The decision delivered on 23 January 2026 by the Court of Appeal of Bologna, refusing to confirm immigration detention in a removal facility, offers a particularly useful perspective for a UK audience seeking to understand a distinction that is often blurred in international debates. That distinction concerns the difference between the Italian legal paradigm known as “Integrazione o ReImmigrazione” and the political notion commonly referred to as remigration.
This ruling should not be read as a statement of immigration policy, nor as an attempt to weaken the State’s authority to control migration. Its importance lies in the way it reflects the current European legal order, in which immigration law remains structurally embedded in constitutional principles and human-rights obligations, rather than operating as a purely administrative field.
In continental European systems, immigration enforcement is not detached from fundamental rights. Measures such as detention or removal are treated as serious interferences with personal liberty and private and family life. As a result, they are subject to strict legal conditions, including necessity, proportionality and individual assessment. This approach is strongly influenced by the European Convention on Human Rights, which continues to shape immigration law across Europe, including in jurisdictions where its domestic status has been the subject of political debate.
The Bologna Court of Appeal’s decision fits squarely within this framework. The court did not deny the legitimacy of immigration control as such, nor did it assert an unconditional right to remain. Instead, it examined whether, at the relevant time, the legal conditions for continued detention were still present. The passage of time since previous criminal convictions, the full execution of the sentence, the absence of any current threat to public order, and the existence of stable family and employment ties were all taken into account. On that basis, the court concluded that detention could no longer be justified under the applicable legal standards.
This is the point at which the concept of ReImmigrazione becomes particularly relevant. ReImmigrazione does not refer to automatic return, collective removal or identity-based exclusion. It is a legally conditioned concept, operating entirely within the existing constitutional and human-rights framework. In this paradigm, integration is not a political aspiration or a moral judgement. It is a legally relevant situation, assessed through concrete and verifiable elements such as lawful employment, family life, social stability and the absence of a present risk to public order.
Where those elements are established, the legal system affords protection. Where they are absent, or where they have ceased to exist, the same legal system allows for return as a lawful consequence. ReImmigrazione, therefore, designates the outcome of a negative individual legal assessment, reached through procedures governed by proportionality and respect for fundamental rights. It is not punitive in nature and does not operate through generalised categories.
The concept of remigration, as it appears in certain contemporary political proposals across Europe, belongs to a different analytical level. It is typically presented as a structural policy tool aimed at reshaping migration patterns on a large scale. The Italian legislative initiative entitled “Remigrazione e Riconquista” is an example of this approach, proposing a comprehensive reconfiguration of the legal framework through predefined legislative consequences and large-scale return mechanisms. Regardless of one’s political view, such proposals imply a significant departure from the current balance imposed by constitutional and human-rights law.
For a UK audience, this distinction is particularly important. The paradigm “Integrazione o ReImmigrazione” should not be understood as a European equivalent of mass deportation, nor as a rejection of the rule of law. On the contrary, it reflects a traditionally European conception of public law, in which State authority is exercised within firm legal limits and coercive measures must always be justified by reference to the individual case.
The Bologna Court of Appeal’s decision illustrates how this system operates in practice. Neither continued residence nor return is automatic. Both are legally conditioned outcomes, dependent on the concrete circumstances of the individual and on the constraints imposed by constitutional and human-rights norms.
Seen in this light, ReImmigrazione is not an ideological counter-slogan to remigration, but a distinct legal category embedded in the existing European legal order. Conflating the two risks misunderstanding how immigration law currently functions in Europe and importing political concepts into a legal framework that remains, by design, resistant to automatic solutions.
Avv. Fabio Loscerbo
EU Transparency Register Lobbyist
ID 280782895721-36
Lascia un commento