In the United States, immigration is once again being discussed primarily through the language of enforcement: who may enter, who must leave, what powers the executive branch may exercise, and where the limits imposed by Congress and the courts lie. A federal judge’s decision this week striking down the suspension of immigrant-visa processing for applicants from 75 countries is another reminder that effective migration control must operate within a stable legal framework. But the American debate also raises a broader question: what happens after lawful admission?
The European project Integration or ReImmigration starts from a premise that may sound familiar to an American audience: a country has both the right and the responsibility to control its borders. Yet border enforcement alone does not amount to an immigration policy. A functioning system must distinguish clearly between those who have a lawful basis to remain and those who do not, while demanding something concrete from the former: integration should be a measurable process, not an assumption.
This is where the proposal differs from both an open-ended multicultural model and a purely restrictive approach. The paradigm envisages objective indicators of integration: language acquisition, employment, education and training, compliance with the law, civic participation, family stability and other evidence of a genuine relationship with the receiving society. These indicators would not reduce a person to a score. Their purpose is the opposite: to replace vague political judgments with transparent and verifiable criteria.
For American readers, the comparison is particularly relevant because the United States has historically been remarkably successful at social and economic incorporation without building a comprehensive federal integration policy. Research by the Migration Policy Institute has repeatedly emphasized that immigration affects labor markets, local communities, education and social cohesion, while much of the practical work of integration occurs below the federal level. The European question is whether that process should remain largely spontaneous or become an explicit responsibility of migration governance.
The second half of the paradigm is equally important. If integration is treated seriously, failure to meet the legal conditions for remaining cannot become an indefinite administrative condition. Those who have the right to stay should be given a real path toward membership; those who definitively lack that right should be returned through lawful and effective procedures. ReImmigration, in this sense, is not collective expulsion and is not defined by ethnicity or nationality. It is the administrative consequence of a system that first establishes rules, rights, obligations and opportunities for integration.
The American debate often presents enforcement and integration as competing political visions. The proposal developed by ReImmigrazione suggests a different architecture: border control, legal migration, measurable integration and effective return policy are parts of the same system. A state that controls entry but ignores integration merely postpones its problems; a state that promotes integration but cannot enforce final immigration decisions undermines the credibility of its own rules. The objective is neither indiscriminate openness nor indiscriminate closure, but an immigration policy capable of deciding—and then taking responsibility for its decisions.
Avv. Fabio Loscerbo
Avvocato Cassazionista
Iscritto nel Registro dei rappresentanti di interessi della Camera dei deputati in materia di Immigrazione
Lobbista registrato presso il Registro per la Trasparenza dell’Unione europea n. 280782895721-36 in materia di Migrazione e Asilo
ORCID: 0009-0004-7030-0428
Lascia un commento