• No results found

A place to live in

In document Living a Paradox (pagina 46-50)

4. Research design

6.2 A place to live in

This kind of dynamics may worsen until becoming extremely problematic. A clear example of how relations between people living in reception facilities and host-communities may be highly difficult is represented by the occurrence of episodes of violence. Kaleb recounted how strongly he felt as a victim of violent episodes of racism:

Kaleb: Once I was walking close to the street and a guy did for two times like this

<imitates the action of steering with the steering wheel of the car> with his car when he saw me.

Francesco: Oh my god.

Kaleb: Once he did it again when I was close to the station. This is not good. I went home and I told to my supervisor. He called the police and then they said that they will check but I haven’t heard anything so far.

As we can see, the location in which asylum seekers are moved can represent a fundamental factor in shaping their reality and experiences. Even though Italian villages may not be seen as “zones of exception” as much as detention centres or islands, the geographical isolation of these places may enhance senses of spatial limbos and temporal suspension (Mountz, 2011). Moreover, as various studies pointed out, lack of social support and discrimination enacted by the host-communities may represent a leading cause of anxiety, depression and feelings of social isolation in asylum seekers (Upham, et al., 2013; Almohamed, Vyas, 2016). The external environment, however, represent only a part of asylum seekers’ reality. Facilities’ living conditions and co-habitative dimensions represent an important factor in shaping asylum seekers experiences. As it will be discussed in what follows, politics of management play an important role in this scenery.

implementation (Campomori, Ambrosini, 2020). In response to the rising number of asylum seekers disembarked on Italian shores in 2014 and 2015, a nationally coordinated reception system was designed. This system consisted in three main phases: rescue, first aid and identification; first-level reception in structures coordinated by the Ministry of the Interior (CARA, CDA); second-level reception in SPRAR (now renamed SAI) with provision of services such as “education, psychological support, legal counselling, professional training and an individualised project of integration” (Campomori, Ambrosini, 2020:4). The practical implementation of this system, however, did not take place as expected due to conflicts between different actors. The institution and development of the SPRAR depends greatly on local authorities due to the need for these to voluntarily launch the reception project in collaboration with other actors as NGOs and associations, which will work in the established facility (Campomori, Ambrosini, 2020). The development of this plan, however, encountered the resistance of many local authorities, forcing the national government to by-pass them by creating a parallel “extraordinary” system based on CAS directly entrusted to private actors. CAS are structures designed as temporary housing facilities to be opened in case of "consistent and close arrivals of protection requesters” (Decreto Legislativo n.

142, 2015). As Campomori and Ambrosini (2020:4) highlight, this course of action could be defined as “an emergency response to a recurrent structural issue”.

Moreover, as discussed in Chapter 2, from 2018 to 2020 the Security and Immigration Decree had a critical impact on this scenery by officially declaring asylum seekers as not entitled for reception in SAI (at the time called SIPROIMI) and forcing them to live in big first-reception facilities and CAS. After the abolishment of this law and the reopening of SAI to protection requesters, the reception in this system and access to its services remain an exception rather than the norm, due to a significant lack of available places. In the meanwhile, CAS continue to host the vast majority of people seeking asylum in Italy. Therefore, the major part of the Italian reception system relies on

“extraordinary” structures designed as a temporary alternative in case of high numbers of protection requesters, while just a very small part of asylum seekers have access to the final steps of the reception process as it was originally planned to be.

CAS are structures chosen among private and “third sector” providers by the Minister of Interior provincial offices, which allocates an amount of funds to third private actors’ accounts following specific tenders (Ministero dell’Interno, 2020). As reported by D’Angelo (2018:6), requirements and standards are often overlooked during CAS subcontracting procedures, which may lead to

accepting inadequate facilities to house asylum seekers. Furthermore, they are run by organisations with different levels of preparation and expertise, something vitally important for the ones living in such places. Moreover, as discussed in Chapter 2 CAS host a vast number of asylum seekers for a long period of time, most often years, even though they are designed as temporal structures.

Therefore, people living in these places must regularly cope with living conditions that are not designed for a prolonged stay. The story of Thomas is a clear representation of how inadequate CAS’ living conditions may be.

Thomas: I lived in that place for two years, I lived in [name of a small village] for two years. After two years I started complaining about the place: there’s no food, a lot of complaints about [name of the place]. […] You know, the water was coming inside the house…

Facility inadequateness, however, was not the only source of distress in Thomas’ life related to the place in which he lived. Another important aspect of the difficulties asylum seekers face with regards to their living conditions, in fact, is the lack of considerations regarding differences in cultural backgrounds, language, nationality or vulnerability in housing management. As a result, asylum seekers are forced to live in cohabitative dimensions in which social relations may be a problematic source of distress. This is especially evident for those representing a minority among different cultural groups living in the facilities. As Thomas recounts, difficulties due to social and cultural differences with roommates and other people living in the same structure can emerge creating problematic realities:

Thomas: Among these people, I was the only one speaking English because I come from [name of the country of origin in Africa]. I speak English, I didn’t understand shit of Italian, I didn’t understand shit of French. All of them were talking in French and I couldn’t understand shit.

During the same conversation, Thomas also recounted how his life changed when he was transferred to another reception facility. In the new structure, Thomas’ roommate is a young man coming from the same country as him. They rapidly developed a strong friendship which he describes as a major source of happiness in his life: a clear example of how cohabitative relations can influence asylum seekers’ reality. Thomas, however, is not the only one recounting this kind of

experiences. Dennis, a status holder who still lives in a house allocated through the reception system, reported similar problems deriving from being forced to live with many people of different nationalities in contrast with his previous living conditions in another facility.

Francesco: How do you feel about the house where you are staying?

Dennis: Quite well, however, it is difficult to live with people of… of different nationalities: Africans, Pakistanis, Somalis. All people in the same house and it is not easy to be together because everyone has their own ways.

Francesco: And before living in Turin have you always been living in a similar centre ? Dennis: Yes.

Francesco: How was life there ?

Dennis: I found myself very well there because they gave us a big house and we were five boys of the same nationality. I found myself very well.

This phenomenon of asylum seekers who “physically share spaces with other displaced people in diverse spaces of asylum” (Fiddian-Qasmiyeh, 2018:1) can be understood as a cohabitative overlapping displacement. Even though this phenomenon has been observed in national or urban context (Fiddian-Qasmiyeh, 2012), its articulation in very limited shared spaces such as small reception facilities and effects on asylum seekers experiences needs to be acknowledged.

Another important issue is the lack of structures and services for people who are considered extremely vulnerable, and may develop common or severe mental disorders and exhibit episodes of upset and violence. Vulnerable cases should be hosted in SAI or specialised facilities. Having someone officially declared as “vulnerable”, however, is not easy and many end up being hosted in the same inadequate facilities as the others. As a result, asylum seekers need to adapt to potentially harmful situations in places where protection from violent episodes or measures to prevent such dangers are not always guaranteed. Professionals reported difficult experiences related to this structural lack of aid for these particular situations:

Darleene: I think that it is a problem, also in Turin, because the issue of (lack of) structures, reception centres for vulnerable people but not “very serious” cases is a problem that everyone knows about because it is very frequent. I mean, if all of us in our professional experience have had more than one case, it means that among the hosted

you can imagine how many vulnerable people there are. And every time we point out the existence of this problem to the Prefecture who says: "as you already know, there are no structures.”

[…]

Darleene: Another particularity of the places we work in is that they are “accoglienza diffusa” [spread reception], therefore, there are many small facilities in [names of small villages]. […] As a matter of fact, there is no h24 surveillance, there is not any kind of control. Therefore there are often situations left to the roommates to deal with. In other words, in the end those who actually manage it during the day are the roommates more than us. […] The problematic thing is that, ok, independence is beautiful and so is leaving them a house but in these situations it becomes a tragedy.

As we can grasp from these accounts, politics of management play a fundamental role in shaping asylum seekers’ reality by influencing spatial experiences and tensions. Their arbitrariness in designating asylum seekers’ allocation can have meaningful consequences by relegating these people in more or less adequate facilities and forcing them into potentially problematic co-habitative dimensions for unknown periods of time. Moreover, asylum seekers’ experiences and conditions may be helped or worsened by the facility’s surroundings and the social relations with habitants who may bear feelings of distrust, potentially fed by the wide-spread messages of fear regarding immigrants.

In document Living a Paradox (pagina 46-50)