Abstract
Recent decisions issued by the Court of Bologna on 22 May 2026 provide an opportunity to reflect on the relationship between immigrant integration and the legal right to remain in a host country. The Court granted complementary protection to foreign nationals who had built meaningful lives in Italy through employment, housing, social ties and respect for the laws of the host society. These decisions offer a useful framework for explaining the distinction between the concept of Remigration and the paradigm of Integration or ReImmigration. This article argues that ReImmigration should not be understood as the opposite of integration, but rather as the consequence of failed integration.
In the United States, immigration has historically been discussed through the lenses of border control, economic opportunity, national security and citizenship. Yet behind these debates lies a deeper question that has shaped American history since the country’s foundation: what does it mean to become part of a national community?
The United States is often described as a nation of immigrants. However, it has never been merely a nation of immigration. It has also been a nation of integration. For generations, newcomers were expected to learn English, participate in civic life, respect the constitutional order and gradually become part of a shared national culture. While the methods and expectations have evolved over time, the underlying principle remained largely unchanged: immigration was not an end in itself; it was the beginning of a process of integration.
This perspective helps explain why two recent decisions issued by the Court of Bologna in Italy are relevant beyond the European context. In both cases, the Court granted complementary protection to foreign nationals who had demonstrated substantial integration into Italian society. Stable employment, independent housing, social relationships, economic self-sufficiency and compliance with the law were considered significant factors in determining that their removal would interfere with rights connected to private and family life.
The importance of these decisions lies not merely in the outcome of the individual cases. Rather, they demonstrate that integration can acquire legal significance. The Court did not focus exclusively on the reasons that had originally led the individuals to leave their countries of origin. It also examined what they had built during their years in Italy.
This observation provides a useful starting point for discussing a concept that is increasingly present in European political debates: Remigration.
In its most radical formulation, Remigration tends to view return to the country of origin as the general solution to migration-related challenges. The primary objective becomes the reduction of the foreign-born population through return policies.
The Integration or ReImmigration paradigm follows a different logic.
It does not begin with the assumption that all immigrants should leave. Nor does it assume that immigration automatically creates a permanent right to remain.
Instead, it asks a simple question: has integration actually occurred?
Has the individual become part of the national community? Has he or she learned the language, respected the law, participated in society, achieved economic self-sufficiency and developed meaningful social ties?
If the answer is yes, then integration has produced a result that deserves recognition. The individual has developed a genuine connection with the host society.
If the answer is no, if there is no meaningful participation in the life of the community and no willingness to integrate, then ReImmigration becomes the logical consequence.
In this sense, ReImmigration differs fundamentally from Remigration.
Remigration, particularly in its more radical versions, tends to focus on return as a general policy objective.
ReImmigration focuses on integration as the primary objective and return as a consequence only when integration fails.
The distinction is not merely semantic. It reflects two different ways of understanding migration itself.
One approach begins with the question of who arrived.
The other begins with the question of what happened after arrival.
For an American audience, this distinction may sound familiar. Throughout much of American history, public debate was less concerned with immigration alone than with assimilation and integration. The central issue was whether newcomers would become part of the broader national community.
The Integration or ReImmigration paradigm seeks to place that same question at the centre of contemporary migration policy.
Immigration should not be judged solely by the number of arrivals.
It should also be evaluated by the success or failure of integration.
Under this framework, integration becomes the benchmark.
ReImmigration is not the alternative to integration.
It is the consequence of its failure.
Avv. Fabio Loscerbo
Lobbyist registered in the European Union Transparency Register – ID 280782895721-36
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0004-7030-0428
From Complementary Protection to the Integration or ReImmigration Paradigm: Reflections on Recent Decisions of the Court of Bologna
Abstract Recent decisions issued by the Court of Bologna on 22 May 2026 provide an opportunity to reflect on the relationship between immigrant integration and the legal right to remain in a host country. The Court granted complementary protection to foreign nationals who had built meaningful lives in Italy through employment, housing, social ties and…
Come può una Questura stampare permessi e fare rimpatri nello stesso momento?
Nel dibattito sull’immigrazione si parla spesso di rimpatri insufficienti, di difficoltà nell’esecuzione dei provvedimenti di espulsione e di inefficienze del sistema. Molto più raramente, però, ci si pone una domanda apparentemente semplice: chi dovrebbe materialmente occuparsi di queste attività? In Italia la risposta è nota. Gli Uffici Immigrazione delle Questure rappresentano il principale punto di…
- From Complementary Protection to the Integration or ReImmigration Paradigm: Reflections on Recent Decisions of the Court of Bologna
- Complementary Protection and Integration: Why “Integration or ReImmigration” Is Not “Remigration”
- Come può una Questura stampare permessi e fare rimpatri nello stesso momento?
- Gli stipendi spiegano l’immigrazione meglio dell’ideologia
- Italy’s Supreme Court Says Integration Matters in Deportation Cases
