In recent years, parts of the European debate on immigration have been shaped by the theory of the “Great Replacement,” associated with the French writer Renaud Camus. According to this view, Europe is undergoing a structural demographic transformation that threatens the cultural identity of its historic populations. From this premise derives the idea of “remigration,” understood as the organised return of immigrants to their countries of origin.
For a British audience, it is essential to draw a clear distinction between political theory and legal doctrine.
“Remigration,” as discussed in political discourse, is not a defined legal category in UK law, nor in Italian or broader European legal systems. It is not a statutory concept under the Immigration Rules, nor a recognised procedural mechanism subject to established judicial safeguards. It belongs to the sphere of ideological interpretation rather than codified law.
The paradigm “Integration or ReImmigration,” by contrast, is rooted in legal structure. It does not begin with demographic anxiety or identity politics. It begins with a fundamental principle common to constitutional democracies, including the United Kingdom: residence is neither unconditional nor arbitrarily revocable. It must be assessed on the basis of law, evidence, and due process.
Within the Italian legal system, the relevant mechanism is complementary protection under Article 19 of the Consolidated Immigration Act. Although the UK operates under a different statutory framework, the underlying constitutional logic is comparable: individual rights must be balanced against the state’s legitimate interest in controlling immigration. Decisions must be reasoned, proportionate, and subject to judicial scrutiny.
The structural difference is therefore clear.
In the “Great Replacement” thesis, the focus is collective. The concern is the transformation of society as a whole.
In the “Integration or ReImmigration” model, the focus is individual. The concern is the specific legal position of a particular person.
Remigration, in political theory, is framed as a general response to perceived demographic change. ReImmigration, in legal terms, is a potential administrative outcome following an individual assessment where integration has not been demonstrated and no protection grounds apply. It is not based on ethnicity, religion, or collective identity. It is based on compliance with legal criteria.
For a UK audience, particularly in the post-Brexit context where sovereignty and border control have become central political themes, this distinction matters. The rule of law requires that immigration policy operate within statutory authority and procedural fairness. Collective identity-based measures would conflict with long-standing principles of proportionality, human rights protection, and judicial oversight.
“Integration or ReImmigration” therefore does not advocate mass removal nor unconditional settlement. It proposes coherence: permanence linked to measurable integration and lawful conduct; return linked to the absence of legal entitlement, determined through regulated procedures.
The debate is not about civilisational conflict. It is about legal architecture.
Remigration is a political theory.
ReImmigration, in the sense described here, is a legal consequence within a rule-of-law framework.
And in a constitutional democracy, that distinction is decisive.
Avv. Fabio Loscerbo
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0004-7030-0428
Lobbyist registered in the EU Transparency Register
ID 280782895721-36
Lascia un commento