Over recent months, Italy has witnessed a growing wave of youth violence in urban areas, often involving groups of young people acting collectively. Public debate has rapidly crystallised around vague and emotionally charged labels such as “baby gangs”, “maranza” — a colloquial term referring to aggressive youth subcultures — and “second generations”.
For a British audience, this debate is far from unfamiliar. It closely resembles discussions long present in the United Kingdom concerning antisocial behaviour, public order, integration, and the balance between social explanations and personal accountability. What distinguishes the Italian case is not the phenomenon itself, but the way it is framed: the discussion focuses on language and narratives rather than on governance and responsibility.
A substantial part of the Italian media discourse explains youth violence primarily through social and identity-related factors. Violent conduct is frequently portrayed as the outcome of exclusion, marginalisation, or a so-called “denied identity”, particularly among young people born or raised in Italy to immigrant parents. Social hardship undoubtedly exists, but the critical problem arises when explanation quietly turns into justification.
In a society governed by the rule of law, violence cannot be reframed as a culturally understandable reaction to frustration. Legal responsibility does not fluctuate with identity or background. Order precedes belonging, not the other way around.
Another recurring argument insists that expressions such as baby gangs have no legal meaning and should therefore be treated with caution. This observation is technically correct but politically irrelevant. The law does not require journalistic categories in order to act. Whether violence is carried out by formally organised gangs or by loosely connected groups, the conduct remains unlawful and socially harmful. Debating terminology becomes an expedient way of postponing decisive action.
At the core of the Italian debate lies a profound misunderstanding of integration. Integration is often described as an emotional or psychological process, a sense of belonging that will naturally generate respect for common rules if society is sufficiently inclusive. From a legal and institutional perspective, this view is unsustainable.
Integration is not a feeling. It is a condition. It is demonstrated over time through lawful conduct, genuine participation in education, recognition of public authority, and the absence of violent behaviour. When these elements are missing, integration has not merely stalled; it has failed.
This misunderstanding also shapes the discussion around citizenship. Some commentators argue that broader access to citizenship would resolve tensions by strengthening belonging. Yet in any serious constitutional system, citizenship is not a tool of social therapy. It is the consequence of successful integration, not a substitute for it. Granting full membership in advance of demonstrated responsibility risks severing rights from obligations.
At the opposite end of the spectrum, alarmist narratives portray youth violence as a form of urban siege and draw a direct connection between crime and immigration background. This approach is equally flawed. It replaces individual accountability with collective suspicion and undermines the principle of equality before the law. The problem is not origin. The problem is the failure of integration within a shared legal framework.
It is against this background that the paradigm known as “Integrazione o ReImmigrazione” must be understood. ReImmigrazione is not a translated term, but a distinct political and legal concept. It refers to the institutional consequence of a sustained and repeated failure to integrate. It is neither a slogan nor an ideological posture, but a governance framework grounded in a principle well known to British legal culture: conditional residence.
Long-term presence within a political community is not neutral. It is conditional upon compliance with basic rules of coexistence. Within this paradigm, integration ceases to be an abstract moral aspiration and becomes a verifiable process. Educational pathways, social programmes, and alternative measures for minors are no longer symbolic gestures, but mechanisms through which adherence to the social contract is assessed. Conversely, ReImmigrazione is not conceived as moral punishment, but as the legal consequence of unmet conditions, applied with due process and proportionality.
The strength of this framework lies in its clarity. It avoids both sociological absolution and ethnic stigmatisation by focusing on conduct rather than identity. It restores coherence to public policy by reconnecting security and integration. Public order becomes the precondition for integration, and successful integration becomes the foundation of social stability.
From this perspective, the phenomenon currently described in Italy through imprecise labels does not need to be denied or sensationalised. It needs to be governed.
And what can be governed can, ultimately, be resolved.
Avv. Fabio Loscerbo
Attorney at Law
Registered Lobbyist — EU Transparency Register
ID 280782895721-36
Lascia un commento