Migration and Digitalization: Italian and Spanish Policies in the European Framework

The point of departure of this paper is the consideration of the main characteristics of a long and yet incomplete and contradictory communitarization process of migration and border policies. On the one hand, despite EU’s supranational institutions have acquired a central role in the policy area they have showed persistent weaknesses compared to the Council, where northern member states often play a leading role (Ripoll Servent 2013; Ripoll Servent and Trauner 2014). On the other hand, the communitarization has left a considerable uncertainty about the effective implementation of EU’s laws by member states (Trauner 2016). Even if the external frontiers are Europeanized, national states still have an important role in borders control. However, externalization of borders control as well as securitization of external borders and control inside the Schengen area may be considered the main pillars of communitarization process, which are increasingly based on the use of digital technologies, particularly large-scale IT systems with the aim to identify and differentiate, exclude or include immigrants. In such a context, the paper focuses on the different trajectories followed by Spain and Italy in migration and border policies in the last decade, both between them and as regards European addresses. Despite the significant features that traditionally join these two countries in general and their migration policies in particular (Baldwin-Edwards 1999; González-Enríquez & Triandafyllidou 2009), in the last decade Spain and Italy have followed different migration policy paths, especially in the externalization and borders management processes. Such discrepancies are well epitomized by both the different trends and amounts of migration flows and returnee rates. Considering such findings, this research examines the two European member states’ evolution trends concerning the compliance with the digital surveillance systems (large-scale IT systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice) on which Schengen and Dublin conventions are based. The results contradict the thesis of a persistent non-compliance of the Southern European member states with surveillance systems (Aus 2006; Brouwer 2002), but they also highlight further divergences between the two countries’ migration policy paths. The observation is based on data relating to the implementation of Schengen Information System II (SIS II), Visa Information System (VIS) and European Dactyloscopie (Eurodac), as well as data concerning migration flows and the enforcement of immigration legislation, which are analyzed in comparison between the two selected countries. The methodology focuses on documental and data analysis of the main European and national documents on migration and surveillance systems, which allow defining some relevant dimensions of investigation.