Complementary Protection and Integration: Why “Integration or ReImmigration” Is Different from “Remigration”

Welcome to a new episode of the podcast “Integration or ReImmigration”.
My name is Attorney Fabio Loscerbo.

Across Europe, the immigration debate is becoming increasingly polarised.

On one side, there is unlimited multiculturalism — the idea that immigration and cultural diversity can continue without any real obligation to integrate into the host society.

On the other side, there is the growing concept of “remigration”, which proposes the large-scale return of migrants to their countries of origin regardless of their personal level of integration.

But the paradigm “Integration or ReImmigration” is fundamentally different from both of these approaches.

It is not about open borders.
And it is not about indiscriminate mass removals either.

The central idea is that the right to remain in a country should depend on concrete integration.

This is where the Italian legal concept of “complementary protection” becomes extremely important.

Recent decisions issued by the Tribunals of Bologna and Venice in 2026 show that Italian judges continue to protect migrants who have developed real social, economic and personal ties with Italy, even after restrictive immigration reforms adopted in 2023.

The courts are increasingly focusing on practical and measurable factors: stable employment, knowledge of the Italian language, housing stability, social participation, voluntary work, respect for public order and genuine integration into the national community.

In other words, Italian immigration law is gradually shifting from a debate about entry to a debate about permanence.

The real question is no longer only: who can enter the country?

The new question is: according to which criteria can someone remain permanently within the country?

The paradigm “Integration or ReImmigration” attempts to answer this question through legal and verifiable standards rather than ideological slogans.

A migrant who works, integrates, respects the law, participates in society and builds stable links with the community should be able to develop a lawful path towards permanence.

At the same time, this model rejects the idea that permanent residence should automatically exist regardless of behaviour or integration.

This is precisely why “Integration or ReImmigration” is very different from “remigration”.

Remigration generally operates through collective logic.
“Integration or ReImmigration”, by contrast, operates through individual legal assessment.

And today, complementary protection is becoming one of the most important legal laboratories in the European immigration debate.

Because in the coming years, the immigration debate will probably no longer focus only on borders.

It will increasingly focus on the meaning of integration itself.

My name is Attorney Fabio Loscerbo and this was a new episode of the podcast “Integration or ReImmigration”.

• Grecia, 300-500 rimpatri bloccati: quando la detenzione sostituisce il ritorno
• New York, oltre 2.100 arresti ICE: la sicurezza è il bersaglio, l’irregolarità è il criterio
• Malesia, il visto multiplo si restringe a 31 nazionalità: quattro finalità, ma manca ancora la lista
• Il Giappone raddoppia i fondi per gli stranieri. Ma insieme all’integrazione finanzia anche i controlli
• Londra libera le carceri espellendo i detenuti stranieri: una scelta di buon senso che l’Europa ha dimenticato