
The funds are already there. And they are written in black and white: 246 thousand euros for 2026 and 492 thousand euros per year for 2027 and 2028. Resources that can be used to pay lawyers “with a mandate, who provide assistance to the foreign citizen in the phase of submitting the request for participation in an assisted voluntary repatriation program”.
It is one of the most controversial points of the Security Legislative Decree approved by the Senate and being examined by the House from Monday. The vote of confidence for the definitive conversion of the provision wanted by Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and Interior Minister Matteo Piantedosi is expected on Wednesday.
The rule that ignites the conflict
What has sparked the controversy is above all article 30-bis of the decree, which recognizes a specific role for the National Bar Council in the procedure aimed at encouraging the repatriation of foreigners.
And it is precisely here that the toughest front opens up. Because the law does not limit itself to the payment of lawyers, but directly involves a body which, according to what the CNF itself reports, was never notified.
The attack of the National Bar Council
The CNF’s response came with a very harsh note: «Regarding the provision of the security decree which attributes to the National Forensic Council a role in the process of repatriation of immigrants and in the management of the payments of the lawyers involved, the CNF specifies that it has never been informed of this involvement: neither before the presentation of the amendment, nor during its parliamentary process, nor after its approval».
The second controversial point which is only a political direction for now:
Security Decree, the Ice model appears: new non-lethal weapons for the police – Il Sole 24 ORE
From chilli bullets to programmed deformation bullets, up to UV markers, stroboscopic LEDs on shields, light exoskeletons and tonfas: the agenda of FdI senator Lisei commits the Government to evaluating their introduction
It is not yet a new operational equipment. But the political signal is clear, and has weight. In the heart of the Security Decree, an arsenal of “controlled lethality” tools designed for public order to be used in marches and demonstrations breaks out: Co2 launchers with irritating pepper capsules, 40 mm controlled kinetic impact systems with deformable projectiles, selective paint or UV markers, stroboscopic LEDs on shields, light exoskeletal protection, tonfa and a fund for the specialized training of operators.
This line is put in black and white by the agenda signed by Fratelli d’Italia senator Marco Lisei and approved in the examination of the Security Decree. A text that pushes the Government to evaluate an experiment on new non-lethal weapons and that brings into the Italian debate a lexicon, a posture and partly also tools that closely resemble those used or authorized in the United States within the perimeter of the Department of Homeland Security, within which the controversial Ice, the American federal agency for immigration and border control, also operates.
What really changes with the agenda
The point needs to be clarified. The agenda does not automatically introduce these non-lethal weapons into the departments and does not, by itself, oblige the purchase of the equipment. It is an act of political direction with which the Senate commits the Government to evaluate its opportunity.
But this is precisely why the text is relevant. Because it indicates a precise direction: increasingly moving the management of public order towards tools capable of intervening remotely, selecting targets, reducing direct contact and, in intention, limiting collateral damage.
Meanwhile, the security decree, after passing through the Senate, has reached the Chamber for conversion.
https://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/dl-sicurezza-fondo-246mila-euro-annui-gli-avvocati-che-favoriscono-rimpatri-cnf-esplode-mai-informati-AIG2lXZC
Posted by sr_local
3 Comments
A me piace la sicurezza.
Sono favorevole ai rimpatri, se giustificati e non arbitrari, i parassiti non devono diffondersi.
Nonostante ciò, un fondo da che favorisca una o l’altra decisione mi sembra una bella red flag, ma ormai seguendo la cronaca contemporanea sembra quasi una cosa da nulla…
I gratuiti patrocini per “difendere” i poveri clandestini sono un boccone troppo ghiotto, ovvio che insorgano gli avvocati.
Praticamente è come se chiedessero alla chiesa di pagare le tasse.