Governing Immobility in the COVID-19 Crisis in Italy: Non-conforming Behaviors of Migrants Confronting the New Old Processes of Othering

Abstract

In this article, we critically analyze how different confinement sites for migrants in Italy, such as reception centers, pre-removal detention facilities, hotspots, and quarantine ships, have functioned as tools for controlling migration during the COVID-19 pandemic. We specifically focus on the nonconforming behaviors exhibited by migrants within these sites. Our analysis aims to shed light on the mechanisms of control by examining acts of resistance undertaken by individuals, both consciously and unconsciously, and carried out either individually or collectively. We investigate how these specific government practices, as evidenced by these acts of nonconformity, have materialized a sense of "sacrificability" and institutional abandonment. By analyzing protests, their content, and dynamics, we delve into how the concept of necropolitical sacrificability applies to both reception facilities and detention facilities and we argue that this concept extends beyond the COVID-19 crisis, prompting an examination of how power dynamics and people's lives, once deemed sacrificable, continue to be influenced and vulnerable at a social and political level.

Full text

Vol.:(0123456789)
Critical Criminology (2023) 31:307–325
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-023-09701-z
1 3
Governing Immobility intheCOVID‑19 Crisis inItaly:
Non‑conforming Behaviors ofMigrants Confronting theNew
Old Processes ofOthering
GiuliaFabini1· OmidFirouziTabar2
Accepted: 31 May 2023 / Published online: 7 August 2023
© The Author(s) 2023
Abstract
In this article, we critically analyze how different confinement sites for migrants in Italy,
such as reception centers, pre-removal detention facilities, hotspots, and quarantine ships,
have functioned as tools for controlling migration during the COVID-19 pandemic. We
specifically focus on the nonconforming behaviors exhibited by migrants within these sites.
Our analysis aims to shed light on the mechanisms of control by examining acts of resist-
ance undertaken by individuals, both consciously and unconsciously, and carried out either
individually or collectively. We investigate how these specific government practices, as evi-
denced by these acts of nonconformity, have materialized a sense of "sacrificability" and
institutional abandonment. By analyzing protests, their content, and dynamics, we delve
into how the concept of necropolitical sacrificability applies to both reception facilities and
detention facilities and we argue that this concept extends beyond the COVID-19 crisis,
prompting an examination of how power dynamics and people’s lives, once deemed sacri-
ficable, continue to be influenced and vulnerable at a social and political level.
Introduction
Italy was the first country in Western Europe to be affected by the pandemic. Between
March 8 and May 18, 2020, the Italian government implemented a nationwide lockdown
to combat the extremely severe spread of COVID-19 among the population. Most work
activities were suspended for the entire period of the lockdown and, in some cases, beyond,
with remote work being encouraged where possible. Citizens were urged to stay at home,
practice social distancing, wash their hands regularly, and use hygiene products. They were
only allowed to leave their homes in exceptional circumstances, to remain within 200m of
* Giulia Fabini
giulia.fabini@unibo.it
Omid Firouzi Tabar
omid.firouzitabar@unipd.it
1 Department ofLegal Sciences, University ofBologna, Bologna, Italy
2 Department FISPPA, University ofPadua, Padua, Italy
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

308
G.Fabini, O.Firouzi Tabar
1 3
their residences, and only in the cases that leaving their homes could be justified in the case
that the police inquired (Anastasia and Ferraris 2021).
On April 7, 2020, Italian ports were closed by Interministerial Decree No. 150, deeming
them unsafe due to the pandemic and unsuitable for receiving migrants safely—meanwhile,
Libyan ports were considered safe (Lo Verde 2021). On April 12, 2020, Circular of the
Head of the Department of Civil Protection No. 1287/2020 established Quarantine Ships,
managed by the Department of Civil Liberties and Immigration, where migrants arriving
by sea were required to spend a 2-week quarantine period upon entry. While the pandemic
confined Italian citizens to their homes, it also immobilized migrants in reception systems,
hotspot facilities, and pre-removal detention centers. This was not unique to Italy but was
also observed in other countries, such as the Moria center in Greece (Meer et al. 2021;
Tazzioli 2020) or the Mellilla center in Spain (Gabrielli 2021). As Crawley (2021) high-
lights, in these conditions, the government issued instructions to "stay home, stay safe,
and practice social distancing" held little meaning for migrants. This article underscores
the disproportional impact of COVID-19 measures on forced migrants in Italyand illus-
trates how migrants developed radical coping strategies, by highlighting some cases of
nonconformities.
In Italy, the measures implemented by the government during the COVID-19 crisis did
not have an equal impact on everyone. The severity of the consequences varied signifi-
cantly depending on pre-existing social conditions; dependent on social characteristics of
specific individuals, groups, and social classes. In general, COVID-19 exacerbated existing
social trends in the country, and this was also evident in the management of border con-
trol. It should be noted that the differences in how the pandemic was managed and thereby
experienced by the Italian population and migrants, also raises broader issues regarding
migration control.
During this period, migrants were socially and symbolically portrayed as the spreaders
of infection (Ullah etal. 2021). This narrative is not new (Spada 2020; Fabini and Firouzi
Tabar 2022), but it continued to have tangible and symbolic effects evident in the manage-
ment of migrants during the COVID-19 pandemic.
In this article, we critically analyze how various sites of confinement (reception centers,
pre-removal detention facilities, hotspots, and quarantine ships) have functioned as tools
for controlling migration in the context of the pandemic in Italy, encountering nonconform-
ing behaviors by migrants. Our analysis aims to illuminate the mechanisms of control by
examining acts of resistance undertaken by individuals, whether conscious or unconscious,
and carried out individually or collectively. Regardless of their legal status, whether that
of "illegalized migrants," "asylum seekers," "refugees" or simply individuals who have
recently disembarked on Italian shores, migrants have faced more severe limitations on
their rights compared to Italian citizens regarding pandemic risk management strategies
implemented during COVID-19 in Italy. Examining the circumstances of confinement of
migrants offers insights into evolving immigration control dynamics, as well as changing
practices, rhetoric, and justifications for detention. These detention and de facto deten-
tion measures have in turn created resentment and even motivated physical protest and
rebellion by migrants held in these centers. Dissent against the dire conditions of detain-
ment were exacerbated by the worsening conditions of detention caused by COVID-19
lockdown. In this paper we examine acts of rebellion by “asylum seekers” and “refugees”
in the reception system, disembarked migrants on quarantine vessels and in hotspots, and
“illegalized migrants” in pre-removal detention, aiming to shed light on the discrimina-
tory, racializing, and unequal treatment experienced by immobilized migrants during this
period.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

309
Governing Immobility intheCOVID‑19 Crisis inItaly:…
1 3
In this article, we examine non-conforming behaviors that have emerged in various
migrant confinement sites as a specific starting point to observe and understand the mecha-
nisms of power and control during the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy. These "counter con-
ducts," including individual and collective protests, facility occupations or escapes, hun-
ger strikes, and suicide attempts, highlight the common trend, particularly during the most
critical phases of the pandemic, of subjecting asylum seekers and irregular migrants to
extreme socio-spatial segregation and abandonment. Our analysis aims to demonstrate how
specific government practices, as evidenced by these non-conforming acts, have material-
ized a sense of "sacrificability" and institutional abandonment. These practices reveal how
strong securitarian approaches and narratives of control and containment have infiltrated
and permeated humanitarian reasoning within the management of migration, as discussed
by Fassin (2011) and supported by other studies and research that we will reference later.
Rather than being a completely exceptional control mechanism, this security-oriented shift
in the security-humanitarian rationale amplifies pre-existing injustices and provides an
opportunity to expose and further illuminate the underlying dynamics of oppression and
discrimination.
The article is structured as follows. First, we provide a literature review that examines
the securitization of migration, the relationship between Humanitarianism and securitarian
ideology, the effects of COVID-19 on border control, and the role of resistance in under-
standing control dynamics. We will then present the methodology used in our research, fol-
lowed by the presentation of the research results, focusing on the reception system, deten-
tion at the exit, and detention upon entry. In the concluding section, we will revisit our two
statements and reflect on the collected data to argue that COVID-19 has not introduced
anything radically new to the field of border control. Instead, it has illuminated the pre-
existing distortions, discrimination, and the disconcerting extent of border violence. By
analyzing the data, we aim to demonstrate how COVID-19 has shed light on these long-
standing issues within the context of border control.
Necropolitical Sacricability Beyond theCOVID‑19 Crisis
Reflecting on the migration control policies in France during the early stages of the
COVID-19 health crisis, Didier Fassin (2021) emphasizes that certain groups such as “ille-
galized migrants” and “asylum seekers” were relegated to the lowest position in terms of
institutional care and subjected to a regime of radical neglect. Even prisoners, who are
subject to restrictive and punitive measures, were given a basic level of attention. Mau-
rice Stierl and Deanna Dadusc (2021) argue that the COVID-19 pandemic served as an
excuse to amplify existing forms of biopolitical and necropolitical violence at national bor-
ders, rather than being an exceptional event. They denounce the implementation of “further
practices of securitization and containment that have been observed for several years along
the Mediterranean border, which have now been pushed to new extremes under the guise of
a global pandemic emergency” (p. 1467). This is what we refer to as necropolitical sacrifi-
cability, particularly evident in Italy’s choices regarding sea entry and the closure of ports.
We believe that this idea of sacrificability also extends to “illegalized migrants” within the
country’s territory and “asylum seekers”.
Migrants who are subjected to this process of selective abandonment are portrayed
as dehumanized individuals, devoid of worth except for the purpose of control and con-
tainment. They are represented and treated as "unnecessary" (Piccoli 2021) and literally
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

310
G.Fabini, O.Firouzi Tabar
1 3
"left behind" (Dempster etal. 2020). This phenomenon occurs at a time when European
and national institutions are faced with the urgent decision of determining who is deserv-
ing of socio-economic support and who can be excluded, leading to "a reorganisation of
the whole economy of mobility and immobility, with far reaching consequences for the
structures and subjective experience of domination and exploitation" (Mezzadra, 2021:
247). This abandonment takes material form in various contexts through extremely harsh
practices of racialized immobilization and forced containment. For example, in Mexico,
approximately 60,000 migrants found themselves stranded and de facto detained for
months along the US border in dilapidated facilities and critical socio-sanitary conditions
(Slack and Josiah 2020). In the Spanish enclave of Melilla, shortly after the declaration
of a state of emergency in March 2020, around 1600 migrants, including 400 women and
children, were stranded inside the temporary migrant center (CETI) in overcrowded condi-
tions, with little institutional care provided (Gabrielli 2021). In the Moria hotspot on Les-
vos Island, in Greece, under the pretext of protecting both migrants and the local popula-
tion from the virus, thousands of people were confined in a sprawling and overcrowded
camp, leading to severe humanitarian consequences (Tazzioli 2020). Similarly, the Mal-
tese government banned the disembarkation of 425 migrants, detaining them on chartered
cruise ships under precarious socio-sanitary conditions for 5 weeks (Tazzioli and Stierl
2021). In Cyprus, authorities decided to deport hundreds of "asylum seekers" from inde-
pendent accommodations to the Pournara camp in the Kokkinotrimithia region, where they
were effectively imprisoned during a nationwide lockdown, and even when restrictions
were eased, residents of the camp were not allowed to leave (Meer etal. 2021). In these
episodes, this type of discrimination was met with protests and acts of rebellion from the
migrants themselves. For instance, in Melilla and Lesvos, hunger strikes and various forms
of protest and denunciation of detainment conditions by migrants played a crucial role in
drawing attention to the dire situation unfolding.
We critically analyze the bordering practices, particularly within the context of the pan-
demic, as an open field marked by ongoing tensions, conflicts, and frictions between mech-
anisms of control and the emancipatory impulses of migrants. Here, the governance of
mobility intersects with migrants’ resistance, autonomy, insubordination, and unwavering
determination to assert their rights and reclaim spheres of freedom (Papadopoulos 2013;
Mezzadra and Neilson 2013; Hess and Kasparek 2017; Stierl 2019; De Genova etal. 2018,
Mezzadra 2020). We would like to emphasize that adopting the interpretative perspective
of ’border struggles’ (Mezzadra and Neilson 2013) to analyze these forms of control does
not entail embracing a naive or romantic view of the processes at work (Scheel 2013).
We are fully aware of the violence that migration governance perpetuates, particularly in
the context of the pandemic. However, we argue that the acts of resistance exhibited by
migrants have the potential to redefine our understanding of the extent of marginalization,
segregation, and abandonment faced by them. By examining the irregular and unexpected
behaviors and demands that often emerge within reception and detention systems, we
can gain insight into the control mechanisms employed to devalue migrants’ agency and
reframe their social and political issues as matters of security, public health and public
order.
In the examples above, it becomes apparent how institutions in various contexts have
prioritized objectives of confinement, isolation, stigmatization, and abandonment. These
choices align closely with the notion that the control and management of borders are
deeply influenced by securitarian logics and techniques (Huysmans 2000, 2006; Van Mun-
ster 2009; Neal 2009; Vaughan-Williams 2017), which involve the utilization of sophis-
ticated surveillance techniques (Bigo 2006; Lyon 2004) and profiling (Harcourt 2007,
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

311
Governing Immobility intheCOVID‑19 Crisis inItaly:…
1 3
2009). Some scholars have put forth the proposition that the securitarian approach, par-
ticularly toward “refugees” and “asylum seekers”, tends to intertwine with a humanitarian
control paradigm, where attitudes and practices of compassionate care and control coexist,
alternate, and sometimes overlap (Malkki 1996; Fassin 2011, 2019; Agier 2005; Cuttitta
2018; Franko 2021; Tazzioli and Garelli 2018). They have also advanced the hypothesis
of the increasing centrality in border control mechanisms of what has been termed the
"humanitarian border" (Walters 2011) and have been critics of the gradual proliferation
and strengthening of "ambivalent and hybrid securitarian-humanitarian regimes" (Hess and
Kasparek 2017: 63).
When COVID-19 emerged in Italy and subsequently spread to European countries and
beyond, the prevailing narratives portrayed it as a great equalizer that affected everyone
democratically. It was believed that all individuals were experiencing the same situation,
with no distinctions among affected groups or the measures implemented to manage the
pandemic. However, this perspective has been strongly criticized. COVID-19 is now rec-
ognized globally as a ’great amplifier’ of structural injustice and discrimination, further
entrenching existing patterns of exclusion from healthcare services, social safety nets,
socio-economic opportunities, and spatial integration (Guadagno 2020; Ullah etal. 2021;
Crawley 2021).
When considering the social effects of COVID-19, it is crucial to recognize that the vio-
lent and organized strategies of containment and abandonment (Gilmore 2007) of migrants
intersects with social contexts already characterized by widespread rights violations, power
imbalances, and oppressive dynamics. Globally, policies for managing the health crisis
have tended to intensify and multiply existing ethnic, economic, and gender inequalities
(Goldin and Muggah 2020). In the case of “refugees”, “asylum seekers”, and “illegalised
migrants”, COVID-19 has exacerbated pre-existing socio-economic injustices related to
employment, income, and access to social protection measures, while simultaneously rein-
forcing xenophobia and racial discrimination (Dempster etal. 2020). Within this context,
three critical areas have been identified where the already precarious living conditions of
asylum seekers and refugees face further compromises: border closures and pushbacks,
asylum procedures, and livelihoods, with a particular emphasis on detention and reception
conditions (Crawley 2021). These challenges arise from intersecting forms of discrimina-
tion and subordination based on economic status, gender, and the social construction of
otherness. These strategies target individuals who are structurally marginalized and vulner-
able. In Italy, the management of the COVID-19 crisis has resulted in significant dispari-
ties between Italians and migrants:
Restricted in their mobility and stranded in countries of departure or transit, huddled
in reception centers in precarious conditions and hampered in admission procedures
and applications for asylum or international protection, forced to work despite health
risks and made invisible to the public discourse, forgotten by public policies and dis-
criminated against in their access to prevention or treatment, impoverished and more
exploited in the labor market, accused of carrying the virus or being immune from it,
segregated in the homes of the dependent elderly they assist, they are one of the most
vulnerable groups at risk of suffering the heaviest consequences of this double crisis.
(Della Puppa and Perocco 2021: 10).
In this instance we are offered a glimpse of the dynamics of abandonment of “asylum seek-
ers” and “irregularized migrants” (as well as migrants with precarious legal statuses) dur-
ing the COVID-19 crisis in Italy. In fact, "no urgent decrees adopted by the Italian govern-
ment to contain the COVID-19 pandemic have explicitly dealt with the issues and needs
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

312
G.Fabini, O.Firouzi Tabar
1 3
of the migrant population" (Giammarinaro and Palumbo 2020: 21). In addition to exclud-
ing large portions of the population from the protective and healthcare resources provided
for Italians, some scholars have drawn attention to the exacerbation of pre-existing criti-
cal conditions within reception and detention facilities for “asylum seekers” and “illegal-
ised migrants” (Esposito etal. 2020, 2022; Fabini and Firouzi Tabar 2022; Firouzi Tabar
and Sanò 2021; Sanò and Della Puppa 2021). This is particularly evident in overcrowded
reception centers and migration detention centers, where the lack of targeted interventions
to prevent and control the risk of contagion, as well as the absence of clear socio-health-
care protocols, have jeopardized the health of thousands of migrants confined in cramped
spaces and abandoned by the institutions (Giammarinaro and Palumbo 2020, D’ignoti
2020; Firouzi Tabar and Sanò 2021; Filippi and Giliberti 2021; Denaro 2021).
In this review, we have focused on the social effects of the COVID-19 crisis on the
governance of migration in various contexts. Our examination of this management has
prompted reflection on the interplay between securitization approaches and humanitar-
ian approaches, highlighting the significance of exploring control mechanisms through
the lens of resistance. We have introduced the concept of "Necropolitical sacrificability".
The term "necropolitics," coined by philosopher Achille Mbembe (2003), refers to the
power wielded by political structures to determine who lives and who dies. "Sacrificabil-
ity" implies that certain individuals or groups are considered expendable or subjected to
risks and violence, with consequences that surpass the COVID-19 health crisis. Our goal,
centering on the non-conforming behaviors of migrants during the COVID-19 pandemic,
is to comprehend which control mechanisms are deemed unacceptable from the migrants’
standpoint. We seek to uncover hidden forms of control within supposed care dynamics,
such as in reception facilities, and examine whether the issues that asylum seekers in Tre-
viso protested are similar to those that "illegalized migrants" rebelled against in detention
facilities. Essentially, through an analysis of protests, their content, and dynamics, we aim
to explore how the concept of necropolitical sacrificability applies to both reception facili-
ties and detention facilities from the migrants’ standpoint. We believe that the concept of
necropolitical sacrificability persists beyond the COVID-19 crisis, prompting an examina-
tion of how power dynamics and people’s lives, once deemed sacrificable, continue to be
influenced and vulnerable at a social and political level.
Methodology
Our analysis incorporates empirical data from fieldwork conducted in the Veneto region
(Northeast Italy), particularly in Treviso’s center, as well as secondary data from reports
by NGOs, the National Ombudsman, and civil society concerning hotspots, pre-removal
detention, and quarantine ships.
The events reported and commented on in the article regarding reception facilities have
been collected by drawing on the reports that appeared in the newspapers, especially in the
local press. One of the authors obtained additional information on the Treviso reception
center case through interviews with three activists and trade union members in Treviso
who have been closely following and reporting on the criticisms surrounding the reception
center for several years. An interview with one of the protest leaders, Abdoul,1 who was
then imprisoned, provided further insights.
1 The name has been invented to provide anonymity.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

313
Governing Immobility intheCOVID‑19 Crisis inItaly:…
1 3
Regarding the reconstruction of events in detention facilities (such as hotspots, quar-
antine ships, and CPRs) during the COVID-19 crisis, the authors were unable to collect
qualitative data directly. Therefore, they relied on data from newspaper articles and some
other main sources: the weekly bulletin of the national ombudsman,2 two reports by the
Italian Coalition for Freedom and Civil Rights (CILD) titled "Detenzione migrante ai tempi
del Covid"3 and "Buchi neri",4 reports by the project In Limine5 of ASGI (Association for
Juridical Studies on Immigration) based on 82 migrant interviews and FOIA, and second-
ary data from other research (Montagna 2023; Tazzioli and Stierl 2021).
All these data have been combined to analyze the non-conforming behaviors of migrants
during the COVID-19 crisis in the reception facilities and in the detention facilities. By
considering the border as a "battleground" (Ambrosini 2021) and focusing on migrants’
autonomy, resistance, and resilience, we explore acts of resistance enacted by migrants
themselves in these various control sites to unveil hidden mechanisms of power operating
through legal norms and within the shadows of the law, and to question their underlying
rationales.
Trapped andAbandoned Within theReception System
The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) and the World Health
Organisation (WHO) have highlighted that reception facilities in Europe, particularly the
larger ones, have faced numerous challenges in terms of health screening practices and
ensuring adequate social distancing measures for preventing the transmission of COVID-
19. Additionally, managing isolation and quarantine operations for individuals who tested
positive for the virus have posed significant difficulties. The ECDC, based on the available
data, has gone as far as to assert that "evidence suggests that in settings with insufficient
possibilities for physical distancing (such as cruise ships), mass quarantine may be coun-
terproductive with negative effects on mental health, sexual and gender-based violence,
and non-communicable diseases. In these contexts, early evacuation may be more effective
in reducing transmission."6
The Reception System in Italy offers two types of solutions: The Reception and Integra-
tion System (SAI), which is the ordinary instrument that ensures the accommodation of a
minority of asylum seekers, and the Extraordinary Reception Centers (CAS), which are the
more widely used tool to accommodate “refugees” and, especially, “asylum seekers”. Dur-
ing 2020, the first and most critical period of the pandemic crisis, a total of 101,000 “asy-
lum seekers” were hosted in Italy, with 66% accommodated in CAS, of which 30% were in
large or very large structures, on which this analysis focusses on (ActionAid, Open Polis
2022).7 In the most critical phases of the pandemic, the reception system had transformed
2 https:// www. garan tenaz ional epriv atili berta. it/ gnpl/ pages/ it/ homep age/ covid 19/.
3 https:// cild. eu/ wp- conte nt/ uploa ds/ 2020/ 07/ Dossi er_ Migra ntiCo vid. pdf.
4 https:// cild. eu/ blog/ 2021/ 10/ 15/ buchi- neri- la- deten zione- senza- reato- nei- cpr/.
5 https:// inlim ine. asgi. it/.
6 https:// www. ecdc. europa. eu/ sites/ defau lt/ files/ docum ents/ COVID- 19- guida nce- refug ee- asylum- seeke
rs- migra nts- EU. pdf (Guidance on infection prevention and control of COVID-19 in migrant and refugee
reception and detention centres, p. 5).
7 https:// centr idita lia. it/ home.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

314
G.Fabini, O.Firouzi Tabar
1 3
into sites of forced containment, blurring the boundaries between the detention of "illegal-
ized migrants" and the reception of "asylum seekers".
What happened during the summer of 2020 inside the extraordinary reception center
(CAS) in the city of Treviso exemplifies the gravity of the situation experienced in simi-
larly large reception facilities in Italy. After months spent without implementation of spe-
cific operational protocols for health screening or social distancing in common spaces, in
June, just before the lockdown was planned to officially end for Italian citizens, a social
operator at the CAS facility tested positive for COVID-19. This led the managing body
to declare the center a "red zone," completely sealing it off from the outside and confin-
ing around 300 migrants inside. As reported in the local press, the decision to enforce a
lockdown in the facility immediately sparked protests and unrest. On June 11, upon learn-
ing about a new quarantine in the camp, the migrants blocked the exits seeking to receive
detailed information from the social and health workers remaining, so as to try to get more
information on the quarantine, and to inquire about the possibility for those who tested
negative to leave the camp for work. Their requests were rejected, and a few hours later,
police riot squads forcefully entered the camp, leading to heightened tensions and clashes
with many asylum seekers involved in the protest.
As explained by activists, lawyers, and trade unionists who followed the events—and
as emphasized in an interview by the Mayor of the Municipality where the reception camp
is located—the protests were sparked by the lack of information regarding the health situ-
ation, the fear of losing one’s job, and the concern of being confined in an overcrowded
place where the common areas (showers, kitchens, canteens) could become areas of high
transmission for the virus. These were legitimate concerns, considering that 20days later
when the conflict in the camp seemed to have completely subsided, a COVID-19 test con-
ducted on all migrants housed in the facility revealed the presence of 137 positive cases. A
week later, on August 6, a new round of swabs brought the total number of positive cases
to 257 out of the 280 people present in the structure, highlighting the serious deficien-
cies in monitoring and containing infections. The structural conditions of this large center
placed the approximately 300 “asylum seekers in Treviso’s center in a real social-health
trap during those weeks.
What we would like to emphasize here is the extremely harsh institutional response to
these protests. In the immediate aftermath of the protests, there were no apparent punitive
reactions like the revocation of reception benefits which is typically implemented in simi-
lar situations (Firouzi Tabar 2019). However, this was merely the calm before the storm.
On August 19, four asylum seekers who had participated in the protests were charged
with crimes of destruction of property, looting, and kidnapping. They were subsequently
arrested and transferred to prison. Two months later, following an order by the Department
of Penitentiary Administration (DAP), the four “asylum seekers” were relocated to four
different prison facilities and placed under special surveillance as per Article 14-bis of the
Penitentiary Code. This measure allows for the isolation of individuals considered particu-
larly dangerous. Tragically, on November 7, one of the four young individuals affected by
this measure, 23-year-old Chaka Ouattaro from Mali, took his own life using parts of his
clothing as a noose in Verona’s prison.
While we cannot establish direct causal links, testimonies collected through Chaka’s
lawyers and the chronological sequence of events strongly suggest that this tragic deci-
sion is closely linked to the extreme vulnerability and isolation brought about by the harsh
criminalization and put into action toward those who protested against the confinement and
abandonment inside the facility. The punitive intent of these criminal and prison meas-
ures, aimed at criminalizing collective rights-based actions, is evident. The use of special
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

315
Governing Immobility intheCOVID‑19 Crisis inItaly:…
1 3
surveillance measures typically reserved for different categories of prisoners further under-
scores the intention to punish (Firouzi Tabar and Maculan 2021).
A few months after the incidents, we conducted interviews with activists from anti-rac-
ist networks in the area and Abdoul, one of the four arrested and imprisoned “asylum seek-
ers”. Shortly after his release from prison, while under house arrest, we had a lengthy con-
versation with Abdoul. He expressed his desire to delve into the root causes of the anger
and frustration that fueled the uprising at Treviso’s CAS (Extraordinary Reception Center).
According to him, several key issues contributed to the unrest: Firstly, there was a lack
of information regarding the health situation from the outset of the pandemic crisis. The
absence of clear communication, coupled with inadequate distribution of face masks and
sanitizers, only heightened the tensions. Furthermore, the facility lacked proper medical
protocols to prevent the potential spread of the virus or provide necessary interventions.
One of the most concerning factors according to Abdoul was the inability to effectively
isolate migrants who tested positive for COVID-19 from the rest of the population. The
shared use of common spaces by both healthy and sick individuals perpetuated continu-
ous outbreaks, creating a pervasive sense of vulnerability and abandonment. Abdoul also
emphasized that similar protests had taken place in the past, notably in March 2017, driven
by the unacceptable living conditions within the camp. Placards, banners, and letters
addressed to local institutions and authorities voiced grievances about overcrowding, insuf-
ficient medical care and protocols, lack of privacy, and the precarious social and sanitary
circumstances forced upon the residents.8
Overall, these factors contributed to a collective sense of frustration and disillusion-
ment, prompting the protests as a means of demanding better treatment and living condi-
tions. The case in Treviso serves as a significant example of the tensions prevalent in Italy
during that period, highlighting both the intensity of the protests and the severity of gov-
ernment crackdown. However, it is just one of several instances of resistance that emerged
as a response to the handling of the health crisis by the authorities. Coinciding with the
events described earlier, in the nearby Province of Venice, numerous migrants staged a
protest, displaying a large banner at the gates of the CAS where they had been relocated to
from apartments. They had been subjected to a prolonged quarantine despite testing nega-
tive for COVID-19, as bureaucratic issues arising from the lack of clear sanitary protocols
caused delays. Their demand was simple: to be allowed to leave the camp, particularly in
order to return to work.
A month later, in Palinuro, located in the Province of Salerno in Southern Italy, around
80 migrants made the decision to abandon the reception camp and took to the streets sur-
rounding the center, staging a day-long protest.9 In this case, overcrowding and the practice
of co-housing individuals who tested positive for COVID-19 with those who tested nega-
tive were denounced because it forced migrants to share common areas, exposing everyone
to the risk of infection.
These incidents offer valuable insights into the challenges faced by reception facilities,
especially the larger ones, in effectively addressing the pandemic crisis and implementing
adequate strategies and protocols to safeguard the right to health. They highlight a concern-
ing trend of escalating abandonment, marginalization, and segregation, which have been
8 https:// www. melti ngpot. org/ 2017/ 03/ trevi so- ex- caser ma- serena- i- richi edenti- asilo- in- prote sta- per-i-
tempi- datte sa- per- la- commi ssione- e- le- condi zioni- della ccogl ienza/.
9 https:// napoli. repub blica. it/ crona ca/ 2020/ 10/ 08/ foto/ covid_ chied ono_ fine_ isola mento_ migra nti_ blocc
ano_ la_ strada_ stata le_a_ palin uro_ prote sta_ rient rata- 26989 1438/1/.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

316
G.Fabini, O.Firouzi Tabar
1 3
deeply ingrained in the Italian asylum seeker and refugee control system for quite some
time (Sorgoni 2011; Campesi 2014; Manocchi 2014; Pinelli 2017; Firouzi Tabar 2019). It
is striking that while the closure of Italian ports and the activation of what has been defined
as a "hygienic-sanitary border" (Tazzioli and Stierl 2021) were motivated by the aim to
protect both migrants and the resident population, in this case the abandonment of people
in these unsafe places identifies them as sacrificable subjects with reference to the sole
objective of protecting the external space.
In addition, the particular management of conflict by the authorities in the case of the
Treviso uprising highlights a certain degree of recrudescence of the repressive approach
toward migrants and a particularly harsh use of penal instruments. In fact, the criminalisa-
tion of protests toward the management of COVID-19 in reception centers presents itself
as an exceptional phenomenon, considering that usually the governance of conflicts in the
reception sphere takes place through forms of internal regulation marked by continuous
negotiations, threats, intimidation, false promises, blackmail or with the use of administra-
tive instruments such as the revocation of reception (Campesi 2014; Firouzi Tabar 2019).
Following the eruption of the health crisis, the governance of reception has crystallized
around control and containment, with predictable exacerbation of pre-existing suffering,
discomfort, and conflict such as those considered in this article. The asylum seekers find
themselves excluded from the sometimes generous socio-economic aid provided by the
Italian government to Italian citizens during the pandemic (Giammarinaro and Palumbo
2020). At the same time, migrants are at the center of a radicalization of socio-spatial seg-
regation, witnessed by the worsening of already critical psycho-physical living conditions
inside overcrowded centers, marked by forced cohabitation, absence of adequate manage-
ment, and lack of care plans in case of potential health situations.
COVID‑19 Lens ontheMaterial andSymbolic Aspects ofDetention
During the initial lockdown period from March 8 to May 18, 2020, border closures ren-
dered deportations impossible. Nevertheless, the detention of migrants for repatriation pur-
poses, although greatly diminished, persisted. On March 26, 2020, the Commissioner for
Human Rights of the Council of Europe explicitly called for the release of migrants from
the centers. The Commissioner cited the examples of Spain and Belgium, where centers
had already been emptied due to COVID-19 (Brandariz and Fernandez Bessa 2021), and
the UK, which had committed to reviewing the cases of all detained individuals (Mentasti
2020). However, by the end of May 2020, there were 195 individuals remaining in the
ten Italian CPRs, representing the lowest recorded number to date.10 This highlights the
fact that the justices of the peace, who are responsible for monthly validation of detention
orders (Asta and Caprioglio 2017), continued to validate detentions even when deportation
options were not specified.11
10 The individuals in the centers, as reported in the periodic bulletins from the Guarantor, numbered 425 on
March 12th, 240 on April 28th, 204 on May 15th, 195 on May 22nd, and subsequently rose to 282 on June
25th and 332 on July 2nd (CILD).
11 ASGI, CILD, Antigone, and other associations raised this concern in an open letter addressed to the jus-
tices of the peace. The letter "Is it legitimate to detain if expulsion is not possible?" can be found at the link:
https:// www. asgi. it/ docum enti- asgi/ covid- deten zione- lette ra- giudi ci/.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

317
Governing Immobility intheCOVID‑19 Crisis inItaly:…
1 3
CPRs have always been challenging environments, but the situation worsened signifi-
cantly during the COVID-19 pandemic. A ministerial regulation dated March 26, 2020,
provided the initial official guidelines for managing the risk of contagion within the cent-
ers.12 These guidelines did not include pre-triage facilities, required new admissions to be
placed in separate rooms for 14days, called for constant monitoring of symptoms among
the detained population, and emphasized space sanitization. Although the right to commu-
nicate with loved ones was granted, the prohibition on cell phones remained. Nevertheless,
concrete measures such as social distancing and the distribution of disinfectants, gloves,
and masks were not implemented (CILD 2021).
In late March 2020, migrants detained at the Gradisca pre-removal detention center,
situated on the Italy-Slovenia border, staged protests due to the lack of hygiene kits, face
masks, and gloves. On March 23rd, some of them initiated a hunger strike, expressing dis-
content over the substandard food quality, dire sanitary conditions, fear of contagion, and
their demand for release to return to their homes. This was triggered by the transfer of a
Nigerian migrant from Cremona’s prison in Northern Italy to the Gradisca center on March
19th. The individual had tested positive for COVID-19 and, following an initial quaran-
tine period at the center, was subsequently transferred to a nearby hospital on March 26th.
The detainees began protesting upon learning about the presence of a COVID-19 positive
person inside the center (Esposito etal. 2020: 32). The protests persisted for a significant
period, during which local activists disseminated information about other migrants who
had tested positive for the virus, ongoing shortages of face masks, and, notably, instances
of violent police responses.13 Allegedly, migrants complaining of chest pain were denied
access to medical visits. On March 29th, detainees set fire to their mattresses, demanding
release from the center.14
Similar protests erupted in other CPRs across Italy. For example, four women in Rome’s
CPR embarked on a six-day hunger and thirst strike,15 echoing the demands of the Gori-
zia migrants for improved living conditions and release from the center. Violent protests
also broke out in Macomer’s CPR, situated in the heart of Sardinia. On June 19th, 2020,
migrants climbed onto the roof of the center, with one individual even sewing their mouth
shut.16
In general, there is a lack of transparency regarding the CPRs in Italy. Access for civil
society is challenging, if not almost impossible. The limited information available primar-
ily comes from oversight bodies such as the national ombudsman. Obtaining information
through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests is also often met with difficulties. As
a result, migrant protests must escalate to extreme measures (hunger strikes, thirst strikes,
sewn lips, fires, rooftop demonstrations) in order to break through the wall of silence sur-
rounding these centers and draw attention to the deplorable living conditions inside. Based
on the protests of migrants, the detention conditions observed in CPRs during Italy’s
first lockdown fell short of even the basic standards outlined in the literature as "mini-
mal biopolitics," which refers to the preservation of basic biological life through provisions
12 https:// www. inter no. gov. it/ sites/ defau lt/ files/ alleg ati/ circo lare_ immig razio ne_ diffu sione_ del_ virus_
COVID- 19_ 26.3. 2020. pdf. pdf.
13 https:// nofro ntier efvg. noblo gs. org/ post/ 2020/ 03/.
14 https:// www. ansa. it/ canale_ legal ita_ scuola/ notiz ie/ 2020/ 03/ 30/ ripet uti- incen di- in- cpr- gradi sca_ a83d1
934- a9f4- 4d1a- a099- 89207 ed898 bd. html.
15 https:// radio black out. org/ 2020/ 04/ aggio rname nto- sul- cpr- di- ponte- galer ia/.
16 https:// ilman ifesto. it/ cpr- di- macom er- un- deten uto- malme nato-e- sedato- gli- altri- salgo no- sul- tetto.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

318
G.Fabini, O.Firouzi Tabar
1 3
such as food and shelter (Johansen, 2013). The living conditions in CPRs, both in general
and specifically during that period, displayed characteristics aligning with the politics of
abandonment (Pinelli, 2017), verging on necropolitics (Esposito etal. 2022). The protest-
ing migrants all shared a common demand to be allowed to leave, given the impossibility
of actual deportation and the inability to comply with recommended hygiene and sanitary
measures to prevent the risk of contagion. Yet, it is evident that containment has trans-
formed into a mechanism aimed at safeguarding cities from the risk of foreign contagion
rather than solely protecting migrants from the virus. This shift raises concerns as it allows
for the potential sacrifice of lives deemed disposable.
A similar situation applies to the detention upon arrival in the hotspot facilities. Hot-
spots were established in Italy and Greece in 2016 as entry points for screening migrants,
categorizing them17 as ’asylum seekers’ or ’economic migrants’ (Pinelli 2017; Sciurba
2017; Ferri 2019). Only “asylum seekers” are granted entry, while “economic migrants”
receive deportation orders, though actual deportation is not guaranteed (Fabini 2019;
Campesi 2015).18 Between 2016 and 2020, 21,720 individuals passed through CPRs, while
hotspots hosted 123,081 individuals.19 Despite the lockdown period, sea arrivals contin-
ued.20 The Hotspots in Taranto, Pozzallo, and, at least until early August 2020, Messina
were used to carry out quarantines and isolations in case of positive COVID-19 cases,
while the Lampedusa Hotspot served as a hub for arrivals who were then transferred to
Quarantine Ships.
Similar to CPRs, these facilities also struggled to meet the requirements of social dis-
tancing, adequate hygiene, and sanitation conditions. However, the hotspots faced even
greater challenges in fulfilling these demands compared to the CPRs, particularly consider-
ing that they are not designed for longer stays of more than a few days. Similar to CPRs,
hotspots have witnessed significant protests from migrants requiring to be released.
By the end of April 2020, protests occurred at the Lampedusa hotspot, where migrants
engaged in acts of self-harm, subsequently sharing the images to denounce being "treated
like animals." They highlighted the absence of water in the showers and sinks, hinder-
ing their ability to maintain proper hygiene. Furthermore, despite the completion of the
14-day quarantine period, they were still confined within the hotspot. Reports indicate that
the quarantine countdown would restart every time a new group of migrants entered.21 In
many cases, migrants were subjected to prolonged quarantines lasting months, even with
a negative test result, followed by repatriation without the opportunity to express or for-
malize their request for international protection. Furthermore, during the summer of 2020,
migrants arriving in Lampedusa and Sicily underwent systematic testing and quarantines,
unlike foreign tourists who faced no such restrictions.22 These measures clearly violated
personal freedom and were distinctly different from those imposed on foreign citizens
arriving in Italy through other means. Because of all these reasons, there were numerous
17 Differentiation is primarily based on nationality (Sciurba, 2017; Ferri, 2019; Montagna 2023) rather than
individual case analysis as required by international law (Sciurba 2020).
18 Detention in hotspots for up to 30 non-extendable days is possible for those who persistently refuse to
provide fingerprints (Valentini, 2021, pp. 270–9).
19 Data from the Ombudsman’s annual reports on detainees’ rights. https:// www. garan tenaz ional epriv atili
berta. it/ gnpl/ pages/ it/ homep age/ pub_ rel_ par/.
20 67,040 migrants arrived by sea in 2021, 34,154 in 2020, and 11,000 in 2019.
21 https:// merid ionews. it/ migra nti- blocc ati- nellh otspot- scopp ia- la- prote sta- atti- di- autol esion ismo- manca-
lacqua- nelle- docce/? refre sh_ ce.
22 https:// www. melti ngpot. org/ 2020/ 11/i- migra nti- in- quara ntena-e- le- vite- inegu ali/.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

319
Governing Immobility intheCOVID‑19 Crisis inItaly:…
1 3
escapes from various hotspots, including Caltanisetta, Messina, and Pozzallo.23 This situ-
ation persisted beyond the summer of 2020 and extended into the following year. In fact,
among the most severe incidents was the July 2021 riot inside the Pozzallo hotspot, where
migrants set fires on some mattresses and prompted many to flee.24
Certainly, the escapes from the hotspot also provoked protests from the residents. For
this reason, the Messina Hotspot was closed already in August 2020. Messina’s hotspot had
previously sparked local controversy due to concerns about potential escapes and instances
of theft involving detained foreigners. These fears intensified during the pandemic, as
apprehensions about escape risks intertwined with anxieties about contagion from the
"infected" foreigners (Firouzi Tabar and Sanò 2021).
The decision to isolate individuals on expensive ships (costing 2 million euros per
month per ship for a 500-seat vessel25) was justified, according to former Minister of the
Interior Lamorgese, by the “necessity” to keep foreign carriers of the virus away from fear-
ful citizens: Cruise vessels owned by private companies that could not fulfill their original
purpose, have been transformed into "floating hotspots" (Montagna 2023).
Disorders and tragedies also occurred on these vessels. On May 20, 2020, a 28-year-old
Tunisian man named Bilal Ben Messaud died after jumping off a quarantine ship anchored
in the harbor of Empedocle, Sicily (Adif 2020). Bilal was a migrant who had crossed the
Mediterranean Sea in an attempt to reach Europe and had arrived on the shores of Italy.
Upon arrival, he was required to undergo a mandatory COVID-19 quarantine period on a
cruise ship along with many other migrants. Bilal tragically died while attempting a 50-foot
jump into the sea at 4:25 a.m. despite the challenging conditions of the sea (sea state 5),
wearing a life jacket. Bilal’s death is not an isolated incident, as there have been other
attempts by migrants to escape from quarantine vessels. For instance, on October 1, 2020,
six migrants used sheets they had tied together to lower themselves from the ship Azzurra,
which was anchored off the port of Augusta, and jumped into the sea. Similarly, on Octo-
ber 4, three other migrants attempted the same (one of whom is still missing), followed by
seven more on October 6 (Esposito etal. 2020). Additionally, after Bilal’s death, a group of
his compatriots protested, demanding to be allowed to leave the ship. Although Red Cross
workers managed to prevent the situation from escalating, tensions remained high on the
ship. The next day, the ship was docked in port, and 14 Tunisians involved in the protests
were transferred to Villa Sikania, a reception center in Siculiana, Sicily. Some migrants
resorted to self-harm or, in even more tragic cases, attempted suicide (Montagna 2023).
We consider these attempts to flee, protests, self-harm, and attempted suicide, whether
viewed strictly as acts of resistance or not (Scott 1985; Saitta 2015, 2017), as testaments to
the inhumane conditions of detention on these vessels, and they allow us to recognize the
underlying mechanisms of sacrificability, even when they remain concealed.
From April 2020 and continuing into May 2022, a total of five quarantine ships were
set up. Originally intended to remain in operation until the end of the state of emergency,
23 https:// sicil ia. gazze ttade lsud. it/ artic oli/ crona ca/ 2020/ 08/ 08/ migra nti- una- quara ntina- di- norda frica ni-
fugge- dallh otspot- di- pozza llo- ae2b2 89b- 0974- 477c- 8e02- 7a93d 3c951 81/.
24 https:// www. ansa. it/ sicil ia/ notiz ie/ 2021/ 07/ 18/ migra nti- incen dio- in- hot- spot- alcuni- in- fuga-a- pozza llo_
ecf17 387- 3299- 46ca- a02a- 0f065 9982b 55. html.
25 https:// www. micro mega. net/ immig razio ne- navi- quara ntena- inchi esta/.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

320
G.Fabini, O.Firouzi Tabar
1 3
which was extended in Italy until March 31, 2022, these quarantine ships continued to be
operational in late May 2022.26
On the quarantine ships, migrants were left in a condition of substantial deprivation
of freedom.27 Individuals are expected to undergo health-related isolation initially set at
14 days by the government. However, surveys conducted by the In Limine project and
CILD have revealed cases where the quarantine period restarted with each new group of
migrants entering the ship, as already emerged for the hotspots. Far from being a resid-
ual measure, more than 10,000 migrants had boarded quarantine ships in Italy since their
establishment until November 9th, 2020.28 Unaccompanied minors were also detained on
the ships, in violation of the ministry’s ban in October 2020, which required minors to be
received on land in suitable conditions. Furthermore, on the ships, individuals are detained
without information about their legal status or the procedures for applying for asylum
(Montagna 2023). This prevented them from accessing the asylum process and effectively
produced their illegality (De Genova 2002). Additionally, some prefetture29 have trans-
ferred “refugees” and “asylum seekers” who had already been hosted in the reception sys-
tem for years, upon testing positive for the virus. This practice, as reported by CILD and
ASGI, involves picking up individuals at night and subjecting them to medical isolation on
the ships.
Conclusion
Within the framework of the pandemic, we have witnessed a multiplication of borders and
bordering processes. We have seen the suspension of the non-refoulement principle with
the closure of Italian ports declared as unsafe spaces, the introduction of quarantine ships
and offshore detention regimes, the poor socio-sanitary conditions in zones of violent con-
tainment and segregation of “asylum seekers” and “illegalized migrants”, along with their
exclusion from special social protection and care measures. These trends have led to the
argument that we are facing a “securitization” of migration governance in Italy and the
Mediterranean region, achieved through the “excuse” represented by COVID-19 (Stierl and
Dadusc 2021), and a progressive “de-humanitarianization” of the securitarian-humanitar-
ian rationale behind bordering and migration control strategies (Heller etal. 2023). Adding
to these arguments is the idea that the main point is not so much a retreat of the “humani-
tarian reason,” but rather a consideration of “how humanitarianism has been inflected
through hygienic-sanitary logics and combined with deterrence measures aimed at preven-
tively disrupting migrants’ access to rights, asylum, and European territory.” (Tazzioli and
Stierl 2021: 541). However, the harsh choices of social isolation and (im)mobility (Sanò
26 The Ministry of Infrastructure and Civil Protection published the last tender notice on December 10,
which covered five ships until March 31, 2022 amounting to a total of 20 million euros between January
and March 2022. This was reported by the national ombudsman (https:// www. ildub bio. news/ 2022/ 05/ 29/
lemer genza- sanit aria-e- finita- e- le- navi- quara ntena- sono- ancora- li/). On May 31, the center-left parliamen-
tarian Frantoianni raised a parliamentary question regarding the continued operation of the quarantine
ships, which went unanswered. The parliamentary question reference number is C.4/12238 (4–12,238).
27 (https:// www. actio naid. it/ blog/ lunga- estate- migra nti).
28 https:// www. thene whuma nitar ian. org/ news- featu re/ 2020/ 11/9/ italy- migra tion- ferri es- coron avirus- quara
ntine- health- asylum.
29 In Italy, a prefettura is an administrative division at the regional level responsible for maintaining public
order, coordinating emergency services, and implementing government policies.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

321
Governing Immobility intheCOVID‑19 Crisis inItaly:…
1 3
and Della Puppa 2021) within the framework of the pandemic crisis appear driven by a
rationale of control and containment of expendable individuals, thereby denying them the
minimum protection from the health risks of contagion or the lack of resources for social
protection and dignified survival, as "human beings who literally lost the material basis for
the reproduction of their lives without usually having any access to public benefits" (Mez-
zadra 2021: 246).
If observed through the lens of those who opposed them, the discriminatory character
of such measures emerge vividly, as well as the old new processes of Othering. As accord-
ing to our first argument, the management of COVID-19 has introduced new elements but,
more importantly, has magnified and clarified existing tensions within the system.
As we have demonstrated through the analyzed cases, in the context of the pandemic,
migrants have been given lower priority than any other group, and as a result they have
been subject to harsher protocols and have been excluded and deprived of resources and
support. With their protesting, self-harming, fleeing, and attempting suicide, which we
have proposed to read as non-conforming behaviors during the COVID-19 crisis, they
denounced this situation, even in a context that lacked transparency. We argue that the
exclusion of migrants from receiving care, their abandonment, is a direct outcome of the
current management approach toward these individuals, making a transformative shift
imperative. However, achieving such a shift would necessitate a comprehensive overhaul
of the existing system. It is evident that the authorities neither desire nor possess the nec-
essary resources to accomplish this fundamental change. In fact, one of the underlying
factors driving the extreme violence within the reception and detention system during the
COVID-19 crisis is the unwillingness of authorities to bear the social, political, and mate-
rial costs associated with providing care to migrants. Furthermore, perpetuating the regime
of stigma is always beneficial for populist governments (Melossi 2020), such as the current
one in Italy at the time of writing.
While COVID-19 is portrayed as an emergency discourse, it seamlessly aligns with
immigration control, as border control in Italy has consistently been depicted as an emer-
gency (Ferraris 2021; Campesi 2012). Therefore, it does not even serve as a valid excuse;
there is no need for it. During COVID-19, things continue without any structural discon-
tinuity, meaning that the securitization we have reflected upon in this piece exists within
a framework of continuity: migrants are subjected to poor treatment, even more so than
before, but substantial justifications are unnecessary. The management of immigration, as
it has been implemented, has merely reinforced and potentially heightened the sense of
otherness toward migrants, where this otherness takes shape around the idea and practice
of their expendability.
The control measures implemented in hotspots, quarantine ships, and reception cent-
ers further blur the lines between different structures and functions, making it difficult to
distinguish between detention and reception. These elements form a continuum, referred to
as a "chain" (Esposito etal. 2022), connecting and blurring multiple locations (reception
systems, CPRs, hotspots, quarantine ships) and individuals (“illegalized migrants”, “asy-
lum seekers”, “refugees”). COVID-19 radicalizes, accelerates, and highlights not only the
pre-existing inequalities but also such confusion, which is apparent not only in the utili-
zation of spaces but also in the methods of control within those spaces. Individuals are
indiscriminately abandoned on cruise ships, unjustly deprived of their freedom of move-
ment in hotspots and the reception system, and find themselves detained in CPRs regard-
less of the actual possibility of deportation. This continuum holds significant symbolic
value, as it contributes to the construction of an imagery of otherness through the material
conditions of detention and the discriminatory treatment experienced by migrants during
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

322
G.Fabini, O.Firouzi Tabar
1 3
the COVID-19 crisis. Our cases demonstrate that sacrificability applies to every migrant,
regardless of their legal status. These dynamics ultimately contribute to a progressive blur-
ring of the figures of "asylum seekers" and "irregularized migrants," where migrants are
sacrificialized because they are perceived as others, and they are continuously produced
and reproduced as others because they have been sacrificed. As we situate the governance
of migration and the production of “Others” within the interpretative framework of dif-
ferential inclusion (Mezzadra and Neilson 2013; De Genova 2002, 2013, Cuttitta 2016),
we advance the proposal that a possible line of future research should investigate how this
production of otherness, which during the pandemic has manifested in the form of sacri-
ficability and social exclusion, has continued to operate in the mechanisms of control and
resistance after the pandemic.
Funding Open access funding provided by Alma Mater Studiorum - Università di Bologna within the
CRUI-CARE Agreement.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,
which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Com-
mons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article
are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the
material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly
from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/.
References
ADIF. (2020). Tragedia sulla Moby Zaza. Retrieved from https:// www.a- dif. org/ 2020/ 05/ 20/ trage diasu lla-
moby- zaza- migra nte- si- tuffa- in- mare-e- muore/.
Agier, M. (2005). Ordine e disordini dell’umanitario. Dalla vittima al soggetto politico. “Rifugiati”, (5),
49–65.
Ambrosini, M. (2021). The Urban Governance of Asylum as a “Battleground”: Policies of Exclusion and
Efforts of Inclusion in Italian Towns, “Geographical Review”, 187–205.
Anastasia, S., Ferraris V. (2021). Pandemia e diritto: prime riflessioni per una storia ancora da scrivere.
“Studi sulla questione criminale”, 35–53.
Asta, F., and Caprioglio, C. (2017). Per giusta decisione. Riflessioni sul controllo giurisdizionale del trat-
tenimento degli stranieri. Materiali per una storia della cultura giuridica, 47(2), 553–572.
Bigo, D. (2006). Globalized (in)Security: the Field and the Ban-opticon, in ID., a cura di, Illiberal Practices
of Liberal Regimes: The (in)Security Games, “L’Harmattan”, 5–49.
Brandariz, J. A., & Fernández-Bessa, C. (2021). Coronavirus and Immigration Detention in Europe: The
Short Summer of Abolitionism? Social Sciences, 10(6), 226.
Campesi, G. (2012). Migrazioni, sicurezza, confini nella teoria sociale contemporanea. “Studi sulla ques-
tione criminale”, (2), 7–30.
Campesi, G. (2014). Confinati sulla soglia: Etnografia dei centri per richiedenti asilo in Puglia, in Pannarale,
L., a cura di, Passaggi di frontiera: Osservatorio sulla detenzione amministrativa degli immigrati e
l’accoglienza dei richiedenti asilo in Puglia. “Quaderni dell’Altro diritto”, Pacini Editore, 37–71.
Campesi, G. (2015). Hindering the deportation machine. An ethnography of power and resistance in immi-
gration detention. In punishment and Society, 17(4), 427–453.
CILD. (2021). La detenzione migrante ai tempi del Covid, link: https:// cild. eu/ wp- conte nt/ uploa ds/ 2020/ 07/
Dossi er_ Migra ntiCo vid. pdf
Crawley, H. (2021). The Politics of Refugee Protection in a (Post)COVID-19 World. “Social science”.
Cuttitta, P. (2016). Mandatory Integration Measures and Differential Inclusion: The Italian Case. Journal of
International Migration and Integration, 17(1), 289–302.
Cuttitta, P. (2018). Delocalization, Humanitarianism and Human Rights: The Mediterranean Border
between Exclusion and Inclusion. “Antipode”, 50(3), 783–803
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

323
Governing Immobility intheCOVID‑19 Crisis inItaly:…
1 3
Dempster, H., etal. (2020). Locked Down and Left Behind: the Impact of COVID-19 on Efugees’ Economic
Inclusion. CGDEV Policy Paper. Centre for Global Development and Refugees International, p. 179.
D’Ignoti, S. (2020). How coronavirus hits migrants and asylum seekers in Italy. The New Humanitarian
De Genova, N. (2002). Migrant "illegality" and deportability in everyday life. Annual Review of Anthropol-
ogy, 31, 419–447.
De Genova, N. (2013). Spectacles of migrant "illegality": The scene of exclusion, the obscene of inclusion.
Ethnic and Racial Studies, 36(7), 1180–1198.
De Genova, N., Garelli G. and Tazzioli M. (2018), Autonomy of Asylum? The Autonomy of Migration
Undoing the Refugees Crisis Script, in “South Atlantic Quarterly”, 117(2), 239–265.
Della Puppa, F., Perocco F. (2021). The Coronavirus Crisis and Migration: Inequalities, Discrimination,
Resistance. Introduction, “Dve Domovini/Two Homelands”, 7–12.
Denaro, C. (2021). Politiche di (ri)confinamento in tempo di Pandemia: L’utilizzo di “Navi Quarantena” in
Italia e l’accesso al diritto di Asilo. “Diritto, Immigrazione e Cittadinanza”, (2), 34–59.
Esposito, F., Caja, E., & Mattiello, G. (2020). "No one is looking at us anymore". Migrant Detention and
Covid-19 in Italy. Retrieved from https:// www. law. ox. ac. uk/ sites/ files/ oxlaw/ report_ espos ito_ caja_
matti ello_ compr essed. pdf
Esposito, F., Mattiello, G., & Caja, E. (2022). Corpi reclusi in attesa di espulsione. La detenzione amminis-
trativa in Europa al tempo della sindemia. Torino, Seb27.
Fabini, G. (2019). Internal bordering in the context of undeportability: Border performances in Italy. Theo-
retical Criminology, 23, 2: 175–193.
Fabini, G. and Firouzi Tabar, O. (2022). “Criminali”, “Vittime”, “Untori”: leggere il governo delle
migrazioni attraverso la Pandemia. “Studi sulla questione criminale”, (1) 75–98
Fassin, D. (2011). Humanitarian Reason. A Moral History of the Presen. University of California Press.
Fassin, D. (2019). Le vite ineguali. Quanto vale un essere umano, Feltrinelli.
Fassin, D. (2021). Hazardous Confinement During the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Fate of Migrants
Detained yet Nondeportable. “Journal of Human Rights”, 613–623.
Ferraris, V. (2021). Immigrazione e criminalità. Teorie, norme e rappresentazioni. Carocci Editore.
Ferri, F. (2019). Cosa può un hotspot? In G. Fabini, O. Firouzi Tabar, & F. Vianello (Eds.), Lungo i
confini dell’accoglienza: migranti e territori tra resistenze e dispositivi di controllo (pp. 65–88).
Verona, Ombre Corte.
Filippi, D., Giliberti, L. (2021). Italian Reception Policies and Pandemic: From Exclusion to Abandon-
ment. “Dve Domovini/Two Homelands”, 131–142.
Firouzi Tabar, O. (2019). L’accoglienza dei richiedenti asilo tra segregazione e resistenze: un’etnografia
a Padova e Provincia. In Fabini G., Firouzi Tabar O., Vianello F. (a cura di), Lungo i confini
dell’accoglienza. Migranti e territori tra resistenze e dispositive di controllo. Manifestolibri,
175–212.
Firouzi Tabar, O. and Maculan, A. (2021). L’accoglienza tra CAS e carcere: Cronaca di un suicidio
nell’emergenza sanitaria, in Miravalle, M., Scandurra A., a cura di, VII Rapporto Annuale sulle
condizioni di detenzione, Antigone.
Firouzi Tabar, O., Sanò, G. (2021). The “Double Emergency” and the securitization of the Humanitarian
Approach in the Italian Reception System within the Pandemic Crisis, “Dve Domovini/Two Home-
lands”, 54,155–170.
Franko, K. (2021). The two-sided spectacle at the border: Frontex, NGOs and the theatres of sovereignty.
Theoretical Criminology, 25(3), 379–399.
Gabrielli, L. (2021). Pandemia e sconvolgimento dei sistemi migratori: il caso del corridoio Marocco-
Spagna. Mondi Migranti, Franco Angeli, 123–141.
Giammarinaro, M.G., Palumbo, L. (2020). COVID-19 and inequalities: Protecting the human rights of
migrants in a time of Pandemic, “migration policy practice”, 10(2), 21–26.
Gilmore, R. W. (2007). Golden Gulag: Prisons, Surplus, Crisis, and Opposition in Globalizing Califor-
nia. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Goldin, I. and Muggah. (2020). COVID-19 is Increasing Multiple Kind of Inequalities. Here’s What
We Can Do about it. World Economic Forum. Available online: https:// www. wefor um. org/ agenda/
2020/ 10/ COVID- 19- is- incre asing- multi ple- kinds- of- inequ ality- here-s- what- we- can- do- about- it/.
Guadagno, L. (2020). Migrants and the Covid-19 Pandemic: An Initial Analysis. Migration Research
Series. International Organization for Migration (IOM).
Harcourt, B. E. (2007). Against Prediction. Profiling, Policing, and Punishing in an Actuarial Age. The
University of Chicago Press.
Harcourt, B. E. (2009). Road to Racial Profiling was Paved by Migrants, in Palidda S., a cura di, Crimi-
nalisation and Victimization of Migrants in Europe, Dipartimento di Scienze Antropologiche, Uni-
versità degli Studi di Genova, 188–210.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

324
G.Fabini, O.Firouzi Tabar
1 3
Heller, C., Pezzani, L. and Stierl, M. (2023). Migration: Security and Humanitarianism across the Medi-
terranean Border. Routledge Handbook to Ocean Space, 247–260.
Hess, S., Kasparek, B. (2017). Under Control? Or Border (as) Conflict: Reflections on the European
Border Regime. “Social Inclusion”, 5(3), 58–68.
Huysmans, J. (2000), The European Union and the Securitization of Migration, “Journal of Common
Market Studies”, 38(5), 751–77.
Huysmans, J. (2006), The Politics of Insecurity. Fear, Migration and Asylum in EU. Routledge
Johansen, N. B. (2013). Governing the Funnel of Expulsion: Agamben, the Dynamics of Force, and
Minimalist Biopolitics. In K. Franko & M. Bosworth (Eds.), The Borders of Punishment Migration,
Citizenship, and Social Exclusion (pp. 257–272). Oxford University Press.
Lo Verde, L. (2021). Le “Navi Quarantena”: Una misura temporanea o un nuovo approccio oltre
l’emergenza?. Available at: https:// www. law. ox. ac. uk/ resea rch- subje ct- groups/ centre- crimi nology/
centr ebord er- crimi nolog ies/ blog/ 2021/ 06/ le- navi
Lyon, D. (2004). Massima Sicurezza. Sorveglianza e “Guerra al terrorismo”. Raffaello Cortina Editore.
Malkki, L. (1996). Speechless Emissaries: Refugees, Humanitarianism, and Dehistoricization. “Cultural
Anthropology”, 11(3), 377–404
Manocchi, M. (2014). Richiedenti asilo e rifugiati: processi di etichettamento e pratiche di resistenza,
“Rassegna italiana di sociologia”, 385–409.
Mbembé, J.-A. (2003). Necropolitics. Public Culture, 15(1), 11–40.
Meer, N., Hill, E., Peace, T. and Villegas, L. (2021). Rethinking refugee in time of COVID-19. “Ethnic
and racial studies”, 864–876.
Melossi, D. (2020). Migration, Populism, Racism: Between "Old" Italy and "New" Europe. In R. Koul-
ish & M. van der Woude (Eds.), Crimmigrant Nations: Resurgent Nationalism and the Closing of
Borders (1st ed., pp. 50–67). Fordham University Press.
Mentasti, G. (2020). Migranti e detenzione amministrativa in tempo di COVID-19: i bollettini del
garante dei detenuti pubblicati durante l’epidemia. Sistema Penale. Available at: https:// www. siste
mapen ale. it/ it/ scheda/ bolle ttini- garan te- migra nti- deten zione- ammin istra tiva- COVID- 19 (accessed
on 21 May 2023)
Mezzadra, S. and Neilson B. (2013). Border as method, or, the multiplication of labour, Duke University
Press, Durham.
Mezzadra, S. (2020). Abolitionist vistas of the human. Border struggles, migration and freedom of
movement, “Citizenship Studies”, 24(4), 1–17.
Mezzadra, S. (2021). Testing Borders. COVID-19 and the management of (Im)mibility. In Baier, W.,
Canepa, E. and Golemis, H. (eds), Capitalism’s Death Threat. Transform!. Merlin Press, 246–255.
Montagna, N. (2023). Quarantine Ships as Spaces of Bordering: The Securitization of Migration Policy
in Italy During the COVID-19 Pandemic. International Migration Review. Advance online publica-
tion. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01979 18323 11545 60
Neal, A. W. (2009). Securitization and Risk at the EU Border: the Origins of Frontex, “Journal of Com-
mon Market Studies”, 15(2), 333–56.
Papadopoulos, D. and Vassilis, T. (2013). After citizenship: Autonomy of migration, organisational
ontology and mobile commons. “Citizenship Studies”, 17(2), 178–196.
Piccoli, L. (2021). La trasformazione del regime globale di mobilità durante la Pandemia di COVID-19.
“Mondi Migranti”. FrancoAngeli, 45–60
Pinelli, B. (2017). Control and Abandonment: The Power of Surveillance on Refugees in Italy, During
and After the Mare Nostrum Operation, “Antipode”, 50(3), 725–747.
Saitta, P. (2015). Resistenze: Pratiche e margini del conflitto nel quotidiano, Ombre Corte, Verona.
Saitta, P. (2017). Practices of subjectivity: The informal economies and the subaltern rebellion. Interna-
tional Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 37(7/8): 400–416.
Sanò, G., Della Puppa, F. (2021). The Multiple Facets of (im)Mobility. A Multisited Ethnography on
Territorialisation Esperiences and Mobility Trajectories of Asylum Seekers and Refugees Outside
the Italian Reception System, “Journal of Modern Italian Studies”, 26(5), 552–568.
Scheel, S. (2013). Studying embodies encounters: autonomy of migration beyond its romanticization.
“Postcolonial Studies”, 16(3), 279–288.
Sciurba, A. (2017). Categorizing migrants by undermining the right to asylum: The implementation of
the "hotspot approach" in Sicily. Etnografia e Ricerca Qualitativa, 1, 97–119.
Scott, J. C. (1985). Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Slack, J., Josiah, H. (2020). Asylum and Mass Detention at the U.S.- Mexico Border during COVID-19.
“Journal of Latin American Geography”, (3), 334–339
Sorgoni, B. (2011). Etnografia dell’accoglienza. Rifugiati e richiedenti asilo a Ravenna, CISU.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

325
Governing Immobility intheCOVID‑19 Crisis inItaly:…
1 3
Spada, S. (2020). Tra cecità corticale e vecchi vizi. Riflessioni sui processi di esternalizzazione e distan-
ziamento, “Illuminazioni”, 32–55.
Stierl, M. (2019). Migrant Resistance in Contemporary Europe. Routledge.
Stierl, M. and Dadusc, D. (2021). The “Covid excuse”: EUropean border violence in the Mediterranean
Sea, “Ethnic and Racial Studies”, 1453–1474.
Tazzioli, M. and Garelli, G. (2018). Containment beyond detention: The hotspot system and disrupted
migration movements across Europe. Society and Space, 1–19.
Tazzioli, M. (2020). “Confine to protect: Greek Hotspot and the Hygienic-Sanitary Borders of COVID-
19.” Available at: https:// www. law. ox. ac. uk/ resea rch- subje ct- groups/ centre- crimi nology/ centr ebord
er- crimi nolog ies/ blog/ 2020/ 09/ confi ne- prote ct
Tazzioli, M. and Stierl, M. (2021). “We Closed the Ports to Protect Refugees”. Hygienic Borders and
Deterrence Humanitarianism during COVID-19. International Political Sociology, 539–558
Ullah, A., Nawaz, F. and Chattoraj, D. (2021). Locked up under lockdown; The COVID-19 pandemic
and the migrant population. Social Sciences & Humanities Open.
Van Munster, R. (2009), Securitizing Immigration. The politics of Risk in the EU. Palgrave MacMillan
Vaughan-Williams, N. (2017). Europe’s Border Crisis: Biopolitical Security and Beyond. Oxfor Univer-
sity Press.
Walters, W. (2011). Foucault and Frontiers: Notes on the Bird of Humanitarian Border. In Governa-
mentality, Current Issues and Future Challenge. Edited by Brockling, U., Krasmann, S., Lemke, T.
Routledge, 146–172.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center
GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers
and authorised users (“Users”), for small-scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all
copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By accessing,
sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of
use (“Terms”). For these purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and
students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and
conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal subscription. These Terms will prevail over any
conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription (to
the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of
the Creative Commons license used will apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may
also use these personal data internally within ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share
it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not otherwise
disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies
unless we have your permission as detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial
use, it is important to note that Users may not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale
basis or as a means to circumvent access control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any
jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association
unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a
systematic database of Springer Nature journal content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a
product or service that creates revenue, royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as
part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal content cannot be
used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large
scale into their, or any other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not
obligated to publish any information or content on this website and may remove it or features or
functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature may revoke
this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content
which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or
guarantees to Users, either express or implied with respect to the Springer nature journal content and
all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law, including
merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published
by Springer Nature that may be licensed from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a
regular basis or in any other manner not expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer
Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com