From Utility to Responsibility: Immigration as a Legal Relationship

Welcome to a new episode of the podcast Integration or ReImmigration.
I am Attorney Fabio Loscerbo.

If the economic paradigm has failed, the reason is not difficult to identify. It treated immigration as a question of usefulness, not of responsibility. It asked what migrants could provide to the market, but avoided asking what legal relationship was being established between the individual and the State. As a result, permanence slowly transformed from a conditional status into an assumed entitlement.

To move beyond this failure, it is necessary to restore a basic legal truth: immigration is not a social phenomenon to be tolerated, nor an economic function to be optimized. It is a legal relationship. And like every legal relationship, it is structured around rights, obligations, conditions, and consequences.

Recognizing immigration as a legal relationship means reasserting the role of the State. The State is not a passive observer of demographic flows, nor a simple facilitator of labor mobility. It is the authority that decides who may enter, under what conditions that entry is authorized, and whether those conditions continue to exist over time. This power is not arbitrary. It is the essence of sovereignty exercised within the rule of law.

In recent decades, however, this function has been progressively diluted. By framing permanence as the natural continuation of entry, and integration as an automatic byproduct of time and work, the State has renounced its evaluative role. Legal status has been granted, renewed, and consolidated without a serious assessment of conduct, compliance, or actual integration. Responsibility has been replaced by inertia.

The paradigm Integration or ReImmigration proposes a different logic. Permanence is not justified by utility, but by responsibility. The right to fundamental protection remains intact, but the right to remain is never unconditional. It must be earned, verified, and maintained through behavior compatible with the legal order of the host society.

This does not mean transforming immigration law into a moral judgment. Responsibility, in legal terms, is not about intentions or cultural identity. It is about objective elements: respect for the law, cooperation with public authorities, adherence to basic civic rules, and compatibility with public order. These elements are not ideological; they are juridical.

When immigration is treated as a legal relationship, integration acquires a precise meaning. It is no longer an abstract cultural process or a sociological hope. Integration becomes a legally relevant obligation. Not an obligation to assimilate, but an obligation to participate in the legal and institutional framework of the host State. Language, employment, respect for rules, and lawful conduct are not symbolic gestures; they are indicators of a functioning legal relationship.

This perspective also clarifies an essential point often obscured in public debate: fundamental rights and permanence are not the same thing. Fundamental rights are unconditional and non-negotiable. Permanence is not. Confusing these two levels has produced a paralyzing effect, where any evaluation of continued stay is perceived as a violation of rights. In reality, what the law requires is proportionality, not immobility.

Once responsibility is placed at the center, the system regains coherence. Entry becomes the beginning of a process, not the start of an irreversible trajectory. Lawful stay becomes conditional and reviewable. Protection remains available, but it is framed within a structure that allows the State to assess whether the relationship continues to be justified.

This shift is particularly visible in the evolution of conditional forms of protection, where courts are increasingly called to balance vulnerability with conduct, and rights with public interest. These cases reveal a growing awareness that permanence cannot be detached from responsibility without undermining the credibility of the entire system.

Restoring immigration as a legal relationship also means restoring the legitimacy of conclusion. Every legal relationship has a beginning, a development, and, potentially, an end. When the conditions that justify permanence no longer exist, the State must be able to bring the process to a lawful conclusion. This is not punishment. It is legal coherence.

ReImmigration emerges precisely at this point. Not as an ideological objective, but as the lawful outcome of a failed or exhausted legal relationship. It presupposes that responsibility was required, that integration was possible, and that evaluation occurred through due process. Only within this framework can return be legitimate, proportionate, and compatible with the rule of law.

The transition from utility to responsibility is therefore the cornerstone of the entire paradigm. Without it, integration remains rhetorical and enforcement remains arbitrary. With it, immigration becomes governable again.

In the next episode, we will address a crucial consequence of this approach: why entry into the territory can never be equated with a right to remain, and why confusing the two has been one of the most damaging legal errors of contemporary immigration policy.

Thank you for listening.