Welcome to a new episode of the Integration or ReImmigration podcast. Today, I want to examine a case that is shaping the Italian public debate and, at the same time, confirming all the limits of the “soft” integration model that has guided our country for too many years. I’m talking about the case of Imam Mohamed Shahin, expelled by the Ministry of the Interior on charges of radicalism and of holding positions deemed incompatible with Italy’s democratic values.
Beyond the individual story—which always deserves respect—the real issue lies elsewhere: for nearly twenty years, Shahin was a public figure, a religious guide, a community leader, a stable presence in the city of Turin. Yet, despite this role, no institution ever assessed whether his contribution to social coexistence truly aligned with the fundamental principles of our legal system. No one evaluated, in a systematic way, whether his preaching reflected constitutional values or whether signs of radicalization were emerging and should have been addressed before escalating.
This case demonstrates something I have been saying for a long time: Italy has relied for far too many years on a model of integration built on generic trust, on the belief that if a problem does not explode publicly, then it does not exist. It is an approach that refuses to define what integration really means. An approach rooted more in hope than in method, more in goodwill than in concrete checks. And the results, unfortunately, are right before our eyes.
The real issue is not the isolated episode. The problem is the system. A system that does not monitor, does not evaluate, does not update its information, and intervenes only when the damage has already become visible and the political climate forces an immediate reaction. It is a way of managing integration that protects neither the State nor the many law-abiding foreign residents who live correctly on Italian soil.
The Integration or ReImmigration paradigm exists precisely to fill this gap. It is not a repressive model, as some might claim. On the contrary, it is a framework of mutual responsibility: those who live in Italy must demonstrate—through concrete facts—their adherence to constitutional values, respect for the law, and positive participation in community life. The State, in turn, must establish clear, verifiable, periodic criteria. And it must be ready to take coherent decisions when those criteria are not met.
The Shahin case does not only show what went wrong in the past. It strongly indicates what must be done in the future: we need a model in which integration is not an act of blind trust, but a measurable process; a model in which respect for the rules is not optional but foundational; a model in which religious leaders, public figures, and community influencers carry greater responsibility than they did in the past.
Because the truth is simple: without criteria, without monitoring, without a clear pact between the State and foreign nationals, social coexistence cannot hold. It cannot withstand international tensions, political polarization, or the risks of radicalization. It cannot survive on the hope that everything will turn out fine.
The Integration or ReImmigration paradigm does not aim to create conflict—it aims to restore a balance that is currently missing. It exists to protect citizens, but also to protect integrated foreign residents who contribute to the country and cannot be confused with those who challenge the fundamental principles of Italy’s democracy.
The Shahin case is a warning we cannot ignore. And this episode of the podcast is an invitation to look beyond the headlines and beyond the political controversy, to understand that the real challenge for Italy’s future is the ability to build responsible integration—one based on clear rules and a clear pact: integration as a duty, ReImmigration as the consequence for those who reject this path.
Thank you for listening to this episode. In the next installments, we’ll continue to explore the challenges and opportunities of the Integration or ReImmigration paradigm, with analysis, real cases, and an always rigorous look at reality.
Lascia un commento