In recent years the concept of remigration has entered the European political debate with growing intensity. The term has been popularized primarily by the Austrian activist Martin Sellner, who developed the idea in his book Remigration: A Proposal. In this framework, the response to Europe’s migration crisis would consist of large-scale returns of immigrants to their countries of origin. The proposal is often presented not only in relation to irregular migrants or individuals involved in criminal activity, but also in relation to immigrants who are considered insufficiently assimilated into the cultural and social life of European societies.
For observers outside Europe, particularly in the United States, the emergence of this debate can appear surprising. Yet the rise of the concept of remigration is not the beginning of the problem. It is rather the consequence of deeper structural weaknesses in the way migration has been governed in many European countries during the past thirty years.
European states have developed highly complex legal frameworks regulating migration flows, asylum procedures, residence permits and family reunification. However, these systems have often concentrated on the legal status of entry and residence, while paying far less attention to the practical and measurable process of integration once migrants are already present in the host society.
As a result, in several European contexts a portion of immigrant populations has remained for many years without achieving meaningful integration in terms of language, employment and participation in the civic life of the country. When integration policies remain unclear or ineffective, immigration gradually ceases to be perceived as a managed phenomenon. Instead, it begins to be interpreted as a process that institutions are unable to control.
Within this political and social climate, more radical proposals inevitably emerge. The theory of remigration reflects precisely this frustration. It is built on the assumption that integration has failed and that the only remaining solution is to reverse the demographic and social effects of immigration through large-scale returns.
However, such proposals raise profound legal and social challenges. Many immigrants in Europe have lived in their host countries for decades. They work, pay taxes, raise families and have children who were born or educated within European societies. The idea that the complex consequences of decades of migration could be addressed through generalized returns risks ignoring the social realities that have already developed.
In this sense, the debate on remigration reveals a deeper issue: Europe has never clearly defined what integration should mean in operational and legal terms. Integration has often been treated as a desirable objective rather than as a concrete condition linked to long-term residence within the host country.
It is precisely in this context that the paradigm “Integration or ReImmigrazione” must be understood.
Unlike the theory of remigration, which proposes a response after integration is perceived to have failed, the concept of ReImmigrazione is based on a different approach to migration governance. The central idea is that the right to remain within a country should be linked from the outset to a real and verifiable process of integration into the host society.
The term ReImmigrazione is not an English expression but an Italian concept developed as a framework for governing migration. It describes a policy approach in which integration becomes a concrete and measurable condition of long-term residence. Participation in the economic life of the country, knowledge of the national language and respect for the legal framework of the host society are not abstract ideals but elements that determine whether integration is actually taking place.
When integration is achieved, the presence of immigrants becomes part of the normal social and economic fabric of the country. When it does not occur over time, maintaining permanent situations of social marginalization cannot be considered a sustainable migration policy.
From this perspective, ReImmigrazione does not refer to mass deportation or demographic engineering. It represents instead a governance mechanism that may become relevant when integration fails to materialize. The essential difference from remigration lies precisely in timing and purpose. Remigration appears as a reaction to a perceived crisis that has already developed. The paradigm Integration or ReImmigrazione, by contrast, aims to prevent such crises by establishing from the beginning a clear relationship between integration and the right to remain.
For an American audience, this debate highlights a broader lesson about migration governance. Immigration policy cannot be reduced solely to border control or humanitarian protection. It must also address the long-term integration of migrants within the social and institutional structures of the host country. When this dimension remains undefined, political systems often find themselves oscillating between two extremes: the belief that integration will occur automatically and the opposite belief that large-scale expulsions are the only solution.
The European debate on remigration demonstrates the risks of leaving this issue unresolved for too long. The paradigm Integration or ReImmigrazione attempts to offer a different path. It proposes that integration should not remain a rhetorical aspiration but become a concrete condition shaping the relationship between migration, social cohesion and the stability of democratic institutions.
Avv. Fabio Loscerbo
Lawyer – Lobbyist registered in the European Union Transparency Register
ID: 280782895721-36
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0004-7030-0428
Lascia un commento