In my forthcoming book, Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution, I discuss the threat posed by transnational governance, particularly with regard to the European Union. Now, Italy appears to be rediscovering its national identity in a growing fight with the Strasbourg-based European Court of Justice (ECJ). The court just blocked Italy from enforcing its own immigration laws to combat the flood of undocumented persons in the country. Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has called the ruling an attack on national sovereignty.
The case was brought by two Bangladeshi illegal migrants who were being removed from the country and sent to an asylum processing centre in Albania. The EU member states can only determine safe countries for the return of migrants if they provide evidence and allow for judicial review. It found that the relocations by Italy “do not offer sufficient protection to their entire population.”
Former International Criminal Court magistrate Cuno Tarfusser observed that, under the decision, undocumented persons would merely have to declare themselves as being LGBT or a persecuted religious minority, and their removal would easily be blocked.
Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni said:
“This is a development that should concern everyone – including the political forces that today celebrate the ruling – because it further reduces the already limited margins of autonomy for Governments and Parliaments in shaping the normative and administrative direction of the migration phenomenon. The Court’s decision weakens policies aimed at countering mass illegal immigration and defending national borders.”
I have long been a critic of the EU’s expanding efforts to project its power not just across but outside Europe. That includes threatening American companies that they must comply with EU censorship laws or face confiscatory fines.
Articles 34 and 35 of the infamous Digital Services Act require all sites to identify, assess, and mitigate “systemic risks” posed by content, including any threats to “civic discourse”, “electoral processes,” and “public health.” It is up to the EU to define and judge such categories in terms of compliance.