Proponents of Italy's current approach argue that the country is acting out of necessity rather than a desire to undermine European unity. They contend that the Dublin Regulation, which assigns asylum responsibility to the first point of entry, is fundamentally flawed and places an impossible burden on Mediterranean nations. By refusing to accept the return of thousands of migrants, Italy is highlighting the reality that its reception facilities are at a breaking point, unable to provide the humane conditions required by law.
From this viewpoint, the new European asylum reforms do not go far enough to address the structural imbalances of the system. Supporters argue that expecting countries like Italy to manage the majority of arrivals while also accepting returns from wealthier northern states is unrealistic. They maintain that until there is a truly equitable distribution of migrants across all 27 member states, frontline countries have no choice but to prioritize their own stability and national security over rigid adherence to bureaucratic rules that have historically failed to provide relief.
Furthermore, advocates for this position point out that Italy has been left to manage a disproportionate share of the migration crisis for years. They argue that the focus should be on creating a more sustainable, long-term solution that accounts for the geographic reality of the EU's borders. By pushing back against the current return mechanism, Italy is forcing a necessary debate about the fairness of the entire European asylum framework, urging other member states to share the responsibility more meaningfully rather than relying on outdated regulations.