A recent decision by the Court of Bologna (February 19, 2026) offers a clear and instructive example of how immigration law in Italy is evolving—and why this evolution may be relevant far beyond Europe, including for a U.S. audience.
At first glance, the case concerns what Italian law calls “complementary protection,” a form of legal status granted to foreign nationals who do not qualify as refugees but cannot be removed without violating fundamental rights. However, the real significance of the ruling lies elsewhere: in how the court defines who deserves to stay.
To understand the importance of this decision, it is necessary to step back. In 2023, Italy reformed its immigration framework, narrowing certain pathways for humanitarian protection. Many observers initially interpreted this reform as a restriction. But the Bologna court makes clear that the core of the system has not been dismantled. Instead, it has been re-centered.
The key principle reaffirmed by the court is this: a person cannot be expelled if doing so would violate their fundamental rights—particularly the right to private and family life. This principle is rooted not only in European human rights law but also in the Italian Constitution.
But here is where the decision becomes particularly interesting from a policy perspective.
The court does not treat this protection as automatic. It does not say that being present in the country is enough. Nor does it rely on abstract notions of vulnerability. Instead, it introduces a concrete and demanding test: integration.
In this case, the applicant was granted protection because he had demonstrably built a life in Italy. The court points to stable full-time employment, consistent income, housing autonomy, language acquisition, and participation in professional training. These are not symbolic elements; they are measurable indicators of social integration.
The logic is straightforward. The more a person is integrated into the host society, the more their removal would disrupt their private life—and therefore violate fundamental rights.
This is not merely a legal reasoning. It is a policy framework.
From a U.S. perspective, this approach resonates with longstanding debates around immigration reform. In the United States, discussions often revolve around border control versus regularization, or enforcement versus humanitarian relief. What the Italian decision suggests is a third path: conditioning the right to remain on actual integration into society.
In other words, not everyone stays—and not everyone leaves. The determining factor becomes what the individual has done within the country.
This is precisely where the broader paradigm of Integration or ReImmigration comes into play.
The Bologna ruling implicitly aligns with this model. It recognizes that the right to remain should not be unconditional. Instead, it should be earned through a process of integration—through work, language, social participation, and respect for the legal order.
At the same time, the decision also clarifies the other side of the equation. If integration is absent—if there is no real connection to the host society—then the balance shifts. In such cases, removal may be legally justified, because no fundamental right is being disproportionately affected.
This dual logic is crucial.
For U.S. policymakers, the lesson is not about importing European legal categories, but about rethinking the criteria for lawful presence. The Bologna decision demonstrates that immigration systems can move beyond binary choices and adopt a more structured, merit-based evaluation grounded in constitutional principles.
It also highlights an often-overlooked point: integration is not just a social goal. It can become a legal standard.
In the end, the decision sends a clear message. The right to remain in a country is not defined solely by how one enters, but by how one lives after arrival.
And that, perhaps, is where the future of immigration law is heading.
Avv. Fabio Loscerbo
Registered Lobbyist in the EU Transparency Register – ID 280782895721-36
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0004-7030-0428
Lascia un commento