Italy’s “Complementary Protection” Debate: Why “Integration or ReImmigration” Is Not the Same as “Remigration”

Abstract

Across Europe, immigration policy is increasingly polarized between two opposing models: unconditional multiculturalism and large-scale “remigration” proposals. In Italy, however, an important legal development is taking place inside the courts through the evolution of “complementary protection,” a form of humanitarian and constitutional protection linked to private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Recent decisions issued by the Tribunals of Bologna and Venice in 2026 show that Italian judges continue to recognize legal protection for migrants who have achieved concrete social integration, even after restrictive immigration reforms adopted by the Italian government in 2023. This article explains to an American audience the difference between the political concept of “remigration” and the paradigm “Integration or ReImmigration,” arguing that the latter is based not on collective ethnic criteria, but on individualized legal assessment focused on integration, work, social participation, and respect for the host country’s rules.

For many American observers, the current European immigration debate can appear confusing. Terms such as “multiculturalism,” “mass deportation,” “remigration,” and “integration” are often used interchangeably, even though they refer to profoundly different legal and political concepts.

Italy currently represents one of the most interesting case studies in Europe because its courts are gradually developing a judicial model that places integration at the center of immigration law. This process is emerging through what Italian law calls “protezione complementare” — complementary protection.

To understand the significance of this evolution, it is necessary first to explain the Italian legal context.

In 2023, the Italian government adopted the so-called “Decreto Cutro,” a restrictive immigration reform intended to reduce access to humanitarian forms of protection. Many commentators initially believed that the reform had effectively eliminated judicial protection based on social integration and private life.

Italian courts, however, have increasingly interpreted the reform differently.

Recent decisions issued by the Tribunals of Bologna and Venice demonstrate that judges continue to recognize that migrants who have developed strong social, economic, and personal ties in Italy may still receive legal protection against expulsion under constitutional principles and Article 8 ECHR.

This is where the distinction between “remigration” and the paradigm “Integration or ReImmigration” becomes crucial.

The concept of “remigration,” increasingly discussed in parts of Europe, generally proposes the large-scale return of foreign populations to their countries of origin regardless of their personal level of integration. In practice, the concept often operates through collective or identity-based criteria.

The paradigm “Integration or ReImmigration,” by contrast, is structured around individualized legal evaluation.

Under this model, remaining in the country depends on whether the foreign national has developed a genuine and verifiable connection with the host society through work, language acquisition, social participation, housing stability, respect for public order, and integration into community life.

This distinction is not merely theoretical. It already appears concretely inside Italian jurisprudence.

In the decree issued by the Tribunal of Venice on April 30, 2026, the court explicitly recognized complementary protection for a Moroccan citizen based on stable employment, social integration, and the absence of security concerns.

The court stated that even after the 2023 immigration reform, Italian law still requires protection of private and family life under constitutional obligations and Article 8 ECHR.

Most importantly, the Tribunal clarified that integration does not require a fully completed process. It is sufficient that there exist “clear, precise and consistent circumstances” demonstrating a genuine direction toward social integration.

The Bologna decisions from April 23 and May 6, 2026 follow the same reasoning.

In one case, the court recognized complementary protection for a Moroccan citizen who had obtained stable employment, rented housing, participated in volunteer activities with the Italian Red Cross, attended professional training courses, and demonstrated knowledge of the Italian language.

In another case, the Tribunal emphasized continuous employment, rising income, and even the purchase of property in Italy as indicators of stable integration into Italian society.

These decisions reveal something highly significant for comparative immigration law.

Italian judges are progressively transforming complementary protection into a legal mechanism that evaluates whether a migrant has built an authentic relationship with the national community. The focus is shifting away from abstract ideological positions and toward measurable integration.

This approach differs substantially both from unconditional multiculturalism and from generalized removal policies.

The “Integration or ReImmigration” paradigm does not argue that every migrant should automatically remain in the country. At the same time, it rejects the idea that all migrants should be removed regardless of their level of integration.

Instead, it proposes that legal permanence should depend on concrete integration criteria subject to judicial review.

In practical terms, this means that immigration law increasingly revolves around a central question: not simply who may enter the country, but according to which standards a foreign national may remain permanently within it.

This evolution is particularly interesting for American audiences because it reflects broader tensions that also exist in the United States.

The U.S. immigration debate often oscillates between two extremes: expansive humanitarian approaches and mass deportation rhetoric. The Italian experience suggests the possible emergence of a third model — one based on integration as a legal criterion.

Under this approach, integration becomes neither a symbolic slogan nor an ethnic test. It becomes a legally verifiable process evaluated through employment history, language acquisition, housing stability, social participation, respect for the law, and actual insertion into the national community.

The recent Italian jurisprudence therefore demonstrates that even within restrictive immigration systems, courts may continue to preserve constitutional and human-rights-based protections tied to human dignity and private life.

This is precisely why complementary protection has become one of the most important legal laboratories in contemporary European immigration law.

Avv. Fabio Loscerbo
Lawyer and Lobbyist registered in the European Union Transparency Register n. 280782895721-36
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0004-7030-0428

• Il futuro dell’immigrazione si gioca sull’integrazione: il dibattito che la politica continua a rinviare
• La critica del vescovo Cahill apre lo spazio per il paradigma “Integrazione o ReImmigrazione”
• “Irpef, la Lombardia è più ricca anche grazie alle tasse pagate dagli immigrati” – il contributo fiscale è importante, ma non può essere l’unico criterio delle politiche migratorie
• La nozione di vita privata nella protezione complementare. Osservazioni sul decreto del Tribunale di Firenze del 17 giugno 2026 (R.G. n. 11675/2025)
• “Prevost: gli immigrati hanno plasmato l’America” – la storia non può diventare un argomento per evitare il tema dell’integrazione