The debate on immigration in Italy reflects a broader discussion taking place across Western democracies. Public opinion is increasingly divided between two opposing narratives. On one side, immigration is described as a necessary resource to sustain economic growth and compensate for demographic decline. On the other side, it is portrayed as a burden on public finances and on the welfare state.
Two recent examples from the Italian public debate illustrate this polarization particularly well.
The first is an article published by the Italian economic newspaper FirstOnline. The author argues that proposals advocating remigration policies are unrealistic and even irrational in a country like Italy, where the working-age population is steadily declining. According to this view, Italy – like much of Europe – faces a demographic problem: fewer workers are available to support the economy and the welfare system. From this perspective, immigration is not merely desirable but necessary to sustain economic productivity and social security systems.
The article can be read here:
https://www.firstonline.info/il-patto-di-remigrazione-volontaria-e-pura-follia-in-unitalia-in-cui-la-popolazione-in-eta-da-lavoro-continua-a-calare/
A very different position appears in the debate on social media. In a post published on X, journalist Francesca Totolo presents a study titled “Why Remigration Will Save the Italian Welfare System.” In this narrative, immigration is framed primarily as a cost for the state. The argument highlights public spending for migrant reception, social assistance, and welfare services, as well as the higher incidence of poverty among foreign residents. From this point of view, reducing immigration through remigration policies would be necessary to protect the sustainability of the Italian welfare state.
The post can be seen here:
https://x.com/fratotolo2/status/2030921692696945033
At first glance these two positions seem completely incompatible. One side views immigration as an economic necessity, while the other presents it as a financial burden.
However, both narratives share a common limitation: they treat immigration primarily as an economic issue.
In the first narrative, immigration is seen as a solution to labor shortages and demographic decline. In the second narrative, it is treated mainly as a cost to taxpayers and public welfare systems.
The result is a debate framed almost entirely in economic terms: some emphasize the economic contributions of immigrants, while others focus on the public costs associated with migration.
Yet immigration is not only an economic phenomenon. It is also a social and political issue that directly affects the stability and cohesion of democratic societies.
The central question should therefore not be limited to how many immigrants a country needs or how much immigration costs. The real issue is the capacity of a society to ensure integration.
This is where the paradigm “Integration or Reimmigration” becomes relevant.
This approach does not deny that countries like Italy may benefit from immigration or that foreign workers can contribute to economic growth. At the same time, it acknowledges that immigration can generate social tensions and financial pressures when integration fails.
For this reason, the right to remain permanently in the host country should be linked to the ability to integrate into the society of arrival.
Integration should not be understood in abstract terms. It must be reflected in concrete elements such as participation in the labor market or the legal economy, knowledge of the national language, and respect for the constitutional and legal order of the host country.
When these conditions are met, immigration can become a factor of economic vitality and social stability. When they are not, long-term residence becomes increasingly difficult to justify, and policies encouraging return to the country of origin may become legitimate.
In this sense, the paradigm Integration or Reimmigration positions itself between the two dominant narratives in today’s immigration debate. It rejects the idea that immigration should automatically be treated as an economic resource regardless of integration outcomes. At the same time, it also rejects the idea that remigration should be implemented as a universal or indiscriminate political solution.
The real challenge is not choosing between immigration and remigration. The challenge is developing a model of migration governance based on a clear principle: effective integration, or return to the country of origin.
Only by focusing on integration can democratic societies move beyond the ideological polarization that currently dominates the immigration debate in Europe and elsewhere.
Fabio Loscerbo
Lawyer – Registered Lobbyist at the European Union Transparency Register
ID 280782895721-36
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0004-7030-0428
Lascia un commento