Why a Utilitarian Approach Undermines Integration, Legal Certainty, and Second-Generation Outcomes
For a UK audience, an initial clarification is essential. ReImmigrazione is not a translated term and should not be confused with slogans such as “mass deportation” or ideological concepts of “remigration.” It is a legal–institutional paradigm, developed within the European constitutional framework, describing a specific outcome: the lawful return of migrants whose integration process, as required by law, has not been fulfilled.
This clarification matters because the public debate on immigration—both in continental Europe and in the UK—remains heavily influenced by a single assumption: without immigration, the economy would struggle to function. Labour shortages would increase, key sectors would suffer, and public services would come under pressure. This argument is well known in the UK, where immigration has long been framed as economically necessary, particularly in sectors such as healthcare, construction, logistics, and hospitality.
From a legal perspective, however, this utilitarian framing is structurally flawed.
When immigration is justified primarily on economic grounds, the legal foundations of residence and permanence are weakened. Presence on national territory becomes legitimate because it is economically useful, rather than because it complies with legal standards of admission, conduct, and integration. Market demand gradually replaces legal criteria as the basis for legitimacy. Over time, this undermines legal certainty and weakens the credibility of immigration control itself.
Neither UK immigration law nor European migration systems were designed as pure labour-allocation mechanisms. Residence, settlement, and access to rights are legally conditioned on compliance with rules, respect for public order, and increasingly on integration-related requirements. When economic need becomes the dominant justification, integration shifts from being a binding condition to a vague policy aspiration, lacking enforceable consequences.
The ReImmigrazione paradigm addresses precisely this imbalance. It does not deny the economic contribution of migrants, nor does it ignore labour-market realities. What it does is reassert a fundamental principle of the rule of law: long-term residence must be grounded in lawful integration, not in economic convenience.
In this framework, integration is not a cultural slogan or a moral expectation. It is a legally relevant process. Language proficiency, respect for the law, civic behaviour, and adherence to institutional norms are concrete and assessable elements. Where this process fails or is absent, continued residence lacks a legal foundation. Lawful return to the country of origin, carried out with due process and safeguards, is therefore not punitive but the normal consequence of unmet legal conditions.
This point is particularly relevant in the UK context, where post-Brexit immigration policy has emphasised “control” and “points-based systems,” yet often struggles to articulate a coherent concept of integration beyond economic contribution. ReImmigrazione does not advocate collective removals or ideological exclusion. It operates strictly on an individual basis, through administrative decisions subject to legal review: refusal or revocation of residence status, return decisions, voluntary return schemes, and lawful removals in accordance with due process.
In this sense, ReImmigrazione is not an alternative to liberal democracy. It is the enforcement of its legal framework.
Persisting in an economic-only justification for immigration produces long-term consequences, particularly for second generations. When first-generation migrants are admitted and tolerated mainly because they are “needed,” without a clearly enforced integration framework, their children grow up within an ambiguous institutional environment. Inclusion becomes social rather than legal; belonging is felt but not clearly defined in terms of rights and responsibilities.
The integration challenges faced by second generations are therefore not accidental. They are the predictable result of an institutional failure: a system that prioritises economic utility over legal coherence and replaces enforceable integration with tolerance. Over time, this weakens social cohesion and undermines trust in public institutions.
For a UK audience, the core lesson is straightforward. Immigration systems that rely primarily on economic necessity while neglecting legally enforceable integration standards inevitably generate systemic inconsistency. The key question is not whether immigration supports the economy. The real issue is whether the legal system can clearly distinguish between integration-based settlement and temporary economic tolerance.
ReImmigrazione offers a coherent answer: integration as the condition for stability, and lawful return as the consequence of its absence. This is not a radical proposal. It is a reaffirmation of legal certainty and institutional responsibility in migration governance.
Failing to make this distinction does not prevent integration failure. It merely postpones it. And when that failure emerges at the level of second generations, the cost is no longer economic. It becomes institutional.
Avv. Fabio Loscerbo
Attorney at Law
Lobbyist – EU Transparency Register
ID 280782895721-36
Lascia un commento