Social Uprooting, European Asylum, and Responsibility: Why There Is No Future Without Integration

Welcome to a new episode of the podcast Integration or ReImmigration.
My name is Fabio Loscerbo. I am an attorney and a lobbyist registered in the European Union Transparency Register, and in this space we analyze—without slogans or simplifications—the major issues surrounding immigration, asylum law, and the resilience of our societies.
Today we will discuss social uprooting, European asylum law, and responsibility, starting from a debate that has recently emerged in the United States and intersecting it with the ongoing reform of the European Union’s asylum system.

Social Uprooting, European Asylum, and Responsibility: Why There Is No Future Without Integration

In recent months, a concept has emerged with increasing clarity in U.S. strategic debates—one that Europe still struggles to name openly: the risk of deep social uprooting within European societies. This is not about folklore, traditions, or cultural symbolism. It is about the stability of the legal, civic, and cultural bonds that make a political community viable. It is an external perspective, and precisely for that reason, one less constrained by the reassuring language that dominates much of the European debate on immigration.

This reflection comes at a decisive moment, as the European Union is attempting to reform its asylum system through the new Pact on Migration and Asylum. It is precisely here that these two trajectories intersect. On the one hand, a geopolitical diagnosis pointing to the risk of social fragmentation. On the other, a regulatory response focused on procedures, timelines, and redistribution mechanisms—while carefully avoiding the core question: what happens when asylum does not result in real integration?

The problem is not asylum itself. The problem is a system that, over time, has separated protection from responsibility. In Europe, we continue to speak about reception, inclusion, and solidarity, but increasingly avoid the language of obligations. Yet any serious legal order rests on a basic principle: there are no rights without duties, no benefits without consequences.

When U.S. analysts speak of “civilizational erasure,” they are not denying the legitimacy of migration flows or the duty to protect those fleeing war and persecution. They are highlighting a precise political risk: societies that are no longer capable of requiring genuine adherence to their fundamental rules. A society that renounces the expectation of integration ceases to be a community and becomes merely an administrated space.

This is where the European asylum reform reveals its deepest ambiguities. The new regulatory framework promises efficiency and speed, but leaves a fundamental question unanswered: what concrete integration pathway accompanies these reforms? What is actually required of those who are granted protection? And above all, what happens when those requirements are not met?

Integration is too often treated as a moral value or a narrative. In reality, integration is—or should be—a legal and social obligation. Lawful employment, knowledge of the language, respect for the rules, and adherence to the fundamental principles of the legal order are not rewards to be granted, but conditions that legitimize continued residence. Without this framework, asylum risks shifting from a tool of protection to a factor of social disintegration.

It is within this space that the paradigm Integration or ReImmigration must be understood. Not as a brutal alternative to asylum, but as its necessary evolution. Protection and integration must move together. When they do not, ReImmigration is not a punishment, but the orderly and rational consequence of failing to meet the conditions that make coexistence possible.

Without consequences, obligations lose meaning. Without ReImmigration, integration becomes an empty word. This is the issue Europe continues to avoid naming, even as external observers identify it with growing clarity.

Europe now stands before a choice that is not merely regulatory, but civil and political. It can continue to reform procedures without addressing their long-term social effects, or it can acknowledge that asylum, in order to remain legitimate and sustainable, must be embedded within a clear framework of mutual responsibility. Without real integration, there is no future—neither for those who arrive, nor for the societies that receive them.

This concludes today’s episode of Integration or ReImmigration.
Thank you for listening. You can explore these issues further at www.reimmigrazione.com.
My name is Fabio Loscerbo, and I look forward to speaking with you again in the next episode.