In recent months, the paradigm “Integration or ReImmigration” has begun to circulate beyond the Italian legal debate and has started to attract attention in broader European discussions on migration governance. An example of this emerging international interest can be found in a commentary recently published in German on the Hansgamma blog, which critically addresses the ideas I have developed regarding migration policy and national interest.
The article can be read here:
https://hansgamma.blogspot.com/2026/03/integrazione-o-reimmigrazione.html
The author argues that the paradigm “Integration or ReImmigration” should not be considered a neutral analytical category, but rather a normative or political proposal concerning who should be allowed to remain within the territory of a state. According to this interpretation, the concept would frame migration policy choices in legal language while essentially advancing a particular political vision.
This criticism is worth considering, because it demonstrates that the paradigm is beginning to enter the broader European intellectual debate on migration. However, the critique appears to be based on a misunderstanding regarding the origin and methodological foundation of the concept itself.
The paradigm “Integration or ReImmigration” does not originate as an ideological construction or as an abstract theoretical proposal. Rather, it emerges from the observation of how a specific legal institution already operates within Italian immigration law—what I define as complementary protection.
Within this legal framework, courts are required to conduct a concrete evaluation of the degree of integration achieved by a foreign national in Italian society. Over time, judicial practice has developed a series of criteria used to assess this integration. These include factors such as stable employment, housing conditions, social ties, language acquisition, and the broader level of personal and social rootedness within the host country.
In practical terms, this means that Italian courts already perform a substantive evaluation of integration when deciding certain immigration cases. The relationship between integration and the right to remain in the country is therefore not an abstract theoretical idea, but a legal reality that has emerged through judicial practice.
It is precisely from this observation that the paradigm “Integration or ReImmigration” arises.
Complementary protection can therefore be understood as a kind of legal laboratory in which a broader structural principle becomes visible: the long-term presence of a foreign national within the territory of the state is closely connected to that individual’s effective integration into the host society.
From this perspective, the paradigm does not introduce a new normative principle. Instead, it systematizes and makes explicit a logic that is already embedded in immigration law.
Immigration law in European states does not simply regulate entry and residence. It also implicitly evaluates the quality of the relationship between the individual and the host society. When this relationship evolves into a genuine process of integration, legal systems tend to recognize forms of protection or stability. When such integration does not occur, legal systems provide mechanisms for the termination of residence rights.
The expression “Integration or ReImmigration” summarizes this structural dynamic.
It is important to underline that this paradigm differs significantly from certain ideological theories of “remigration” that have emerged in parts of the European political debate. Those theories often advocate broad or identity-based return policies. By contrast, the paradigm “Integration or ReImmigration” is grounded in individual legal evaluation and verifiable criteria, already present within existing legal frameworks.
For an American audience, this dynamic may appear familiar. In many legal systems, including the United States, long-term immigration status is connected to measurable forms of integration, such as employment, lawful conduct, and participation in social and economic life. The idea that immigration status is linked to the individual’s integration into the host society is therefore not unique to Europe.
What distinguishes the paradigm “Integration or ReImmigration” is the attempt to conceptualize this dynamic as a coherent analytical framework for migration governance.
The fact that the concept is now being discussed beyond Italy suggests that the relationship between integration and the right to remain within a country will likely become one of the central questions in the future development of immigration law in Europe.
In this context, the experience developed in Italian jurisprudence through complementary protection provides an interesting starting point for a broader reflection on migration governance—one that seeks to reconcile the rule of law, national interest, and genuine processes of integration.
Avv. Fabio Loscerbo
Avv. Fabio Loscerbo
Lobbista – EU Transparency Register
ID 280782895721-36
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0004-7030-0428
Lascia un commento