Integrazione o ReImmigrazione

The new European rules speed up returns but ignore integration: the gap the EU does not see

Written by

Fabio Loscerbo

in


The recent European intervention on asylum and return procedures marks an important step in the Union’s migration policy. Its stated goal is to make procedures faster, reinforce border controls and introduce more effective mechanisms for removing individuals who have no legal basis to stay. Europe is attempting to recover an administrative capacity that in recent years has appeared insufficient, particularly in managing manifestly unfounded claims and non-cooperative cases. It is a measure responding to strong political pressure from various Member States and seeking to restore credibility to a system often perceived as slow and inconclusive.

Yet, as the Union updates its regulatory framework, a significant gap remains unaddressed: the role of integration does not enter the core of the new rules. The EU accelerates entry procedures, accelerates examination, accelerates return, but does not address what happens in between. It does not define responsibilities, does not establish criteria for assessing the quality of a migrant’s stay and does not set consequences when integration is refused. The system focuses on procedures, without addressing behaviour. And this is precisely where the European debate remains incomplete.

An intervention directed at borders, not at pathways
The European reform clearly strengthens the initial and final stages of the migration process. Border procedures become stricter, detention possibilities expand and coordination on returns is tightened. The Union also reiterates that Member States must be able to enforce negative decisions swiftly, avoiding prolonged irregular situations that fuel social tensions and undermine trust in institutions.

However, this regulatory framework lacks an organic structure concerning the stay itself. Integration is evoked as an aspirational principle, as a desirable objective, as a social investment, but not as a structural element of residence. Residence remains legally separate from the quality of participation in the host community. Integration does not become something assessable, verifiable or obligatory. It is a moral premise, not an administrative parameter.

The distance between what Europe proclaims and what Europe regulates is evident. The reform gives States tools to accelerate procedures, but no tools to distinguish between those who build a positive trajectory and those who remain on the margins with no intention of participating. The result is a system that manages entry and exit, but not the stay.

The unresolved issue of individual responsibility
The key question the reform does not address is simple and decisive: what happens when a person does not integrate?
The European framework does not offer an answer.
Integration is understood as an obligation of institutions, not as a duty of the individual. In this way, the system creates a natural asymmetry: the State must offer integration pathways, but the individual has no obligation to engage with them.

It is an incomplete vision because it ignores the essential element of any sustainable migration policy: individual responsibility. If European lawmakers do not introduce a link between conduct and residence, integration remains a neutral concept with no legal effect. The system neither rewards those who genuinely commit nor distinguishes those who systematically refuse to do so.
This opens the door to a grey area of individuals who are neither entitled to protection, nor effectively returned, nor integrated. This very category generates the greatest challenges today in terms of security and social cohesion.

The point Europe does not see: without an assessable notion of integration, migration policy remains incomplete
The Union continues to focus on entry conditions and departure conditions, but avoids the dimension that determines the real sustainability of the system: the period between arrival and the final outcome. This is where cohesion, security, inclusion and the credibility of institutions are shaped. Without a model that links residence to a genuine will to integrate, every intervention risks remaining partial.

This is why the current reform, although significant, does not resolve the central issue. It strengthens the administrative machinery but not the structure of the pathway. It does not distinguish between those who build a meaningful relationship with the host community and those who pass through it without anchoring themselves. It does not offer States an objective criterion to assess integration, nor does it provide a coherent set of administrative consequences when integration fails.

The European system therefore remains incomplete: it speeds up returns but does not construct an operational definition of integration. And above all, it does not regulate what happens when integration fails.

A possible approach: integration as a duty and residence as a pathway
The Integration or ReImmigration paradigm answers precisely this gap. It introduces a principle of clarity: residence is not a passive condition but a pathway based on rights and duties. Integration is not an aspiration but a responsibility. The assessment of individual behaviour becomes part of the administrative procedure, not a sociological consideration external to the law.
It is a model that can harmonise with the European framework because it does not restrict fundamental rights; it defines the conditions for their continuity.

The EU reform shows that the continent seeks greater order and coherence. But coherence cannot be achieved merely by speeding up returns; it requires recognising that integration must have content, criteria and legal significance. Without this step, every reform risks remaining incomplete.

Conclusion
The new European rules mark progress in strengthening procedures but leave unresolved the most complex dimension: the quality of residence. Integration remains a value, not a parameter. An objective, not a duty.
As long as the Union does not introduce a model of individual responsibility, European migration policy will continue to manage entry and exit but not residence. And this is where the difference will be seen between a system that holds and one that, though updated, continues to produce irregularity and tension.

Avv. Fabio Loscerbo
Lobbyist – EU Transparency Register ID: 280782895721-36

Commenti

Lascia un commento

More posts