The debate surrounding recent demographic data from the Brussels-Capital Region has been largely distorted by ideological reflexes. On one side, alarmist narratives reduce complex statistics to slogans; on the other, denial minimizes structural transformations as irrelevant or inevitable. Both approaches miss the point.
What makes the Brussels case politically significant is not the numbers themselves, but what they reveal about Europe’s long-standing refusal to govern demographic change as a matter of state responsibility.
To understand the issue properly, one must first clarify what the data actually measure. Belgian official statistics do not classify individuals by ethnicity or race, nor do they focus on current citizenship. Instead, they rely on the concept of “origin,” defined by the nationality of a person and their parents at birth. A child born in Brussels, holding Belgian citizenship, may still be statistically classified as having “non-Belgian origin” if at least one parent originally held a foreign nationality.
This distinction matters. The data do not describe “foreigners” in a legal sense. They describe intergenerational demographic dynamics, particularly the composition of younger cohorts entering schools, welfare systems, and eventually the labor market and political community.
Once this clarification is made, the broader trend becomes clear. In Brussels, demographic growth among younger generations is driven overwhelmingly by families with a migration background, largely non-EU according to statistical classifications. This is not a temporary fluctuation, but a structural shift with long-term institutional consequences.
At this point, the discussion ceases to be statistical and becomes political.
For decades, European migration policy has treated demography as a side effect rather than a variable to be governed. Admission, settlement, and family reunification have been framed as largely automatic processes. Integration, meanwhile, has been invoked rhetorically but rarely defined in enforceable legal or civic terms. There has been little evaluation of outcomes, no meaningful distinction between successful and unsuccessful integration, and virtually no corrective mechanisms.
The Brussels case exposes the consequences of this approach. When demographic transformation proceeds without a clear framework of governance, the state gradually loses its capacity to act as a formative authority. Schools, social services, and local administrations shift from integration mechanisms to crisis-management structures. Parallel social realities emerge, not by accident, but by institutional neglect.
Here lies the European taboo: integration presupposes a stable normative majority. Not in ethnic or racial terms, but in functional ones. Integration is inherently asymmetrical. It requires a defined civic framework into which newcomers enter, adapt, and eventually belong. When that asymmetry disappears—when the state’s cultural and normative reference becomes marginal in key urban areas—integration does not fail; it becomes structurally impossible.
Europe has chosen not to confront this reality. Demographic governance has been framed as morally suspect, and state responsibility has been replaced by procedural inertia. The result is a system where permanence is guaranteed regardless of outcomes, and where non-integration carries no legal or political consequences.
This is precisely where the paradigm “Integration or ReImmigration” acquires relevance—not as provocation, but as institutional logic. Integration cannot be presumed; it must be assessed over time. Where integration succeeds—through language acquisition, rule compliance, and adherence to constitutional values—residence stabilizes. Where it fails persistently, return must once again be understood as a normal, regulated function of the state, not as a moral transgression.
The Brussels case does not prove a simplistic theory of “replacement.” It demonstrates something more fundamental: Europe’s abdication of demographic governance as a core element of sovereignty. Ignoring this abdication means accepting that demographic change will continue without criteria, limits, or corrective tools. In effect, it means accepting that the state relinquishes control over its own long-term cohesion.
For American observers, Brussels is not a warning about Europe’s past. It is a preview of what happens when demographic change is treated as destiny rather than policy.
Avv. Fabio Loscerbo
Attorney at Law – EU Transparency Register Lobbyist
ID 280782895721-36
Lascia un commento