A controversial decision by a Catania judge has sparked criticism, as it blocks the deportation of an Egyptian migrant, contradicting Italy’s broader strategy to tighten border controls and streamline repatriations. The ruling, which declared Egypt “unsafe,” challenges the government’s efforts to protect national security and enforce immigration laws.
The case involves a 30-year-old Egyptian man who entered Italy illegally, was denied asylum, and was detained for deportation. Judge Rosario Maria Annibale Cupri, however, overruled the detention order, citing claims of widespread human rights abuses in Egypt, including arbitrary arrests, sexual violence, and discrimination. This decision, based on broad allegations rather than the individual’s circumstances, has drawn criticism for undermining Italy’s immigration policies.
Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s government has prioritized cracking down on illegal migration and has classified several nations, including Egypt, as “safe” to expedite deportations. Cupri’s ruling disregards this designation, fueling frustration among government officials who see the judiciary’s stance as an obstacle to enforcing the law.
Undersecretary of the Interior Ministry Nicola Molteni defended the government’s policy, stating, “A country is safe even if it is not safe for some categories.” He expressed confidence that the upcoming ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) would reaffirm the government’s authority to determine repatriation policies, warning that the judiciary’s overreach risks dismantling the tools needed to maintain border security.
Critics argue that Cupri’s decision prioritizes hypothetical risks over the need to uphold Italy’s legal framework. By invoking general claims of persecution, the ruling could set a precedent that makes it nearly impossible to deport individuals, even from countries widely recognized as safe.
The case reflects broader challenges in dealing with nations like Egypt, which complicate deportation processes by refusing to issue replacement passports for migrants. While these diplomatic hurdles are real, many view the judge’s decision as an unnecessary concession that weakens Italy’s ability to address illegal migration effectively.
The Italian government has made significant strides in reducing illegal migration, reporting an 80% drop in arrivals via the Tunisian route and a 58% overall decline in irregular entries. Deportations have also increased by 20%. These achievements, hailed as a step toward restoring order at Italy’s borders, risk being undermined by rulings that favor individual exceptions over national security priorities.
While critics of the government emphasize human rights concerns, opponents of Cupri’s decision argue that such rulings disproportionately favor migrants at the expense of Italy’s sovereignty and safety. Without a consistent and enforceable deportation policy, they warn, Italy may struggle to maintain control over its borders and deter illegal migration.
As the CJEU prepares to issue its verdict, the outcome could either reinforce the government’s authority or embolden judicial interference, with far-reaching implications for Italy’s immigration policy and national security.
