Good morning. I’m attorney Fabio Loscerbo, and this is a new episode of the podcast Integration or ReImmigrazione.
From a UK perspective, the European Union’s approach to migration highlights a fundamental problem of governance. It is not a lack of policies, funding, or legal frameworks. It is the absence of a clear and enforceable decision at the core of the system. The European Union chose to promote integration without first deciding who is actually allowed to stay.
This choice has shaped the entire European migration model. Integration was placed at the centre of policy discourse, while the essential question of permanence was left unanswered. European institutions invested heavily in programmes, action plans, monitoring tools, and administrative procedures, but avoided the most basic political responsibility: linking successful integration to the right to remain, and failed integration to the obligation to leave.
As a result, integration in Europe has become an open-ended process. It has no clear endpoint and no real consequences. Once an individual enters the integration system, presence gradually turns into permanence, often regardless of outcomes. This is not accidental; it is built into the structure of the system.
The OECD Migration Outlook, widely relied upon by EU institutions, reflects this approach clearly. Integration is framed primarily as an economic strategy, aimed at filling labour shortages, supporting welfare systems, and addressing demographic decline. Migration is treated as a functional resource. What is missing is political accountability.
Integration is measured, funded, and supported, but it is never enforced as a condition for staying. There is no decisive moment where authorities acknowledge that integration has failed and draw the necessary conclusion. Instead, failure is absorbed, postponed, or ignored.
This is precisely where the paradigm Integration or ReImmigrazione challenges the European model. In this paradigm, integration is neither symbolic nor automatic. It is a substantive obligation that includes learning the language, respecting the law, becoming economically self-sufficient, and accepting the basic norms of the host society. And crucially, it involves a clear alternative. If integration fails, remaining cannot be justified.
European institutions have deliberately separated integration from returns. Returns are treated as a technical and marginal issue, limited to rejected asylum claims or formal irregularity. They are never framed as the natural outcome of a failed integration process. This separation allows policymakers to avoid responsibility and delay decisions indefinitely.
The result is a system without limits, without thresholds, and without credibility. Integration becomes permanent, while social cohesion weakens. Responsibility is diluted through procedures, and public trust erodes as citizens see rules that exist in theory but rarely produce consequences in practice.
From a British standpoint, this explains much of Europe’s ongoing paralysis. Borders without decisions undermine the rule of law. Integration without consequences weakens state authority. A migration system that cannot enforce outcomes inevitably loses legitimacy.
The paradigm Integration or ReImmigrazione restores what the European approach has removed: decision. It does not reject integration; it gives it meaning. Integration becomes something that must be achieved, not merely attempted. ReImmigrazione is not a punishment or a moral judgement, but a structural component of a serious, rules-based migration system.
As long as the European Union continues to integrate without deciding who is allowed to stay, it will remain trapped in administrative complexity and political avoidance. The OECD report does not solve this contradiction, but it makes it visible. Management without decision is not governance.
That’s all for this episode. Thank you for listening to Integration or ReImmigrazione. If these issues interest you, stay tuned for future episodes. Until next time.
Lascia un commento