini, Maurizio. 2013. “Immigration in Italy: Between Economic Acceptance and Political Rejection.” Journal of International Migration and Integration 14 (1): 175–194.Google Scholar
  4. Andersson, Ruben. 2016. “Europe’s Failed ‘Fight’ against Irregular Migration: Ethnographic Notes on a Counterproductive Industry.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 42 (7): 1055–1075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Armillei, Riccardo. 2017. “Boat Arrivals and the ‘Threat’ to Italian National Security: Between a “Moral Panic” Approach and the EU’s Failure to Create a Cohesive Asylum-Seeking Policy.” Journal of Applied Security Research 12 (1): 141–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Avdan, Nazli. 2014. “Do Asylum Recognition Rates in Europe Respond to Transnational Terrorism? The Migration-Security Nexus Revisited.” European Union Politics 15 (4): 445–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Benard, Chester. 1986. “Politics and the Refugee Experience.” Political Science Quarterly 101 (4): 617–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Camera dei Deputati. 2017. Commissione parlamentare di inchiesta sul sistema di accoglienza, di identificazione ed espulsione, nonché sulle condizioni di trattenimento dei migranti e sulle risorse pubbliche impegnate. Doc. XXII-bis, no. 21.Google Scholar
  9. Campesi, Giuseppe. 2011. “The Arab Spring and the Crisis of the European Border Regime: Manufacturing Emergency in the Lampedusa Crisis.” EUI Working Paper. RSCAS 2011/59 Mediterranean Programme.
  10. Castelli Gattinara, Pietro. 2017. “Mobilizing against the Invasion: Far Right Protest and the Refugee Crisis in Italy.” Mondi Migranti 3: 75–95.Google Scholar
  11. Catarci, Marco. 2011. L’integrazione dei rifugiati. Formazione e inclusione nelle rappresentazioni degli operatori sociali. Milano: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
  12. Chebel d’Appollonia, Ariane. 2012. Frontiers of Fear: Immigration and Insecurity in the United States. New York: Cornell University press.Google Scholar
  13. Dal Zotto, Emanuela. 2014. “Frame dell’emergenza e migrazioni forzate. Il caso dell’Emergenza Nord Africa”. In Media e migrazioni. Etica, estetica e politica del discorso umanitari, edited by Pierluigi Musarò and Paola Parmiggiani, 125–137. Milano: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
  14. Fondazione Moressa. 2018. Rapporto 2018 sull’economia dell’immigrazione. Prospettive di integrazione in un’Italia che invecchia. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
  15. Fontanari, Elena, and Giulia Borri. 2017. “Introduction: Civil Society on the Edge: Actions in Support and against Refugees in Italy and Germany.” Mondi Migranti (3): 23–51.Google Scholar
  16. Every, Danielle, and Martha Augoustinos. 2007. “Constructions of Racism in the Australian Parliamentary Debates on Asylum Seekers.” Discourse and Society 18 (4): 411–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gabrielatos, Costas, and Paul Baker. 2008. “Fleeing, Sneaking, Flooding. A Corpus Analysis of Discursive Constructions of Refugees and Asylum Seekers in the UK Press, 1996–2005.” Journal of English Linguistics 36 (5): 5–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Giovannetti, Monia, ed. 2013. L’infinita emergenza. Roma: Cittalia/ANCI.Google Scholar
  19. Hardy, Cynthia, and Nelson Phillips. 1999. “No Joking Matter: Discursive Struggle in the Canadian Refugee System.” Organization Studies 20 (1): 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hirschman, Albert. 1970. Exit, Voice, and Loyalty. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Huysmans, Jef. 2006. The Politics of Insecurity: Fear, Migration and Asylum in the EU. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Kaya, Ayhan. 2009. Islam, Migration and Integration: The Age of Securitization. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  23. Lazaridis, Gabriella, ed. 2011. Security, Insecurity and Migration in Europe. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Lunaria, ed. 2017. Accoglienza. La propaganda e le proteste del rifiuto, le scelte istituzionali sbagliate. Focus no. 1, March.
  25. Lynn, Nick, and Susan Lea. 2003. “‘A Phantom Menace and the New Apartheid’: The Social Construction of Asylum-Seekers in the United Kingdom.” Discourse & Society 14 (4): 425–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Malkki, Liisa. 1996. “Speechless Emissaries: Refugees, Humanitarianism, and Dehistoricization.” Cultural Anthropology 11 (3): 377–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Marchetti, Chiara. 2011. Assistiti o segregati? I grandi centri per richiedenti asilo in Italia.” La società degli individui 41: 57–70.Google Scholar
  28. Marchetti, Chiara, and Andrea Molteni. 2013. “La ragione securitaria.” In La ragione politica. 2. I discorsi delle politiche, edited by Vando Borghi, Ota de Leonardis, and Giovanna Procacci, 47–81. Napoli: Liguori.Google Scholar
  29. Moroni, Stefano, and Francesco Chiodelli. 2014. “Municipal Regulations and the Use of Public Space: Local Ordinances in Italy.” City, Territory and Architecture: An Interdisciplinary Debate on Project Perspectives 1 (11): 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. MSF. 2016. Fuoricampo. Richiedenti asilo e rifugiati in Italia: insediamenti informali e marginalità sociale. Available in Italian at:
  31. MSF. 2018. Fuoricampo. Insediamenti informali: marginalità sociale, ostacoli all’accesso alle cure e ai beni essenziali per migranti e rifugiati. Available in Italian at:
  32. Nyers, Peter. 2006. Rethinking Refugees: Beyond State of Emergency. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. O’Doherty, Kieran, and Martha Augoustinos. 2008. “Protecting the Nation: Nationalist Rhetoric on Asylum Seekers and the Tampa.Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 18: 576–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pedersen, Anne, Susan Watt, and Susan Hansen. 2006. “The Role of False Beliefs in the Community’s and the Federal Government’s Attitudes Toward Australian Asylum Seekers.” Australian Journal of Social Issues 41 (1): 105–124.Google Scholar
  35. Tazzioli, Martina, Glenda Garelli, and Nicholas De Genova. 2018. “Autonomy of Asylum? The Autonomy of Migration Undoing the Refugee Crisis Script.” South Atlantic Quarterly 117 (2): 239–265.Google Scholar
  36. Waever, Ole, Barry Buzan, Morten Kelstrup, and Pierre Lemaitre. 1993. Identity, Migration and the New Security Agenda in Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  37. Zamponi, Lorenzo. 2017. “Practices of Solidarity: Direct Social Action, Politicisation and Refugee Solidarity Activism in Italy.” Mondi Migranti 3: 97–117.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chiara Marchetti
    • 1
  1. 1.University of MilanMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations