The Integration Contract as an Alternative to Remigration: A Legal Model for France – and a Lesson for the United Kingdom

The French debate on immigration, particularly in the post-2026 context, offers a useful lens through which to understand broader European dynamics that are increasingly relevant to the United Kingdom. What is emerging in France is not simply a political controversy, but the manifestation of a structural failure: a model of multiculturalism that assumed integration without legally requiring it.

The growing prominence of the so-called “Great Replacement” theory—widely circulated on platforms such as X and associated with figures like Renaud Camus—should not be read merely as an ideological phenomenon. Its diffusion reflects a deeper loss of confidence in the capacity of existing systems to manage integration effectively. Political actors, including those aligned with more restrictive migration policies, have capitalised on this sentiment, further polarising the debate.

At the same time, the French State has taken concrete measures that signal a shift from political discourse to institutional response. The reintroduction of border controls until October 2026, justified by concerns related to terrorism and increasing violence in areas such as Calais and Dunkirk, demonstrates that migration has become a matter of public order and national security.

Within this context, the concept of “remigration” has gained traction. In its more radical formulations, it proposes large-scale returns based on identity-related criteria. From a legal standpoint, however, such an approach raises serious concerns. Policies that rely on collective or identity-based assumptions are difficult to reconcile with the principles of the rule of law, including proportionality, individual assessment, and the protection of private and family life—principles that, while rooted in European legal frameworks, have also influenced British jurisprudence.

For the United Kingdom, the central issue is not whether migration should be controlled—this is already an established principle—but how such control can be exercised within a coherent legal framework.

It is precisely here that the concept of an integration contract becomes relevant.

The integration contract, as developed in the Italian legal system through Presidential Decree No. 179/2011, is based on a clear legal premise: residence is conditional. It is not a permanent or automatic entitlement, but a status that depends on the fulfilment of measurable integration obligations. These include employment, language acquisition, compliance with the law, and participation in the social fabric.

This model offers a structured alternative to the current polarisation between permissive multiculturalism and legally problematic remigration proposals.

Multiculturalism has shown its limits where it fails to impose enforceable obligations. It presumes integration without guaranteeing it. Remigration, on the other hand, when framed in identity terms, lacks legal sustainability because it does not rely on individualised assessments.

The integration contract introduces a third approach grounded in legal certainty. It places the individual at the centre of the evaluation: those who integrate retain their right to remain; those who do not meet the required standards face lawful consequences, including removal. In this sense, “ReImmigrazione” is not an ideological construct, but a juridical outcome of non-integration.

For the United Kingdom, this approach aligns with existing legal traditions that already incorporate conditionality in immigration status—such as visa compliance, work requirements, and pathways to settlement. However, what remains underdeveloped is a comprehensive system that explicitly links long-term residence to demonstrable integration.

The French experience highlights the risks of failing to establish such a system. Without clear rules and enforceable criteria, the debate becomes polarised, and the policy response risks drifting either towards inefficacy or towards measures that cannot be sustained legally.

The lesson is therefore straightforward: an effective immigration system must be structured around clear obligations, objective criteria, and predictable consequences. The integration contract provides a model capable of reconciling control with legality, ensuring that rights are balanced by responsibilities.

The real alternative to remigration is not a return to multiculturalism, but the development of a legal framework in which integration is mandatory—and where failure to integrate produces clear, lawful outcomes.

Avv. Fabio Loscerbo
Lobbyist – EU Transparency Register No. 280782895721-36
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0004-7030-0428

• Beschluss des italienischen Kassationsgerichtshofs Nr. 13955 vom 13. Mai 2026: „Komplementärer Schutz“ und das neue Gleichgewicht zwischen Integration und Rückführung
• Calo demografico e immigrazione: perché il vero problema non è quanti arrivano, ma quanti si integrano
• Parigi non brucia per il deficit pubblico: il vero tema è l’integrazione delle seconde generazioni
• Ordonnance de la Cour suprême de cassation italienne numéro 13955 du 13 mai 2026 : la “protection complémentaire” et le nouvel équilibre entre intégration et éloignement
• Italiens neues Migrationsmodell: Integration und komplementärer Schutz