Categoria: International

Die Bundesregierung hat dem Bundestag am 17. August 2026 neue Zahlen zu Abschiebungen und freiwilligen Ausreisen vorgelegt. Im ersten Halbjahr 2026 wurden 9.663 Abschiebungen vollzogen. Gleichzeitig verließen 9.276 Personen Deutschland über das Bund-Länder-Programm REAG/GARP freiwillig mit finanzieller Unterstützung. Hinzu kommt eine Zahl, die für die praktische Leistungsfähigkeit des Systems besonders aufschlussreich ist: 734 Abschiebungen wurden während oder nach der Übergabe an die Bundespolizei abgebrochen, darunter 111 Dublin-Überstellungen. Diese Daten zeigen Fortschritt, aber auch eine strukturelle Schwäche: Deutschland verfügt über Instrumente zur Aufenthaltsbeendigung, doch ihre Wirkung bleibt zu oft von komplizierten Verfahren, fehlenden Dokumenten, operativen Brüchen und unklaren Zuständigkeiten abhängig.

Die deutsche Debatte wird häufig auf eine einfache Alternative reduziert: entweder mehr Abschiebungen oder weniger Abschiebungen. Das ist die falsche Frage. Ein Rechtsstaat muss vollziehbare Ausreisepflichten grundsätzlich durchsetzen können. Ebenso muss er sicherstellen, dass niemand abgeschoben wird, solange ein Schutzanspruch, eine gerichtliche Sperre oder ein sonstiges rechtliches Hindernis besteht. Entscheidend ist deshalb nicht die politische Lautstärke einer Rückführungspolitik, sondern ihre rechtliche und administrative Qualität. Ein funktionierendes System erkennt früh, wer bleiben darf, wer tatsächlich integriert ist und wer nach Abschluss aller Verfahren keinen rechtmäßigen Aufenthaltsgrund mehr besitzt.

Genau hier setzt das Paradigma „Integrazione o ReImmigrazione“ an. Es unterscheidet nicht pauschal nach Herkunft, Nationalität oder politischer Zuschreibung, sondern nach rechtlichem Status, individuellem Verhalten und tatsächlicher Integration. Wer rechtmäßig in Deutschland lebt, arbeitet, Sprache erwirbt, seine Familie versorgt und sich dauerhaft in die Gesellschaft einfügt, sollte eine verlässliche Perspektive erhalten. Wer dagegen nach einem rechtsstaatlichen Verfahren keinen Schutz- oder Aufenthaltsgrund hat, muss damit rechnen, dass die Rückkehrentscheidung auch tatsächlich umgesetzt wird. Das ist keine kollektive Remigration, sondern die individualisierte Konsequenz einer regelgebundenen Migrationsordnung.

Die 9.276 geförderten freiwilligen Ausreisen zeigen zugleich, dass Rückkehr nicht ausschließlich mit Zwang organisiert werden muss. Freiwillige Rückkehr kann schneller, kostengünstiger und weniger konfliktbeladen sein als eine zwangsweise Abschiebung. Sie funktioniert aber nur, wenn Beratung, Rückkehrhilfen und Reintegration mit klaren Fristen und glaubwürdiger Durchsetzung verbunden werden. Ein System, das freiwillige Rückkehr anbietet, aber nach Ablauf aller Fristen keine Konsequenz kennt, verliert seine Steuerungswirkung. Umgekehrt ist eine Politik, die ausschließlich auf Zwang setzt, administrativ teuer und gesellschaftlich konfliktträchtig.

Besonders ernst genommen werden müssen die 734 abgebrochenen Abschiebungen. Nicht jeder Abbruch ist ein Behördenversagen: gesundheitliche Gründe, neue gerichtliche Entscheidungen oder konkrete Schutzfragen können eine Maßnahme rechtmäßig stoppen. Gerade deshalb sollte jeder gescheiterte Vollzug systematisch ausgewertet werden. Bund und Länder brauchen eine einheitliche Rückführungssteuerung, in der Identität, Reisedokumente, rechtliche Hindernisse, gesundheitliche Faktoren und die Zusammenarbeit mit den Herkunftsstaaten frühzeitig geklärt werden. Ein zentrales Element des Paradigmas ist deshalb ein verlässliches Identitäts- und Dokumentenmanagement: Der Staat darf die Frage, ob eine Rückkehr praktisch möglich ist, nicht erst am Tag des Abflugs beantworten.

Auch die Europäische Union spielt hierbei eine entscheidende Rolle. Ein Teil der deutschen Rückführungen führt in andere EU-Staaten, und unter dem neuen Gemeinsamen Europäischen Asylsystem bleiben Überstellungen und Verantwortungsregeln ein zentraler Bestandteil der europäischen Ordnung. Eine europäische Migrationspolitik ist nur glaubwürdig, wenn Verantwortung tatsächlich wahrgenommen wird. Deutschland darf seine Probleme nicht auf Italien, Griechenland oder andere Außengrenzstaaten verlagern; zugleich dürfen diese Staaten gemeinsame Zuständigkeitsregeln nicht faktisch leerlaufen lassen. Die EU muss praktische Kooperation bei Identifizierung, Dokumentenbeschaffung, Rückübernahme und Transfers ermöglichen, statt sich in Verfahren zu erschöpfen, deren Vollzug am Ende niemand garantiert.

Für Deutschland lautet die eigentliche Herausforderung daher nicht, möglichst hohe Abschiebezahlen zu produzieren. Es geht darum, eine Migrationsordnung zu schaffen, die Integration belohnt, Rechtsklarheit herstellt und Rückkehr tatsächlich vollziehbar macht. Das Paradigma „Integrazione o ReImmigrazione“ bietet dafür eine klare Logik: rechtmäßiger Aufenthalt plus überprüfbare Integration führen zu Stabilität; fehlender Aufenthaltsgrund nach rechtsstaatlicher Prüfung führt zu einer realen Rückkehrperspektive; Herkunftsstaaten und europäische Partner werden in die Verantwortung einbezogen. Ein moderner Staat muss beides können: Menschen integrieren, die bleiben dürfen, und Entscheidungen durchsetzen, wenn der Aufenthalt rechtlich beendet ist.

Avv. Fabio Loscerbo
Avvocato Cassazionista
Iscritto nel Registro dei rappresentanti di interessi della Camera dei deputati in materia di Immigrazione
Lobbista registrato presso il Registro per la Trasparenza dell’Unione europea n. 280782895721-36 in materia di Migrazione e Asilo
ORCID: 0009-0004-7030-0428

On August 21, 2026, a federal judge in Manhattan vacated the State Department policy that had suspended immigrant visa issuance for nationals of 75 countries. The ruling did not declare that the federal government is powerless to control legal immigration, nor did it deny that Washington may legitimately consider self-sufficiency, fiscal impact, security, or compliance when deciding who may enter and remain in the United States. It established a narrower but essential point: immigration control must operate through the law and through individual decisions, not through a nationality-wide shortcut that replaces the person with a category. Reuters reported the decision on August 21: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-judge-strikes-down-policy-suspending-immigrant-visa-processing-75-nations-2026-08-22/

The controversy matters because it exposes one of the recurring weaknesses of the American immigration debate. Too often, policy is presented as a choice between permissiveness and blanket restriction. That is a false choice. The federal government has a duty to control the border, distinguish legal from illegal immigration, enforce immigration law, preserve lawful pathways, and remove people who have no right to remain after due process. But the same government also has a duty to make decisions according to the statutory framework adopted by Congress. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(4), the public-charge inquiry already requires an individualized assessment that includes age, health, family status, assets and financial resources, education, and skills: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=%28title%3A8+section%3A1182%28a%29+edition%3Aprelim%29. The law itself therefore points toward evaluation, not collective presumption.

This is where the paradigm “Integration or ReImmigration” can offer something useful to the United States. Its starting point is neither open-ended reception nor collective removal. It is the idea that immigration must be governed across the entire cycle: lawful admission, identification, status, integration, periodic verification, enforcement, and, when the legal basis for remaining is absent and all guarantees have been exhausted, effective return. The central unit of decision is the individual. A government may set demanding standards, but those standards should measure the person’s actual circumstances, conduct, and trajectory rather than treating nationality as a substitute for evidence.

For the American system, that principle suggests a more serious concept of measurable integration. Employment and economic self-sufficiency matter, but they are not the whole picture. Long-term immigration policy should also pay attention to lawful conduct, English-language acquisition where relevant, civic knowledge, educational progress, family stability, and participation in the social and institutional life of the country. These factors should not become an arbitrary score imposed by executive discretion. Congress would have to define any legal consequences clearly. But the federal government can already improve the quality of policy by measuring integration outcomes transparently rather than arguing about immigration almost exclusively through border encounters, deportation totals, or labor shortages.

A second pillar of the paradigm is therefore especially relevant to the United States: a recurring public integration report. The federal government publishes extensive data on admissions, enforcement, removals, employment, and benefits, while states and local governments hold much of the information that reveals whether integration is succeeding in schools, labor markets, neighborhoods, and public services. What is missing is a coherent framework capable of showing, over time, whether lawful immigration is producing durable social incorporation and where integration is failing. Such a report should measure outcomes by admission category and length of residence, while avoiding the mistake of turning national origin into a presumption about the worth or reliability of an individual immigrant.

This would also clarify federal and state responsibilities. Immigration status, admission, removal, and nationality policy belong principally to the federal government. States and cities, however, live with the concrete consequences of immigration policy: schools teach children, local labor markets absorb workers, health systems face demand, and communities manage housing and social cohesion. A functioning model therefore requires federal authority without federal abstraction. Washington should define the legal framework and enforce it; states and local institutions should provide reliable evidence about integration outcomes and help deliver the services that make successful integration possible. Responsibility must be shared without confusing constitutional roles.

The same logic applies at the end of the process. ReImmigration, as used in this paradigm, is not a program of collective expulsion and should not be confused with ideological proposals for mass “remigration.” It is the enforceable conclusion of an individual legal process. When a person has no lawful status, has received the procedures and judicial protection required by law, and no legal basis for remaining exists, the government must be capable of carrying out the final decision. A system that never enforces removal loses credibility; a system that substitutes group identity for individual adjudication loses legitimacy. Effective immigration control requires both enforceability and legal precision.

The lesson of the 75-country visa case is therefore larger than the court ruling itself. The United States does not need to choose between weak control and indiscriminate restriction. It needs a migration policy that is stricter where the law requires enforcement, more demanding about actual integration, more transparent about results, and more disciplined about individualized decision-making. That is precisely the space in which “Integration or ReImmigration” seeks to operate: not as a European formula transplanted into America, but as a comparative framework for building an immigration system that can control, integrate, verify, and, when necessary, return — one person, one legal decision, and one measurable outcome at a time.

Avv. Fabio Loscerbo
Avvocato Cassazionista
Iscritto nel Registro dei rappresentanti di interessi della Camera dei deputati in materia di Immigrazione
Lobbista registrato presso il Registro per la Trasparenza dell’Unione europea n. 280782895721-36 in materia di Migrazione e Asilo
ORCID: 0009-0004-7030-0428

In the United States, immigration is once again being discussed primarily through the language of enforcement: who may enter, who must leave, what powers the executive branch may exercise, and where the limits imposed by Congress and the courts lie. A federal judge’s decision this week striking down the suspension of immigrant-visa processing for applicants from 75 countries is another reminder that effective migration control must operate within a stable legal framework. But the American debate also raises a broader question: what happens after lawful admission?

The European project Integration or ReImmigration starts from a premise that may sound familiar to an American audience: a country has both the right and the responsibility to control its borders. Yet border enforcement alone does not amount to an immigration policy. A functioning system must distinguish clearly between those who have a lawful basis to remain and those who do not, while demanding something concrete from the former: integration should be a measurable process, not an assumption.

This is where the proposal differs from both an open-ended multicultural model and a purely restrictive approach. The paradigm envisages objective indicators of integration: language acquisition, employment, education and training, compliance with the law, civic participation, family stability and other evidence of a genuine relationship with the receiving society. These indicators would not reduce a person to a score. Their purpose is the opposite: to replace vague political judgments with transparent and verifiable criteria.

For American readers, the comparison is particularly relevant because the United States has historically been remarkably successful at social and economic incorporation without building a comprehensive federal integration policy. Research by the Migration Policy Institute has repeatedly emphasized that immigration affects labor markets, local communities, education and social cohesion, while much of the practical work of integration occurs below the federal level. The European question is whether that process should remain largely spontaneous or become an explicit responsibility of migration governance.

The second half of the paradigm is equally important. If integration is treated seriously, failure to meet the legal conditions for remaining cannot become an indefinite administrative condition. Those who have the right to stay should be given a real path toward membership; those who definitively lack that right should be returned through lawful and effective procedures. ReImmigration, in this sense, is not collective expulsion and is not defined by ethnicity or nationality. It is the administrative consequence of a system that first establishes rules, rights, obligations and opportunities for integration.

The American debate often presents enforcement and integration as competing political visions. The proposal developed by ReImmigrazione suggests a different architecture: border control, legal migration, measurable integration and effective return policy are parts of the same system. A state that controls entry but ignores integration merely postpones its problems; a state that promotes integration but cannot enforce final immigration decisions undermines the credibility of its own rules. The objective is neither indiscriminate openness nor indiscriminate closure, but an immigration policy capable of deciding—and then taking responsibility for its decisions.

Avv. Fabio Loscerbo
Avvocato Cassazionista
Iscritto nel Registro dei rappresentanti di interessi della Camera dei deputati in materia di Immigrazione
Lobbista registrato presso il Registro per la Trasparenza dell’Unione europea n. 280782895721-36 in materia di Migrazione e Asilo
ORCID: 0009-0004-7030-0428