Integration or ReImmigrazione_ why work alone is not integration and why this is not “remigration”

Integration or ReImmigrazione: why work alone is not integration and why this is not “remigration” Welcome to a new episode of the podcast Integration or ReImmigrazione.My name is Fabio Loscerbo. I am an Italian attorney, and in this episode I want to explain a legal paradigm that is often misunderstood outside Europe, especially when it is confused with the idea of “remigration.” Let me start with a basic point. For years, immigration policy in Europe has been driven almost entirely by economic logic. As long as a migrant works, their presence is tolerated. When employment ends, legal stability disappears. In this system, work is treated as the foundation of the right to stay. But work is not integration. Work can be a positive sign, an indicator, but it cannot replace integration as a legal and civic relationship between the individual and the State. Integration means something more demanding. It means respecting the law, learning the language, accepting the rules of the host society, and behaving in a way that is compatible with public order and social cohesion. Without these elements, employment becomes a temporary excuse, not a stable basis for membership in the community. This is where the paradigm Integration or ReImmigrazione comes in. It is not ideological. It is legal and conditional. It is based on a simple principle: staying in a country is not automatic, and it is not unconditional. It depends on integration that can be verified and measured. At this point, it is important to clarify what this paradigm is not. It is not “remigration” as it is often discussed in parts of the German political debate. That concept tends to be collective, ideological, and sometimes identity-based. ReImmigrazione is the opposite. It is individual. It is case-by-case. It is based on conduct, not origin. It does not target groups. It evaluates personal behavior. A key tool of this approach is the Integration Agreement, introduced in Italy by the Berlusconi government. The idea was straightforward: integration should not be symbolic. It should be measurable. Language skills, civic knowledge, lawful behavior—these were concrete obligations linked to the right to remain. Today, this instrument still exists formally, but it is largely unused. However, the paradigm is already being tested in practice through what is called complementary protection. This form of protection does not grant an unconditional right to stay. It is based on an individual assessment of integration and proportionality. Crucially, it requires the migrant to deposit their passport with the authorities. This detail matters. It ensures that, if integration fails, the State retains the ability to implement ReImmigrazione. Integration without enforcement is not humane policy. It is simply weak governance. From an American perspective, this logic should sound familiar. A credible immigration system must be able to grant permission to stay and, when necessary, require departure. If a State can only say yes but can never say no, the rule of law loses credibility. Integration or ReImmigrazione is not about being harsh. It is about being coherent. Those who integrate stay. Those who refuse integration return. Clear rules, individual responsibility, and effective enforcement. That is not extremism. It is institutional realism. Thank you for listening to this episode of Integration or ReImmigrazione.Questo episodio include contenuti generati dall’IA.