Why ‘Remigration’ Is Not a Policy_ Understanding the Integration or ReImmigration Paradigm

Episode Title: “Why ‘Remigration’ Is Not a Policy: Understanding the Integration or ReImmigration Paradigm” Hello everyone, this is Attorney Fabio Loscerbo, and welcome to a new episode of “Integration or ReImmigration.” Today I want to address a topic that has gained significant attention in Italy’s public debate: the contrast between what many call “remigration” and what should instead be a fully developed paradigm—a structural model capable of guiding an entire migration system. The starting point is quite simple: every time a foreign national commits a crime in Italy, social media reacts with the same formula—“prison and then remigration.” It sounds decisive, but it’s legally inaccurate and politically empty. And because the issue is complex, it deserves an explanation that goes beyond slogans. The first misunderstanding concerns irregular migrants. People often discuss “remigration” as if it were an additional tool, a new measure to be introduced, a solution to a problem that the law somehow forgot to regulate. But under Italian law, any foreigner who is irregular is already required to leave the country. There is no vacuum to fill. Irregular status does not create any right to remain, nor does committing a crime add anything meaningful to the legal picture. So when the public proposes “remigration” for people who are already required to depart, the debate is simply detached from reality. It becomes rhetoric, not policy. The real issue—legally and politically—concerns regular migrants who commit crimes. And here the Italian Constitution plays a decisive role. Our legal system is built on the principle that punishment must have a rehabilitative purpose. Thinking that a criminal conviction automatically leads to expulsion is not compatible with this constitutional foundation. If a person completes their sentence and demonstrates a genuine process of rehabilitation—through steady work, lawful behavior, and meaningful social relationships—then an automatic removal is not only unfair, but inconsistent with the very idea of a justice system aimed at reintegration. This is where the Integration or ReImmigration paradigm comes in. For decades, Italy evaluated the legitimacy of a foreigner’s stay almost exclusively through the lens of employment, as if social and cultural integration were secondary or optional. But this approach is outdated. Work alone cannot define whether someone genuinely belongs to a community. A modern migration policy needs clear expectations and reciprocal responsibilities. That is why Integration or ReImmigration is built on three essential pillars: employment as a tool of responsibility, language as a means of participation and understanding, and respect for the law as the fundamental measure of belonging. When these pillars are present, a foreigner’s stay has a solid foundation. When they are absent, ReImmigration becomes the natural outcome—not a punishment, not an automatic reaction, but the logical conclusion of an incomplete or rejected integration path. The point is not to expel people because they have made mistakes, but to state clearly that remaining in a host country requires engagement, commitment, and respect for its social contract. This paradigm also helps dismantle the emotional reactions that dominate online discussions. Security cannot be built on catchy slogans. It requires structure, predictability, and rules. “Remigration” may resonate as a rhetorical device, but it does not—and cannot—serve as the backbone of a migration policy. Integration or ReImmigration, on the other hand, is a policy model. It establishes clear criteria, it defines responsibilities, and it frames the foreigner–state relationship within a structure that is modern, coherent, and consistent with democratic values. At that point, the real question is no longer: “what do we do after a crime is committed?”The question becomes: “what do we require before anything happens?”This shift in perspective is critical. It prevents the system from being purely reactive and instead establishes a preventive, constructive framework. It aligns security with constitutional principles. It transforms the migration debate from an emotional reaction to a policy choice. Thank you for listening to this episode of “Integration or ReImmigration.” If you want to explore the topic further, you can read the latest article on reimmigrazione.com, where I discuss the limits of slogans and explain why this paradigm can represent a turning point for Italy’s migration system. See you in the next episode.