Beyond Remigration: the Italian paradigm of Integration or ReImmigration for governing migration

Written by

In the United Kingdom, the migration debate has increasingly focused on border control, irregular arrivals, and the sustainability of the asylum system. However, the European experience—particularly in countries like Italy—offers a broader perspective: the real challenge is not only controlling entry, but governing long-term presence.

Across Europe, migration policy is showing clear signs of structural strain. This is not merely a question of numbers or emergency management. It is a systemic issue.

At the heart of the problem lies a theoretical assumption that has shaped migration policies for decades: an essentially economic understanding of migration. Migrants have been viewed primarily as workers, as a response to labour shortages, or as a tool to support economic growth. Within this framework, integration has been treated as secondary—often assumed to follow automatically from employment.

This assumption has proven to be deeply flawed.

Reducing migration to an economic variable has led to the neglect of its legal, social, and cultural dimensions. Employment alone does not produce integration. More importantly, this approach has failed to create a coherent legal framework capable of managing the long-term presence of migrants within society.

The consequences are now evident across Europe.

The tensions that are emerging are not primarily caused by migration itself, but by the failure to govern integration. The most critical issue concerns second-generation migrants: individuals born or raised in Europe who are formally part of society, yet often lack genuine linguistic, cultural, and normative integration.

This is where the system begins to fracture.

The core mistake of the current model has been to treat integration as a spontaneous process. But integration is not automatic. It is not a natural outcome. It is a legal and social objective that requires clear rules, measurable standards, and consequences where those standards are not met.

It is from this perspective that the paradigm of “Integration or ReImmigration” emerges.

This is not a political slogan, but a structural proposal. It is based on a simple principle: the right to remain in a country must be linked to the duty to integrate. Integration becomes the central criterion for determining long-term residence.

This paradigm is rooted in an Italian and European legal context, but it speaks directly to broader Western challenges—including those faced by the UK. It also positions itself as a clear alternative to the concept of remigration.

The distinction is fundamental.

Remigration, as developed in parts of the German debate, is based on a predominantly expulsive logic. It may extend to individuals who are lawfully present or even partially integrated, raising significant concerns in relation to fundamental legal principles and proportionality.

The paradigm of Integration or ReImmigration, by contrast, operates differently.

It does not question the legitimacy of migration as such. Instead, it conditions continued residence on an objective and verifiable standard: the level of integration achieved. It is not an expulsive model, but a selective one. Not ideological, but functional.

Within this framework, ReImmigration is simply the consequence of failing to meet minimum integration standards. It is not a blanket measure, but an individualised outcome. It does not break with the legal system, but develops it in a more coherent direction.

The real issue, therefore, is implementation.

From a legal perspective, three areas are crucial.

The first concerns complementary protection. In Italy, this form of protection—linked to broader human rights considerations—can serve as a model for a more flexible and integration-based residence system. Rather than being treated as an exception, it can be developed into a general framework for recognising lawful presence based on actual integration.

The second concerns the integration agreement. This should not remain a formal requirement, but should evolve into a genuine legal contract, with clear obligations, measurable indicators, and periodic assessment. Language proficiency, employment, and respect for legal norms must become verifiable criteria.

Integration must be demonstrated—not presumed.

The third concerns enforcement.

Without an effective return system, any migration policy risks losing credibility. This requires dedicated institutional structures, including specialised immigration enforcement units and adequate facilities for managing returns.

Avoiding this issue only weakens the system.

The paradigm of Integration or ReImmigration is therefore based on a clear balance: inclusion for those who integrate, return for those who do not.

There is no sustainable alternative.

Ultimately, this is not an ideological position, but an attempt to restore coherence to a system that, in its current form, risks generating the very tensions it seeks to address.

The real choice is not between openness and restriction. It is between disorder and governance.

And the time for ambiguity has passed.

Avv. Fabio Loscerbo
Lawyer – Registered EU Transparency Register (ID 280782895721-36)
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0004-7030-0428