Welcome to a new episode of the podcast Integration or ReImmigration.
My name is Fabio Loscerbo. I am an Italian attorney and an EU-registered lobbyist working on migration and asylum law.
Today I want to speak directly to an American audience about an idea that is often missing from the U.S. immigration debate: the idea that staying in a country can be lawful, legitimate, and non-automatic at the same time.
In the United States, immigration is usually framed as a binary choice. Either a person has lawful status, or they face removal. Either enforcement is strict, or the system is accused of being permissive. This framing leaves little room for a more realistic legal question: under what conditions should a person be allowed to remain?
In recent Italian case law, particularly in decisions issued by courts in late 2025, judges have been answering exactly that question. Not politically. Not ideologically. Legally.
The key principle is simple: physical presence does not create a right to stay. Time alone does not legalize residence. What matters is something else — integration as a legally relevant fact.
Courts are asking concrete questions. Does the person work? Are they economically self-sufficient? Do they have stable housing? Social and family ties? Do they respect the rules? Do they pose any risk to public order? There are no fixed timelines, no automatic thresholds. Each case is assessed individually.
If the answer is yes — if a person has genuinely built a life that would be seriously and disproportionately disrupted by removal — then the law limits the government’s power to deport.
If the answer is no, enforcement remains fully legitimate.
This is what I call conditional residence.
It is not amnesty.
It is not open borders.
And it is not discretionary tolerance.
It is a court-driven legal filter that separates mere presence from lawful permanence.
In Italy, this logic operates through a legal instrument known as complementary protection. The name is not important for American listeners. What matters is the function. It is a status granted when removal would violate fundamental rights — not because the state is being generous, but because the law requires it.
This model is interesting for the United States because it shows that immigration control does not collapse when deportation is not automatic. On the contrary, enforcement becomes more credible when it is selective, principled, and reviewable.
The real choice is not between mass deportation and mass legalization. The real challenge is building a system where staying is earned, verified, and legally justified.
That is the core idea behind the paradigm Integration or ReImmigration.
Integration is not a slogan. It is a condition.
And when that condition is not met, the legal system must also be able to say no.
What is happening in European courts today may offer a useful lesson for American policymakers and legal scholars: immigration law works best when it is grounded in rules, responsibility, and judicial oversight, not in political extremes.
Thank you for listening to this episode of Integration or ReImmigration.
I’m Fabio Loscerbo.
See you next time.
Lascia un commento