The FILEF network in Europe from its foundation to the early 1970s

The FILEF was founded in Rome in 1967 at the behest of Carlo Levi, Paolo Cinanni and other politicians – deputies, trade unionists and intellectuals with a socialist, communist and liberal-democratic background (Breitenbach Reference Breitenbach1982, 114; De Donato and D'Amaro Reference De Donato and D'Amaro2005, 309; Prontera Reference Prontera, Baumeister, Bonomo and Schott2017, 159 and Reference Prontera, Eymond and Heusler2018, 38; Caruso Reference Caruso2019, 241–2; Battiston Reference Battiston2012, 22–3; Marin Reference Marin, Mascitelli, Mycak and Papalia2016, 72). The initiative was the result of a series of analyses and reflections on Italian emigration and its social, political and economic consequences, which both Levi and Cinanni had already formulated in the months preceding the foundation itself.Footnote ⁴ Far from considering the flow of young Italian labourers to northern European countries as a rebalancing element or an effective resolution for Italy's economic growth after the Second World War, Levi and Cinanni defined emigration flows as a ‘forced exodus’. This resulted, particularly in southern Italy, in impoverishment and a depletion of human resources in favour of a ‘zero cost enrichment’ of the countries of immigration (Ricci Reference Ricci2016; Spatolisano Reference Spatolisano2012). This rigorous Marxist interpretation of the national and international migration phenomenon therefore saw the flows of labour as a consubstantial part of the Western capitalist and ‘imperialist’ political and economic system, in which the ‘strong’ economies operated a process of colonisation and exploitation. In order to counter this process – this, in essence, is the basic and main idea – Italian workers who emigrated abroad, together with their families who remained in Italy, should show solidarity with the international democratic movement and form a real ‘unity’ of programmes and intentions.Footnote ⁵

On this theoretical basis, the FILEF organised its first National Assembly, which was held on 21 December 1967 at the Teatro Centrale in Rome.Footnote ⁶ In an inspiring opening speech, Levi recalled the motivations behind the birth of a new democratic organisation, which was intended not only to be of mere assistance ‘for migrants’, but had to be ‘made of migrants’. In other words, it should become a new ‘democratic organism’, within which workers outside Italy and their families at home could participate directly in the decision-making processes, becoming – to all intents and purposes – the real ‘protagonists’ of the migratory processes and dynamics on national and international level.Footnote ⁷ The constitutive assembly in Rome was attended by several delegations of migrant workers’ associations, including the delegation of the FCLIS (Federation of the Free Italian Colonies) from Switzerland, the association ‘Leonardo Da Vinci’ of Seraing/Liege (Belgium), AFI (Amicale Franco-Italienne) and the Italian-Belgian Friendship of Limburg, together with representatives of the Italian-Belgian cultural and recreational associations of Borinage and Charleroi. In addition to these associations, as mentioned in an article in L'Unità of 29 December 1967, there were also numerous ordinary Italian workers (mainly workers from Belgian and German steel and metallurgical industries), representatives of the CGIL (Confederazione Generale Italiana del Lavoro), representatives of INCA (Istituto Nazionale Confederazione di Assistenza) and other democratic associations, including UDI (Union of Italian Women).Footnote ⁸ The participation of these delegations demonstrates, on the one hand, the openness of the Federation – already at the very beginning of its existence – to the actors of civil society and of the labour movement. On the other hand, it is evidence of the existence of connections and networks of inter-personal relationships and contacts, which pre-existed at the very foundation of the FILEF and operated in a network connected with the PCI and, more generally, with the world of migrant associations, in particular in the Benelux countries, Switzerland and Germany.Footnote ⁹

The publication of the official bulletin of the Federation, simply called Emigrazione, began in November 1968.Footnote ¹⁰ The magazine, distributed on the basis of monthly subscription within the clubs and member associations, was intended to be a ‘permanent instrument’ that could give ‘voice’ to Italian emigrants and become a place of ‘autonomous expression’ of their problems and the injustices they were suffering at their workplace and in their social lives.Footnote ¹¹ Only two years later the FILEF was already organising its second national conference, held in Rome at the Teatro Capranica.Footnote ¹² Similarly to what had happened two years earlier, there was a large participation of diverse Italian migrants’ associations, politicians and trade unionists.Footnote ¹³ The main result of the second assembly was to define, in a more precise way, the programmatic objectives and the reforms to be realised both in Italy and abroad. Among the various and numerous points that can be deduced from analysis of the documents, there were above all the reform of the European social fund for professional qualification; the teaching of Italian language and culture to the entire community of emigrants in public schools; the reform of assistance and welfare and the respect of employment contracts; a social housing programme in favour of Italians returning after their period of work abroad; and the recognition of the autonomous representations of emigrants at embassies and consulates, as well as a greater propensity for the recognition of associations as instruments of socialisation, participation and protection of emigrant workers.Footnote ¹⁴ These points essentially constituted the backbone of the political and congressional activity of the FILEF throughout the 1970s.

The definition of the action programmes mentioned above, the implementation of projects at local and national level, were the result both of the decisions taken in Rome by the FILEF presidency – which followed precise political action strategies – and of a coordination of ideas and know-how which took place within the FILEF network in Italy and abroad. This happened on the one hand through collaboration with the Italian regions, which, starting from 1970, obtained greater constitutional autonomy and competence in the field of emigration and immigration (Colucci and Sanfilippo Reference Colucci and Sanfilippo2010, 28; Tintori Reference Tintori, Ben-Ghiat and Hom2016, 115), on the other hand, through working groups, round tables and meetings with representatives of political parties (in particular the PCI), the welfare network (INCA/CGIL), the ACLI (Christian Associations of Italian Workers) and the (newly established) associations of migrant workers with a regional basis, such as the USEF (Sicilian Union of Emigrants and Families) and especially the ALEF (Association of Friulian Emigrant Workers).Footnote ¹⁵ Outside Italy, from 1971–4, there were an increasing number of memberships of pre-existing Italian local associations, cultural and recreational clubs, which gradually became part of the FILEF network. As far as Belgium is concerned, the FILEF activity was immediately linked to that of the important non-profit association ‘Leonardo Da Vinci’, active since the 1960s in the area of Seraing/Liège (Caruso Reference Caruso2019, 340; Carta Reference Carta2011, 250; Canovi Reference Canovi2011, 12). In France the diffusion of the Italian regional associations took place in the Lorraine area, in the north of Pas-de-Calais, and in Paris and Lyon, and took shape in the so-called ‘Amicale Franco-Italienne’, which gradually joined the FILEF (Palidda Reference Palidda2005). In the Federal Republic of Germany, in the first half of the 1970s, the ‘Circolo Rinascita’ in Munich (Prontera Reference Prontera, Baumeister, Bonomo and Schott2017, 158; Reference Prontera, Eymond and Heusler2018, 34–41), the ‘Circolo ARCES’ in Stuttgart (Lotterer Reference Lotterer, Deigendesch and Müller2014), the “Circolo Di Vittorio” in Frankfurt am Main (Schöneberg Reference Schoeneberg1993) joined the FILEF. In addition, following the first German FILEF congress held in Frankfurt in March 1970, the FILEF-Germany headquarters was established in Cologne.Footnote ¹⁶ At the same time, the FILEF co-organised significant international conferences during the 1970s. The first one was held in Amsterdam from 22 to 26 August 1971 on the initiative of the Anne Frank Foundation as part of the initiatives promoted by the UN, which had proclaimed 1971 the International Year against Racial Discrimination.Footnote ¹⁷ The second was held in Wageningen (22–24 November 1974)Footnote ¹⁸ and the third in Turin from 28 to 29 May 1977.Footnote ¹⁹

The FILEF ‘White Paper’: the proposal for an ‘International Statute on the Rights of Migrant Workers’

The above-mentioned transnational network constituted the socio-political space in which the debate on the issue of the human rights of migrant workers developed during the 1970s. This topic was a fundamental part of the statutory and programmatic aims of the FILEF.Footnote ²⁰ From 1968 onwards, also as a consequence of the increasing diffusion of the official bulletin Emigrazione among Italian communities abroad, the social, political and civil rights of workers occupied an increasing space, especially in the meetings of local Italian migrants’ associations. These associations began to send the first reports of abuse, injustice and discrimination against Italian workers to the FILEF presidency in Rome. In the majority of the cases, these were letters of complaint, petitions and reports from Italian workers, especially those employed in the large metallurgic, steel and automotive industries in the Federal Republic of Germany. The actual dossiers, which were then published in the bulletin, highlighted both the poor hygienic and sanitary conditions of the so-called ‘Baracken’ (the lodgings made available for the guest-workers by German companies) and the various forms of marginalisation, discrimination, ghettoisation and social confinement (‘Unterschichtung’), including episodes of real racism against Italian workers (Kammerer Reference Kammerer, Ostow and Fijalkowski1991 and Reference Kammerer2005; Richter and Richter Reference Richter and Richter2012, 45–59; Zölls Reference Zölls2019, 101–04; Pugliese Reference Pugliese, Carchedi and Pugliese2006). This issue immediately became the centre of the political initiatives of the FILEF presidency. Already in 1969, in fact, Carlo Levi had started a parliamentary question to the Senate of the Republic in Rome (Battiston Reference Battiston2012, 21).Footnote ²¹ It was a proposal to launch a parliamentary inquiry with two main aims: to analyse more closely the serious problems mentioned above, and to intervene more decisively in the composition of the Committee of Italians Abroad, which the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs had formed in the preceding years in order to support the Italian communities abroad.Footnote ²²

At the same time, in 1970, the FILEF began to write a draft petition to be submitted to the European Parliament (hereafter EP) and the Commission of the European Economic Communities (hereafter Commission), to which a proposal for a ‘Statute on the rights of migrant workers’ was attached.Footnote ²³ The so-called ‘White Paper’ on the condition of migrant workers in the Community area was presented for the first time on 23 November 1970 at the EP in Luxembourg. The proposal was submitted in the form of a petition (n. 4/70) with the subject ‘Improvement of the situation of Italian emigrants in the Community and adoption of a European statute for emigrant workers’ and was signed by Gaetano Volpe and Paolo Cinanni, both members of the FILEF presidency.Footnote ²⁴ The ‘White Paper’ is divided into several parts. The first part summarises the general characteristics and problems of economic migration in Europe. The second part, more specifically, deals with the living and working conditions of migrant workers: the workplace, social life, vocational training, relations with the native society and the authorities. This part also lists many of the direct witness accounts of Italian workers abroad and some of the complaint files collected by the FILEF in the previous months. The third part sets out the measures to be taken to ensure broader equality of treatment and greater participation of Italian migrants in the societies of arrival, as well as proposals to end the so-called ‘exodus of labour’ from Italy. In a fourth and final part, several social security problems related to the migration phenomenon are listed.Footnote ²⁵

The fundamental part of the ‘White Paper’ was actually the analysis of Regulation (EEC) No. 1612/68 of the European Council of 15 October 1968 on the freedom of movement for workers within the Community area.Footnote ²⁶ The criticism that the FILEF levelled at the Regulation was not against its substance, since large parts of the Regulation formally guaranteed equal rights to work, wages and social security treatment for domestic and foreign workers in the EEC. For the FILEF the problem was that these principles were in reality not fully respected by the countries of immigration, since ‘national or regional legislation’ prevailed over them.Footnote ²⁷ In other words: while the Regulation guaranteed the principles of freedom of movement of labour in the EEC, it did not, however – according to the FILEF – provide the necessary legislative instruments that could remove the obstacles to the effective improvement of workers’ conditions. For the FILEF, the free movement of labour was not to be understood only in the sense of offering workers new economic opportunities in the EEC area. It was also supposed to provide for new, efficient actions to equalise social and welfare treatment for immigrant workers, to facilitate finding accommodation and, above all, to guarantee the exercise of civil and political rights. These requests were summarised in six points: 1) the modification of the EEC's regulation on the free movement of workers; 2) the extension of the measures on schooling to all the children of emigrant workers; 3) the effective reform and adjustment of the European Social Fund; 4) the extension of the rights and structures of participation of emigrants; 5) the adoption of an Italian regulation and an international statute for the rights of migrant workers; 6) the unification and improvement of legislation on social security.Footnote ²⁸ In the view of the FILEF the realisation of these points could only be achieved through a full participation of migrant workers in the decision-making processes regarding migration. Such participation was to be considered not only in terms of voting rights, but also as a greater participation by migrant workers in municipal and regional forms of associations (e.g. through the opening of membership in cultural circles, trade unions and political parties).Footnote ²⁹

According to the FILEF, a substantial modification of the Community regulation was therefore necessary. It had to be realised through the separation of the European regulations regarding the modalities of recruitment of foreign labour in the EEC from the normative apparatuses that aimed to regulate and facilitate the life of migrant workers in the arrival societies. The FILEF proposed, in short, a European and international legislation that was meant to have ‘power of law’ in all EEC countries and be valid for ‘all migrant workers’ living in the European Community. The intention of the FILEF was to eliminate the differentiation between ‘Community workers’ and ‘non-Community workers’ in the 1968 Regulation:

On the basis of the documents submitted, the reasons given and the urgency with which the petition was submitted, the EP began an initial internal discussion as early as 19 January 1971, instructing the Social and Health Committee to carry out further investigation and verification on the discriminatory and exploitative cases brought up in the FILEF's petitions and reports. Once a rapporteur had been appointed by the EP in the person of Alfred Califice, the Committee organised a meeting in Rome at the end of April 1971 with representatives of the FILEF and other national Italian workers’ organisations, including ACLI, UNAIE (National Union of Immigrant and Emigrant Associations), the catholic UCEI (Central Office for Italian Emigration), as well as some observers and representatives of Italian trade unions (especially the CGIL, Italian General Confederation of Labour).Footnote ³¹

At the meeting in Rome, which was attended by other members of the European Commission (including Albert Coppè), the secretary of the FILEF, Gaetano Volpe, summarised the main proposals of the ‘Statute’, insisting particularly on two points: the improvement of the EEC Regulation to ensure effective equality of treatment between EEC and non-EEC workers by unifying and improving social security legislation and by extending the participation possibilities for migrants, especially the right to vote and the right of association.Footnote ³² Both these points were basically supported by the representatives of the European Commission present at the meeting. In fact, during the discussion they made explicit mention of an important document written by the Commission and entitled ‘Preliminary guidelines for a Community social policy programme’. It had been developed at the beginning of the year and already submitted for validation by the EP.Footnote ³³ In this document, the Commission listed the measures needed to improve the European policy on migrant workers, which urgently needed to be adapted to cope with the changing patterns of European migration. At the beginning of the 1970s, in fact, the flows of EU workers within the EEC area were clearly decreasing, while the arrivals of migrant workers from so-called ‘third countries’ (i.e. European countries which were not part of the EEC and non-European countries such as Turkey or North African countries) were increasing. According to the Commission this evolution of the immigration dynamics in the EEC area entailed a series of ‘new’ problems for the EEC institutions and their migration governance. The arrival of labourers from non-EEC countries, whose habits, customs and traditions were very distant and different from those of Europe, could increase the difficulties of adaptation in the societies of arrival and, consequently, the risk of social conflicts with the local workers.Footnote ³⁴ The Commission declared itself ready to monitor the application of the rules with regard to the movement of workers (especially those from the ‘third countries’).Footnote ³⁵

Paolo Cinanni also referred to this same document in an article in the FILEF bulletin Emigrazione published in June. While positively assessing the Commission's efforts, he nevertheless still saw in the document a ‘dangerous discrimination’ between EEC and non-EEC labourers:

Behind this line of argumentation we recognise, in fact, not only a clear willingness to overcome the 1968 Regulation through the elimination of any legal and socio-economic differentiation between national and migrant manpower, but also the overcoming of the criterion of ‘nationality’ as a legislative, normative and governmental reference point to manage the circulation of labour within the EEC countries. The following passage helps us to better understand Cinanni's view:

After the first months of public debate, the FILEF proposal was finally discussed by the EP at its sitting of 21 September 1971. The speeches of the Members of the EP (hereafter MEPs) show, on the one hand, almost unanimous support for an initiative which was indeed considered a step forward in the European and international debate on the living and working conditions for many migrants in Europe.Footnote ³⁸ On the other hand, however, the basic dilemma of the proposal became evident. This was connected to the jurisdictional form to be given to an international Statute, which – at least in its theoretical formulations – clashed with Community regulations. It was Alfred Coppè, the European Commissioner for Jobs and Social Rights, who had already attended the meetings in Rome, who underlined this difficulty. On the one side, he pointed out, the Commission was trying to find a solution in order to achieve ‘equal treatment for all migrant workers, whether they belong to the Community or to third countries’. On the other side, he stressed that this would be done accordingly with the so-called ‘Community preferential clause’ foreseen in the 1968 Regulation, which already provided a series of protections concerning not only the modalities of recruiting, but also social protection and the defence of civil rights.Footnote ³⁹ Coppè firmly reiterates that this part of the Regulation would not be called into question.Footnote ⁴⁰ Taking into account this ‘preferential clause’, Coppè gave an assurance, however, that the Commission would proceed in two ways. First, it would commission empirical studies to shed light on the complaints brought forward by the FILEF, and second it would cooperate directly with migrants’ associations, especially with the ‘Italian migrant workers’, to solve ‘all the issues of concern to them’. On these conclusions and partial promises guaranteed by the Commission, the motion for a resolution was adopted by the EP.Footnote ⁴¹ In the following months the Commission asked a professor at the University of Louvain (Belgium) to draw up a socio-scientific study on the condition of migrant workers in the Community area. However, this study was not followed by other significant initiatives of the Commission and the issue was temporarily shelved.Footnote ⁴²

The matter would have to wait until May 1973 before it was taken up and brought to attention again. The FILEF – after a lively conference period both in Italy and in the West European countries of immigrationFootnote ⁴³ – presented (for the second time) a petition for an international Statute of migrant workers’ rights to the EP. Concurrently, one year later, the UNAIE also presented a petition to the EP which contained a very similar proposal for a ‘European’, not ‘international’, statute of rights for migrant workers.Footnote ⁴⁴

The petition was analysed in March 1974 by the European Committee on Social Affairs and Employment and a very detailed report was written by Egbert Wieldraaijer (European Socialist Group).Footnote ⁴⁵ In addition to stressing, in a very critical way, the delays of the Commission with regard to a topic considered of central importance for European politics, Wieldraaijer indicated the proposal for an ‘international’ statute by the FILEF as the resolution to be preferred over the UNAIE proposal. Even if the latter would have had fewer legal obstacles because of its similarity to the existing EEC Regulation, there was no doubt for him that a Charter of migrant workers’ rights ‘should be drawn up as soon as possible to protect all foreign workers, regardless of their nationality’. His arguments were basically fourfold. First of all, he recalled that the emigration of the labour force from EEC countries (such as Italy) was progressively decreasing, while the number of non-Community workers entering the EEC was growing. Secondly, Community emigrants were already protected, at least in part, by the 1968 Regulation, especially regarding social security and civil rights. Thirdly, the integration of Community migrant workers was ‘relatively easier’ than that of workers of Turkish or North African origin, who were facing often insurmountable barriers of language, customs and religion. Finally, according to Wildraaijer, it was ‘unfair to create further discrimination between EEC workers and workers from third countries’.Footnote ⁴⁶ The second motion for a resolution was therefore discussed and approved by the EP at its sitting on 12 June 1974.Footnote ⁴⁷

In the following months, the FILEF intensified its efforts to take forward the Charter proposal. In particular, there was a unity of intent and a close collaboration between the three main Italian migrant organisations (FILEF, ACLI and UNAIE) and a series of meetings and appointments that sealed this alliance. The first important occasion to demonstrate this ‘unity of intent’ around the FILEF proposal was the European Congress of Italian Emigration, held in Brussels from 22 to 24 July 1974.Footnote ⁴⁸ The congress was attended by more than 27 representatives of Italian organisations, including mainly ACLI, UNAIE and ALEF, but also trade unions and various Italian political parties. The meeting was also attended by Luigi Girardin, member of the Committee on Social Affairs and Employment of the EP. In his speech, he emphasised the efforts of the European Commission, which was working on the definition of a ‘Statute’ for the rights of the emigrant ‘following the presentation of proposals made by the two main organisations of emigrants in the European ambit, the FILEF and the UNAIE’. According to Girardin, the Committee on Social Affairs and Employment was already working on a Report regarding the Social Action Programme submitted by the Commission to the European Council (Doc. 216/73) in which a large part of the programme was dedicated to the measures to be taken for a real improvement of the working and living conditions for ‘all migrant workers’ and their families, combined with a community action programme and a coordination of the immigration policies of the member states with regard to third countries.Footnote ⁴⁹ Furthermore, Girardin recalled that, similarly to what had happened two years earlier (the first meeting in Rome), a further meeting between representatives of the European institutions and those from the Italian associations would be held in Rome as early as October 1974 in order to come to a unanimous decision regarding the juridical form to be given to the ‘Statute’. In this sense he invited the organisations to clarify whether the Charter should be defined in an ‘international’ way or be valid only for EEC workers.Footnote ⁵⁰

The official response by the FILEF was not long in coming. In his speech at the second congress on international migration, held in Wageningen in 1974, Cinanni firmly reiterated the importance of an international Statute that would guarantee the rights ‘to all workers’ and could serve as an instrument of legal protection for migrant workers and as a basis for common international policies for trade unions and the working class in the defence of labour rights. Cinanni's argumentation followed the same lines that Wieldraaijer had pursued in his report in March 1974:

The FILEF's position became more precise during the meeting between the EEC representatives, the Italian government and trade unions and migrants’ organisations, already announced by Luigi Girardin in the July Assembly and held in Rome in October 1974 in the Chamber of Deputies.Footnote ⁵² In the discussion, the FILEF firmly returned to the issue of discrimination in European regulations and the differentiation between EEC and non-EEC labourers, stressing that the lack of satisfactory European migration policies was linked to ‘structural deficiencies and legislative gaps’ related to a European political system which considered only economic interests to be of primary importance, without looking at rights of migrant workers and the rights of the weakest:

As we can see, the FILEF strongly reaffirmed its preference for an ‘international Statute’ for migrant workers and called on the EC Commission to act accordingly.Footnote ⁵⁴ The intense season of debates, conventions, congresses and conferences, which – as we have seen – developed throughout the summer and autumn of 1974, did not take long to bear fruit. At the end of the year, in fact, the Commission confirmed its intention to implement action programmes in favour of migrant workers and their families. A Commission information memo (P-85/74) lists two major goals. First, to ensure equal treatment of Community and non-Community labourers (especially regarding the payment of family allowances for children who remained in the country of origin). Second, to assure a series of measures to be realised ‘by 1980’ which would improve the political rights at municipal level by the setting up of a system of consultative organisations which could ensure a voice for migrants’ decisions taken at local level. In this sense, the Commission envisaged a very precise plan and several measures. They included, for Community nationals, the introduction of a uniform system for the payment of family benefits, which was to be gradually extended to third-country nationals. At the same time, the Commission also planned to introduce vocational training and language courses and implement social services for migrants through a housing financing scheme.Footnote ⁵⁵

After this – at least initial and partial – acknowledgement by the Commission to adopt appropriate measures to overcome the discrimination and injustice suffered by migrant workers at Community level, the FILEF began, in the following years, to strengthen the partnership formed with other organisations of Italian migrants abroad. This led to the First National Conference on Emigration, held in Rome in March 1975,Footnote ⁵⁶ and to the third international congress on migration, co-organised by the FILEF and held in Turin in 1977.Footnote ⁵⁷ The main result of the latter was the creation of an International Committee for Migration in Europe. One of the objectives of the Committee was to carry out a ‘democratic action’ involving not only ethnic organisations of immigrant workers and local trade unions, but also collaborating directly with the European institutions, taking part in the decision-making processes related to the EEC migration policy. This is how Paolo Cinanni, elected chairman of the Committee, expressed himself at the end of the congress proceedings:

The Committee, made up of representatives of large international ‘umbrella’ migrant organisations, met every six months at the EEC institutions in Brussels and Luxembourg and over the following two years from 1977 to 1979 developed a very concrete programme of action concerning the granting of ‘European citizenship’ rights also to EEC and non-EEC workers (who had been permanently resident in one of the EEC countries for at least two years). The Committee also worked on the project for the adoption of a European law for the right to vote for local authorities for all residents, including immigrant workers and their families. At the end of 1979 the activities of the European Committee on Emigration led, for the third (and last) time, to the submission of a proposal for a FILEF Statute to the EP.Footnote ⁵⁹ In November, Paolo Cinanni wrote directly to the President of the EP, Simone Veil. In his letter Cinanni called on the EP to take up the question of the international Statute and, at the same time, to include representatives of the European Emigration Committee in the social European institutions, to provide them with a seat in the secretariat and also with a ‘financial contribution for the very functioning of the Committee’. Indeed, on 13 November, Veil agreed to meet the representatives of the Committee. Two days later, on 15 November, the motion for a resolution was submitted to the EP.Footnote ⁶⁰

Unlike the first two petitions, there was no discussion in the EP in this case, because in the same year two other petitions – on a very similar subject and presented by the two major parliamentary groups (Christian Democrats and Socialists) – were discussed and voted on.Footnote ⁶¹ The greater interest of a growing number of MEPs in the matter regarding the rights of migrants, as well as the fact that this time it was not an external non-governmental organisation that tabled motions for resolutions, but MEPs themselves, led to a certain acceleration of the decision-making process in the European institutions in Luxemburg and Brussels. Two important documents are evidence of this trend, a consultation held in 1979 and a dossier of 1980. In both documents, the Commission was clearly required to ensure the free movement of Community migrant workers, to stimulate the coordination of national policies on migrants from third countries, to promote the abolition of discrimination in the workplace and to adopt specific social and educational measures for all migrant workers in the EEC area, regardless of their country of origin (Gilardoni, D'Odorico and Carrillo Reference Gilardoni, D'Odorico and Carrillo2015, 29). Finally, in 1981 the Committee also accepted some of the proposals contained in the two petitions mentioned above, recognising the juridical and legal practicability of overcoming excessive distinctions and differentiation between EEC and non-EEC workers, especially regarding social and civil rights.Footnote ⁶² In the ‘Report drawn up on behalf of the Committee on Social Affairs and Employment on the problem of migrant workers’, reference was made above all to the possibility of drawing up specific and differentiated texts on the ‘rights of EU migrant workers’. At the same time, the report recognises that it was necessary to envisage a gradual incorporation of ‘non-EEC migrants with regard to certain portions of rights and duties’. The measures would therefore explicitly ensure the extension of the rights ‘laid down in Regulation 1612/68 and the subsequent amendments and additions to it, in respect of the free movement of workers from third countries, following a specified period of legal residence in a Member State’.Footnote ⁶³

Although the Committee on Legal Affairs did not directly refer to the proposals of the FILEF and the ‘White Paper’, the Italian Federation interpreted these decisions as a significant recognition of the efforts made in the 1970s and as a ‘great achievement’, particularly with regard to equality between workers from EEC and non-EEC countries, which had been the most problematic legal issue for a whole decade.Footnote ⁶⁴ For the FILEF the recognition of this achievement and the openness of the EP towards a progressive legal equalisation of all migrant workers present in the Community, without considering their origin, represented a decisive step forward towards the construction of a fairer, more equitable and solidarity-based Europe, in which migrants were considered no longer as second-class citizens but as an integral part of European civil society. During the 1980s, the FILEF did not officially submit any other petition. However, the Federation continued to play a central role in the European debate about migrant workers’ rights, on the one hand through close cooperation and common projects with single MEPsFootnote ⁶⁵ and on the other, continuing its role as coordinator within the transnational network of migrants’ organisations. It became increasingly active in international and European Committees and, since the mid-1980s, increasingly involved in the management of ‘second generation’ migration issues, such as assistance for political asylum seekers and war refugees, schooling problems for first generation migrants’ children, and family reunions (Ireland Reference Ireland1991, 477–8). In Italy, too, throughout the second half of the 1980s and the early 1990s the FILEF was involved in integration and inclusion projects for foreigners in Italy, a growing challenge for both national and regional policies (Pugliese Reference Pugliese, Cesarani and Fulbrook1996 and Reference Pugliese2000; Bonifazi Reference Bonifazi2005, 31). At the same time, the FILEF was also affected, like other Italian ‘national’ migrants’ organisations, by the profound transformation that affected the world of Italian migrant associations. A change linked to the democratisation processes within the Italian consular network, started with the founding of the official Committees of Italians Abroad (COMITES) in the mid-1980s and continued with the formation of the General Council of Italians Abroad (CGIE), a consequence of the Italian migratory agenda resulting from the Second National Conference of Emigration held in Rome in 1988 (Tintori Reference Tintori, Ben-Ghiat and Hom2016, 115). The new assistance channels for citizens living abroad, related to new migratory policies introduced by the Italian government at the beginning of the 1990s, the global social and economic changes and the evolution of the Italian emigration networks in a not necessarily association-based sense, determined a deep downsizing of the FILEF network and a general de-politicisation of the numerous initiatives still in progress with other actors of civil society.