The U.S. and Italy face the same problems related to mass immigration (high costs, poor assimilation, abuse of the asylum system), but Italy is hampered by EU regulations. The shift began with the open-door policy in the U.S. in 1965 and in Italy in the 1990s. Both countries demonstrate that only a policy of strong borders and strict deterrence can reduce immigration flows. Without a reversal of this trend, Italy risks losing its native-born majority by 2085.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
- Central Thesis: The United States and Italy share structural problems related to mass immigration (porous borders, abuse of asylum, high fiscal costs, difficulties with assimilation, and judicial activism), but differ in terms of geography and institutional constraints: the U.S. is fully sovereign, while Italy is subject to the rules and courts of the European Union.
- United States – Causes and Consequences of Post-1965 Change: The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 replaced the merit-based system with family reunification (“chain migration”), causing the share of foreign-born residents to triple (from 5.4% to 15.8%) and resulting in a dominant influx from the Global South. This has resulted in high net costs for taxpayers (at least $151 billion per year), high welfare dependency among immigrant families, and a crime rate among undocumented immigrants that is significantly higher than that of native-born citizens.
- United States – mechanisms attracting illegal immigration: Amnesties (1986), humanitarian parole programs, ius soli, massive backlogs in asylum courts, and initially porous borders have created powerful incentives. Enforcement policies (especially under Trump) demonstrate that migration flows respond rapidly to effective deterrents, while activist judges represent the main domestic obstacle.
- Italy – Transition from a country of emigration to a country of immigration: Until the 1990s, Italy was a country of emigration; mass non-EU arrivals began with Albanian and then North African landings. The abolition of the geographic reservation (1990) and the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights (2012) prevented pushbacks at sea, transforming asylum into a primary route of entry for economic migrants.
- Italy – European constraints and current dynamics: Italy is bound by EU directives and ECHR/CJEU rulings that severely restrict expulsions, detentions, and returns. Despite the Meloni government’s efforts (an agreement with Tunisia, centers in Albania, and a reduction in arrivals by sea), migration flows remain high (approximately 65,000–70,000 annual landings + family reunifications + quota-based admissions). Demographic projections indicate that, without a change in course, the native population will lose its absolute majority by around 2085.
- Common challenges and policy implications: Both countries suffer from judicial activism that hinders the executive branch, radical ideological opposition, and a distorted use of asylum and welfare systems. Trump’s experiences (during his second term) and Meloni’s efforts demonstrate that political will and the rigorous enforcement of laws are crucial for reducing migration flows. The most effective common solutions involve strengthening borders, closing loopholes in asylum and family reunification, restricting access to welfare, and reforming the judicial system to reduce activist interference.