In recent years the concept of remigration has increasingly entered the European political debate. What was once a term used primarily within activist or ideological circles is now appearing more frequently in media discussions, political proposals, and academic analyses concerning the future of migration policy in Europe. For a British audience, understanding this debate requires placing it within the broader European context, which differs in several important ways from the United Kingdom’s own migration framework.
The term remigration generally refers to the return of people of foreign origin to their countries of origin. In more limited interpretations, the concept focuses on individuals who do not possess a legal right to remain in the host country or who have committed serious criminal offences. In its more radical versions, however, remigration may extend to much broader categories of migrants considered insufficiently integrated into European societies.
The contemporary diffusion of the concept is often associated with the Austrian activist Martin Sellner, who has played a significant role in promoting the idea within the broader European Identitarian movement. In this theoretical framework, remigration is presented as a long-term political strategy aimed at significantly reducing the presence of migrant populations across Europe.
The growing visibility of this idea is closely connected to the difficulties that several European states have experienced in managing migration flows over the past decade. These include persistent irregular migration, limited effectiveness in implementing return procedures, pressure on public services, and recurring debates about the success or failure of integration policies.
Within this context, remigration is sometimes presented as a clear and decisive solution. Supporters argue that reducing migrant populations would help restore social cohesion and address concerns about demographic change within European societies.
However, the proposal also raises significant legal and institutional challenges. European states operate within complex constitutional systems and, for members of the European Union, within a framework of supranational law and international human rights obligations. Millions of people of foreign origin currently reside in Europe with lawful status, established family ties and, in many cases, citizenship.
For this reason, a large-scale remigration policy would face considerable legal constraints. In practice, the concept often functions more as a political narrative reflecting public frustration than as a migration policy that could realistically be implemented within existing legal systems.
It is precisely at this point that the paradigm of Integration or ReImmigration offers a fundamentally different perspective.
Unlike remigration, this approach does not focus on ethnic origin or cultural identity. Instead, it is based on a legal principle: the right to remain within the national territory should be linked to a demonstrable process of integration into the host society.
In this framework, integration is not treated as a vague political aspiration but as a measurable process built around three core elements: participation in the labour market, knowledge of the national language, and respect for the fundamental rules of the legal order.
Where this integration process succeeds, migrants become stable members of the national community and may consolidate their legal status through existing migration mechanisms. Where integration clearly fails, however, the state must possess effective tools to terminate the settlement process and facilitate a return to the country of origin.
The difference between the two approaches is therefore substantial. Remigration primarily seeks to reduce the presence of migrant populations for cultural or demographic reasons. ReImmigration, by contrast, represents a structured legal model for governing migration based on the objective assessment of integration.
Within this paradigm, return to the country of origin is not an ideological goal. It is simply the logical consequence of a failed integration pathway. At the same time, successful integration remains the primary objective of the system.
For the United Kingdom, this debate is particularly interesting because the country has developed its own migration governance framework outside the European Union following Brexit. The UK has historically placed strong emphasis on controlled immigration systems and points-based selection mechanisms. Nevertheless, the broader European discussion about integration and social cohesion remains relevant, particularly in light of shared challenges across Western societies.
The resurgence of the remigration concept ultimately reflects a deeper concern about the sustainability of migration governance in Europe. Yet if migration policy is to function effectively within democratic systems governed by the rule of law, it must move beyond ideological confrontation.
A realistic migration policy must be able to distinguish clearly between successful integration and failed integration. Without such a distinction, governments risk oscillating between two ineffective extremes: permissive migration systems lacking enforceability or radical proposals that cannot be implemented within constitutional legal frameworks.
The ambition of the Integration or ReImmigration paradigm is precisely to overcome this dilemma. Rather than framing migration as a purely ideological conflict, it proposes a structured legal approach capable of managing migration in a way that promotes integration while establishing clear consequences when integration does not occur.
Avv. Fabio Loscerbo
Lobbyist registered in the European Union Transparency Register – ID 280782895721-36
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0004-7030-0428
Lascia un commento