Across Europe, Spain is increasingly described as a pragmatic model of migration governance. Commentators have highlighted its expansion of legal pathways, its use of regularisation mechanisms and its willingness to link immigration policy directly to labour market needs. Two Italian analyses reflect this narrative: “L’immigrazione regolare come leva di sviluppo economico: il caso spagnolo” published by 7Grammilavoro
https://www.7grammilavoro.com/limmigrazione-regolare-come-leva-di-sviluppo-economico-il-caso-spagnolo/
and “Migranti: la Spagna sceglie l’integrazione” published by Il Bo Live – University of Padua
https://ilbolive.unipd.it/it/news/societa/migranti-spagna-sceglie-lintegrazione
Both articles portray Spain as a country that has chosen integration over restriction, using migration as a tool to sustain economic growth and respond to demographic decline.
For a British audience, this line of argument is immediately recognisable. In the United Kingdom, the migration debate has for years revolved around control, economic need, and sovereignty. Post-Brexit policy has emphasised a points-based system, designed to match labour demand with controlled entry. The underlying logic is clear: migration should serve the national interest, particularly in economic terms.
There is nothing inherently wrong with acknowledging the economic contribution of migrants. Many sectors — healthcare, hospitality, agriculture, logistics — rely on migrant labour. Tax contributions, productivity gains and demographic balance are tangible realities.
However, the deeper European debate now emerging, particularly in Italy, raises a more structural question.
Is economic usefulness sufficient to justify long-term and irreversible settlement?
Labour markets fluctuate. Demand rises and falls. Economic cycles reshape entire industries. If the legitimacy of residence is anchored primarily to labour shortages, what happens when those shortages disappear? A nation cannot be governed like a company adjusting staffing levels according to quarterly forecasts.
Permanent residence carries far-reaching implications: access to public services, family reunification, long-term social integration and structural transformation of national identity. It is not simply about filling vacancies.
This is where the paradigm I propose — Integrazione o ReImmigrazione — becomes relevant.
ReImmigrazione is not simply “removal” or “deportation”. It is not a punitive or arbitrary concept. It refers to a structured, legally ordered and foreseeable mechanism that becomes operative when integration fails in a substantive and durable way.
Integration, in this model, is not rhetorical. It is not merely a political aspiration. It is a verifiable pact between the State and the individual. It rests on stable participation in the labour market, effective command of the national language and consistent respect for the legal order. The State guarantees rights and protection; the individual assumes obligations and demonstrates integration through conduct.
If integration is genuine and sustained, long-term settlement is legitimate and stable. If integration breaks down structurally — through prolonged disengagement from lawful employment or persistent breach of legal norms — permanence cannot become automatic and irreversible. In such cases, a regulated process of ReImmigrazione must be available.
For the United Kingdom, which has long placed emphasis on rule of law, civic responsibility and national sovereignty, this discussion resonates. Border control alone does not resolve the question of integration. Entry systems can be selective and economically rational, but permanence requires ongoing evaluation.
The Spanish example shows how legal channels can reduce irregularity and respond to labour demand. Yet without a clearly articulated framework of reciprocal responsibility, integration risks becoming declaratory rather than enforceable.
The choice facing Europe — and equally relevant to the UK — is not between openness and closure. It is between a migration model grounded primarily in economic utility and one grounded in a structured integration contract.
Integrazione o ReImmigrazione proposes equilibrium. Entry may reflect economic need. Permanence must reflect verified integration. ReImmigrazione is not the opposite of integration; it is its institutional safeguard.
In an era of demographic pressure, social transformation and political polarisation, integration cannot be symbolic. It must be measurable, reciprocal and enforceable. Without verification, integration loses credibility. Without responsibility, stability cannot endure.
Avv. Fabio Loscerbo
Lobbyist – European Union Transparency Register
ID 280782895721-36
Lascia un commento