Welcome to a new episode of the podcast “Integration or ReImmigrazione.” My name is Fabio Loscerbo, I’m an Italian lawyer, and in this episode I want to explain to a UK audience how the Italian and European legal system actually draws the line between lawful stay and lawful return.
In the UK debate, migration is often discussed in terms of policy choices: enforcement versus discretion, removal versus regularisation. The Italian and European framework works on a different plane. It is primarily legal, not political, and it is built around conditionality.
The core idea is straightforward but demanding: lawful residence is not unconditional. It is justified by effective integration, understood as a legal fact, not a moral aspiration. Courts assess concrete elements: stable employment, economic self-sufficiency, respect for the law, genuine family and social ties, and the absence of public-order concerns.
When these elements are present, the law recognises that a person has built a real private and social life in the host country. In such cases, removal may become legally disproportionate under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This is where what Italian law calls complementary protection comes into play.
It is important to be clear: complementary protection is not asylum, not discretionary leave, and not a humanitarian indulgence. It does not create integration and it does not give time to integrate. It simply acknowledges integration that has already occurred and prevents a forced removal that would unjustifiably destroy it.
This brings me to the paradigm “Integration or ReImmigrazione.” A key clarification is necessary: ReImmigrazione is a brand and a legal concept. It is not translated and it should not be confused with ideological notions of “remigration” sometimes discussed elsewhere in Europe.
ReImmigrazione describes the legal outcome that follows when integration is absent. If a person has not integrated in a legally meaningful way, the system does not invent a permanent grey zone or an intermediate status. In those cases, the State’s power to enforce return remains fully legitimate.
Protection and return are therefore not opposites. They are two alternative outcomes within the same rule-based system, triggered by different factual situations. Where integration is proven, the law protects it. Where it is not, return is not a failure of the system. It is the system operating as designed.
For a UK listener, this offers a useful comparative perspective. It avoids both extremes: unconditional permanence on the one hand, indiscriminate enforcement on the other. Instead, it relies on individual assessment, proportionality, and evidence. Rights follow responsibility. Legal status follows facts.
That is the core message of Integration or ReImmigrazione. It is not a proposal waiting for legislation. It is a description of how the law already works when it is applied coherently and without ambiguity.
Thank you for listening to this episode of “Integration or ReImmigrazione.” I’ll see you in the next one.
Lascia un commento