Welcome to a new episode of the podcast Integration or ReImmigration.
I am Attorney Fabio Loscerbo.
For decades, asylum and international protection have occupied a central position in immigration law. They were conceived as extraordinary instruments, designed to respond to extreme situations of persecution, war, and serious human rights violations. Their function was clear: to prevent refoulement and to guarantee fundamental protection where return would be unlawful. Over time, however, these instruments have been transformed into something very different.
Asylum and international protection have progressively expanded beyond their original scope. They have become catch-all mechanisms, absorbing a wide range of situations that are not rooted in persecution or armed conflict, but in generalized instability, economic hardship, or social vulnerability. This expansion has blurred the legal boundaries of protection and has placed unbearable pressure on systems that were never designed to manage mass, long-term permanence.
The result is a structural distortion. Asylum procedures are increasingly used as de facto entry channels. International protection becomes not only a shield against removal, but the primary pathway to stabilization. The exceptional becomes ordinary, and the temporary becomes permanent. In this framework, denial of protection is perceived not as a legal decision, but as an act of exclusion.
This distortion produces two parallel failures. On the one hand, genuine refugees face delays, overload, and procedural congestion. On the other hand, individuals whose situations do not fall within the strict legal criteria of asylum are left in limbo, oscillating between rejection and informal tolerance. The system loses its capacity to differentiate, and with it, its legitimacy.
The paradigm Integration or ReImmigration does not weaken asylum. It restores its legal function. Asylum must return to being what it was meant to be: an instrument of protection against specific, well-defined risks. It cannot carry the entire weight of migration governance. When asylum is asked to solve structural migration, it inevitably collapses under that burden.
Moving beyond asylum does not mean abandoning protection. It means recognizing that not all situations of non-removability are asylum cases. There are contexts where return is unlawful or unreasonable, but where the individual does not qualify as a refugee or beneficiary of international protection. For these cases, different legal tools are required.
This is where complementary and conditional forms of protection become essential. They allow the legal system to prevent unlawful removal without transforming protection into automatic permanence. They introduce flexibility, proportionality, and reversibility. Most importantly, they allow the State to maintain an evaluative role over time.
The failure to develop these intermediate tools has forced asylum systems to absorb functions they were never designed to perform. Vulnerability has been stretched beyond its legal meaning. Protection has been disconnected from responsibility. And return has been expelled from the system, treated as a moral impossibility rather than as a legal outcome.
Beyond asylum also means moving beyond a binary logic: either full protection or removal. Real-life situations are more complex. Law must be capable of recognizing gradations, conditions, and transitions. A system that offers only absolute outcomes will inevitably produce injustice and inefficiency.
This episode marks a conceptual transition in the podcast. Up to now, we have focused on restoring structure to entry, stay, and integration. From this point forward, we will examine the legal instruments that allow this structure to function in practice. We will analyze complementary protection, its logic, its limits, and its procedural implications.
Understanding why asylum alone is insufficient is a prerequisite for understanding why ReImmigration is not an ideological choice, but a necessary component of a coherent legal system. Without alternatives to asylum, return can only appear as cruelty. With alternatives, return becomes one possible and lawful conclusion among others.
In the next episode, we will focus specifically on complementary protection: its legal rationale, its function within the system, and why it must remain a form of protection without automatic stabilization.
Thank you for listening.
Lascia un commento