ReImmigration as an Ordinary Function of the State

Welcome to a new episode of the podcast Integration or ReImmigration.
I am Attorney Fabio Loscerbo.

Once ReImmigration is understood as a lawful outcome of a migration process, the next step is unavoidable: it must be recognized as an ordinary function of the State. Treating return as an exceptional or politically toxic act has been one of the main reasons why immigration systems have lost credibility and effectiveness.

In every area of public law, the State not only grants rights and authorizations, but also enforces conditions and executes decisions. Without execution, law becomes declaratory. Rules exist on paper, but they do not govern reality. Immigration is no different. When return is excluded from the system, the entire legal framework collapses into symbolic regulation.

The reluctance to treat ReImmigration as an ordinary function stems from a fear of enforcement. Enforcement is often associated with repression, arbitrariness, or collective punishment. This association is misleading. In a legal system governed by the rule of law, enforcement is the neutral mechanism through which decisions are made effective. It is neither benevolent nor hostile. It is necessary.

When enforcement is systematically postponed or avoided, several distortions emerge. Administrative authorities hesitate to decide. Courts are pushed into compensatory reasoning. Temporary statuses are renewed without evaluation. Over time, the system internalizes the assumption that return will not occur, regardless of legal outcomes. This assumption becomes self-fulfilling.

ReImmigration as an ordinary function breaks this cycle. It restores credibility to integration policies by making clear that obligations matter. It restores credibility to protection by preventing its transformation into unconditional permanence. And it restores credibility to the State by showing that decisions have consequences.

This does not mean that the State should prioritize return over integration. On the contrary, integration remains the preferred outcome. But preference does not eliminate alternatives. A system that offers only one outcome is not a system; it is a gamble. When integration fails, the absence of an executable alternative leaves the State with no lawful response.

Execution also has a preventive dimension. The existence of a functioning return mechanism changes behavior. Compliance increases when individuals know that rules are not symbolic. Cooperation with authorities improves when procedures are meaningful. Enforcement, in this sense, supports integration rather than undermining it.

Another crucial aspect is institutional clarity. When ReImmigration is treated as extraordinary, responsibility is dispersed. Political actors deny ownership. Administrative bodies lack resources. Law enforcement agencies operate in legal uncertainty. By recognizing return as an ordinary function, the State can organize structures, allocate resources, and define competencies.

This normalization also protects individual rights. Ordinary functions are governed by ordinary rules: due process, proportionality, and accountability. Exceptional measures, by contrast, tend to bypass safeguards. Paradoxically, depoliticizing return strengthens legal protection.

ReImmigration as a function of the State also requires transparency. Criteria must be clear. Procedures must be accessible. Outcomes must be reviewable. This transparency reduces conflict and litigation by replacing discretion with rule-based decision-making.

The failure to normalize return has also had external consequences. States that cannot enforce their own decisions lose negotiating power with countries of origin. Readmission agreements become ineffective. International cooperation weakens. ReImmigration, when institutionalized, restores symmetry in external relations as well.

Ultimately, recognizing ReImmigration as an ordinary function is about restoring the integrity of the legal system. Law that cannot be executed is not law; it is advice. A State that cannot conclude legal relationships cannot govern.

In the next episode, we will focus on the concrete instruments of ReImmigration. We will examine administrative structures, enforcement mechanisms, and the role of specialized authorities. Because without tools and apparatus, even the most coherent legal paradigm remains theoretical.

Thank you for listening.