When a U.S. Secretary of State speaks at the Munich Security Conference, the message is never only diplomatic. It is strategic. Marco Rubio’s speech in Munich 2026 should be read as an early signal of a changing global order—one in which Western alliances remain, but the framework shifts toward sovereignty, national responsibility, and controlled migration.
For an American audience, the key point is simple: the immigration debate is no longer only domestic. It is now part of geopolitical strategy.
The United States, Europe, and other Western nations are facing the same structural realities—demographic pressure, instability in neighboring regions, and the limits of an international system designed after World War II. Rubio’s speech reflects a broader understanding in Washington that migration policy must be re-aligned with national security, economic stability, and social cohesion.
But there is an important legal nuance that American readers should understand, especially when looking at Europe.
In Europe, immigration law operates within a multilayered legal system: international refugee law, European human rights law, and EU regulations. Protection cannot simply be abolished or ignored. Individual rights remain enforceable in courts.
Within this framework, it is essential to distinguish clearly between different forms of protection.
International protection refers to refugee status and subsidiary protection, rooted in the 1951 Refugee Convention and EU law. These protections remain fundamental and are not in question.
Alongside them, countries like Italy apply what can be called complementary protection—legal safeguards triggered when removal would violate fundamental rights, even if the strict refugee criteria are not met. This approach reflects constitutional and human-rights principles common across Europe.
In a changing world order, this type of protection becomes strategically important. It allows governments to manage migration realistically while still respecting individual rights. It distinguishes between genuine protection needs and uncontrolled migration.
This is the perspective behind the paradigm I have called “Integration or ReImmigration.”
For years, Western debates have been trapped between two extremes: open borders or total closure. Neither works. A sustainable policy must rely on verifiable criteria—work, language, respect for the law. Those who integrate should remain. Those who do not integrate, and who do not face fundamental-rights risks, should return to their countries of origin.
This is not a rejection of asylum. It is a framework for governing migration responsibly in a world that is becoming more unstable and more competitive.
Rubio’s speech in Munich did not discuss European legal details, but it anticipated a political climate that will influence immigration policy across the Atlantic. Administrative procedures will become stricter. Evidence of integration will matter more. Courts will play an even greater role in balancing sovereignty and individual rights.
For American policymakers, the lesson from Europe is important. Immigration policy cannot be reduced to slogans. It must combine border control, legal clarity, and integration standards. Otherwise, the system collapses under its own contradictions.
The emerging global order does not eliminate human rights. It requires stronger legal frameworks to apply them realistically. In that sense, complementary protection and an Integration-or-ReImmigration approach are not ideological positions. They are tools for governing migration responsibly in a changing world.
Avv. Fabio Loscerbo
Lobbyist – EU Transparency Register No. 280782895721-36
Law Office in Bologna, Via Ermete Zacconi 3/A, Italy
Lascia un commento