The debate about immigration in Italy reflects a broader discussion that is taking place across many Western democracies, including the United Kingdom. Public debate increasingly tends to divide between two opposing narratives. On one side, immigration is presented as a necessary resource to sustain economic growth and compensate for demographic decline. On the other side, it is described as a pressure on public finances and on the welfare system.
Two recent examples from the Italian public debate illustrate this polarization particularly well.
The first is an article published in the Italian economic newspaper FirstOnline. The author argues that proposals advocating remigration policies are irrational in a country like Italy, where the working-age population is steadily declining. According to this view, Italy – like many European countries – faces a structural demographic problem: a shrinking labour force. From this perspective, immigration is considered necessary in order to maintain economic productivity and support the welfare system.
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 taking place on social media. In a post published on the platform X, journalist Francesca Totolo presents a study entitled “Why Remigration Will Save the Italian Welfare System.” In this narrative, immigration is mainly portrayed as a cost to the state. The argument highlights public spending related to migrant reception, social services and welfare support, as well as the higher incidence of poverty among foreign residents. From this perspective, reducing immigration through remigration policies would be necessary to preserve the sustainability of the Italian welfare state.
The post can be viewed here:
https://x.com/fratotolo2/status/2030921692696945033
At first glance, these two positions appear completely incompatible. One presents immigration as an economic necessity, while the other describes it as a financial burden.
However, a closer analysis reveals that both narratives share the same limitation: they reduce the phenomenon of migration almost entirely to an economic question.
In the first narrative, immigration is viewed as a response to labour shortages and demographic decline. In the second narrative, it is mainly treated as a cost to public finances.
As a result, the debate risks becoming a purely economic or fiscal dispute: some emphasise the economic contribution of immigrants, while others focus on the financial costs associated with migration.
Yet immigration cannot be understood solely in economic terms. It also affects social cohesion, political stability and the capacity of societies to integrate newcomers.
The key issue is therefore not simply how many immigrants a country should admit or how much immigration costs or contributes economically. The real question concerns the capacity of a society to achieve integration.
This is precisely where the paradigm “Integration or Reimmigration” becomes relevant.
This approach does not deny that countries such as Italy may benefit from immigration or that foreign workers can contribute to economic vitality. At the same time, it recognises that immigration can generate social tensions and political conflict 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 remain an abstract concept. It must be reflected in concrete elements such as participation in the labour market or the legal economy, knowledge of the national language and respect for the legal and constitutional order.
When these conditions are fulfilled, immigration can become a factor of stability and development. When integration fails, long-term residence gradually loses its justification 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 that currently shape the 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 applied as a universal political solution.
The real challenge is not to choose between immigration and remigration. The challenge is to develop a model for governing migration flows based on a clear principle: effective integration or return to the country of origin.
Only by shifting the debate towards the issue of integration can democratic societies move beyond the ideological polarisation that increasingly characterises discussions about immigration across Europe.
Avv. Fabio Loscerbo
Lawyer and Registered Lobbyist – European Union Transparency Register
ID 280782895721-36
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0004-7030-0428
Lascia un commento