Complementary Protection and ReImmigration: Why This Court Decision Matters for the Rule of Law

Welcome to a new episode of the podcast “Integration or ReImmigration.”
My name is Fabio Loscerbo. I am an Italian attorney specialised in immigration law.

Today I want to explain why a recent court decision issued in Italy should matter well beyond national borders, including to an American audience concerned with border control, immigration enforcement, and the credibility of the rule of law. I am referring to a decision issued on December 30, 2025, by the Florence Ordinary Tribunal, which recognised a form of legal protection known as complementary protection.

At first glance, this may sound like just another European court expanding migrant protections. That interpretation would be wrong. What makes this decision important is precisely the opposite: it shows how legal protection, when applied rigorously, can strengthen state authority rather than undermine it.

The court addressed a fundamental question that Western democracies continue to avoid: when does protection stop being justice and start becoming systemic weakness? The answer given by the tribunal is clear and uncomfortable. Protection is not automatic. It is not a reward for time spent in the country. It is not triggered simply because removal is politically difficult or administratively delayed. Protection exists only when removal would cause a disproportionate violation of a person’s private life, and only after a serious evaluation of individual conduct.

In this case, the court did not protect someone because they were present in Italy. It protected someone because they had demonstrably built a real life there. Not a symbolic one, not a paper one, but a concrete and verifiable one. Stable work. Economic independence. Knowledge of the language. Social relationships. Respect for the rules of the host community. In short, integration that could be proven, not merely claimed.

This distinction is crucial. In many Western systems, including the United States, immigration enforcement has become trapped between two extremes. On one side, absolute enforcement that ignores human consequences. On the other, expansive protection that gradually disables the State’s ability to remove anyone at all. This ruling shows a third path: selective protection grounded in responsibility.

That is where the concept of ReImmigration comes in. ReImmigration does not mean mass deportation. It does not mean hostility toward migrants. It means restoring a credible legal alternative: integrate, or return. Without the real possibility of return, integration becomes meaningless. Without integration, protection becomes arbitrary.

The Florence court makes this logic explicit. By protecting only those who have genuinely integrated, the State preserves its legitimacy to remove those who have not. This is not cruelty. It is legal coherence. A system that protects everyone indiscriminately eventually protects no one, because it loses public trust and enforcement capacity. A system that protects selectively maintains both humanity and authority.

For an American audience, this should sound familiar. The decision is based on proportionality, individual assessment, and the idea that rights exist within a legal order, not outside it. The court does not deny the State’s right to enforce immigration law. On the contrary, it reinforces that right by clarifying its limits. Enforcement without limits becomes abuse. Protection without limits becomes surrender.

What this ruling demonstrates is that courts do not have to choose between rights and borders. They can protect rights in a way that preserves borders. Complementary protection, when applied correctly, is not an obstacle to removals. It is the condition that makes removals lawful, defensible, and sustainable.

This is why this decision matters. Not because it expands protection, but because it defines it. Not because it weakens the State, but because it restores credibility to immigration law. It reminds us that the rule of law is not about choosing sides. It is about drawing lines.

Integration or ReImmigration is not a slogan. It is a legal logic. Protect those who integrate. Return those who do not. Anything else is disorder disguised as compassion.

Thank you for listening to “Integration or ReImmigration.”
I’m Fabio Loscerbo.