Integrazione o ReImmigrazione

Without Integration, the State Loses: ReImmigration — Not Remigration — Against the Economic Illusion

Written by

Fabio Loscerbo

in


For years, immigration has been discussed almost exclusively through an economic lens. Migrants are described as “workers needed by the market,” as a demographic solution to aging societies and labor shortages. This approach, while seemingly pragmatic, is deeply flawed. It reduces a complex social and political phenomenon to a purely instrumental function, ignoring its long-term consequences for state cohesion, public order, and democratic legitimacy.

Italy, like many Western countries, is facing a structural demographic decline. Birth rates are collapsing, the working-age population is shrinking, and welfare systems are under pressure. In this context, immigration is increasingly portrayed as unavoidable. But necessity does not justify disorder. Accepting the need for immigration does not mean accepting an uncontrolled or unconditional model of admission and permanence.

This is where the economic-only approach fails. It assumes that employment alone is sufficient to ensure integration. Experience proves otherwise. Work may provide income, but it does not automatically produce social belonging, respect for the legal order, or loyalty to the constitutional framework. Integration is not a natural byproduct of employment; it is a demanding process that requires commitment, adaptation, and accountability.

For this reason, immigration policy must begin with selection at entry. A sovereign state cannot simply admit whoever satisfies a short-term labor demand. It must admit those who demonstrate a genuine willingness to integrate into the host society: respect for the rule of law, acceptance of civic norms, and readiness to participate fully in the social and cultural life of the country. Entry into a legal order is not neutral; it is the beginning of a binding relationship between the individual and the state.

Equally problematic is the idea that permanence should be automatic. In many European systems, once a migrant enters, remaining becomes almost irreversible, regardless of the success or failure of integration. Integration is treated as an aspiration rather than a legal condition. The consequences are increasingly visible: social fragmentation, marginalization of second generations, youth gangs, and growing distrust between communities and institutions. These are not isolated incidents, but symptoms of a systemic failure.

This is the context in which the concept of ReImmigration emerges. ReImmigration is not anti-immigration. It is not about closing borders or denying demographic reality. It is about restoring the state’s capacity to govern immigration over time. ReImmigration is based on a simple but often forgotten principle: staying is conditional.

Those who enter are selected. Those who remain do so because they demonstrate, over time, real integration into the legal and civic community. When this integration does not occur, or when the basic rules of coexistence are seriously violated, the state must have effective and credible mechanisms to end permanence and organize return.

This approach must be clearly distinguished from remigration. Remigration, understood as mass or identity-based return, is largely rhetorical. It ignores legal constraints, demographic realities, and the fact that modern Western societies are already structurally plural. As a policy tool, it offers slogans rather than solutions. In complex democratic systems, remigration is institutionally unworkable and ultimately futile.

ReImmigration is something entirely different. It is selective, individual, and behavior-based. It does not target groups, origins, or identities. It focuses on conduct, integration paths, and compliance with the legal order. Its purpose is not punishment, but equilibrium: ensuring that immigration contributes to social stability rather than undermining it.

If immigration is truly necessary for demographic and economic reasons, then integration must be mandatory, not optional. Without enforceable integration, the state loses authority, legitimacy, and the ability to govern its own territory. ReImmigration is not an ideological shortcut; it is a realist response to a real problem.

Without integration, the state loses. And when the state loses, the cost is paid by everyone: migrants and citizens alike.

Fabio Loscerbo
Lawyer – EU Transparency Register Lobbyist
ID 280782895721-36

Commenti

Lascia un commento

More posts