Title:
The Italian Laboratory: How Complementary Protection Proves the Validity of the “Integration or ReImmigration” Paradigm Welcome to a new episode of the “Integration or ReImmigration” podcast. Today I want to share a reflection that comes directly from the most recent Italian jurisprudence. In particular, a decision issued by the Tribunal of Bologna shows, with surgical precision and without ideological overtones, why our paradigm is increasingly becoming the necessary reference point for managing immigration with seriousness, responsibility, and respect for the rules. At the heart of the matter is something very simple: Italy already has a legal mechanism that distinguishes, in a balanced and objective way, between those who are genuinely integrating into society and those who show no intention of doing so. This mechanism is called complementary protection. And it is precisely this form of protection—often ignored in public debate—that demonstrates how a legal system can safeguard fundamental rights while maintaining the ability to assess, using concrete criteria, who has earned the right to remain. The Bologna decision makes this point very clearly. The judge does not merely examine whether there is a generalized risk in the country of origin. Instead, the court evaluates the life the individual has built in Italy: work, social relations, family stability, school integration of the children, housing, and personal conduct. There is no automatic right to stay. There is no presumption. There is a much more serious principle: the right to remain exists when a person’s private and family life in Italy is real, stable, and objectively verifiable. This approach is exactly what “Integration or ReImmigration” proposes:
those who participate in the community stay; those who do not integrate return to their home country.
No discrimination. No unjustified leniency. Only responsibility. In the case examined by the court, the foreign national had stable employment, children enrolled in school, a rental contract, no criminal record, a spouse with a job, and a life built step by step in Italy. Forcing him to return to his home country would have destroyed a network of relations deeply rooted in Italy. And indeed, the Tribunal granted complementary protection precisely because of this demonstrated integration. But—and this is essential—the decision does not reward passivity. It rewards effort. This is why complementary protection is the perfect laboratory: it doesn’t force Italy to tolerate those who ignore the rules, and at the same time it protects those who have built their social identity here. It is a balanced solution that many European countries have not yet achieved. Italian jurisprudence, instead, is already showing the way—without slogans, without extremism, applying the law and the Constitution. Today, more than ever, this approach should be seen as a model at the European level. Because if immigration flows continue to rise—and they will—the only serious response is a system capable of selecting based on integration, not based on emergency. Complementary protection proves that this is possible. It is a framework that already works and that allows us to distinguish clearly between those who contribute to society and those who do not. And this is why, once again, the centrality of the “Integration or ReImmigration” paradigm emerges: a simple, concrete vision that rewards personal effort, promotes responsibility, and restores dignity both to the State and to the people who choose to build their future in Italy. Thank you for listening to this episode.
We’ll meet again in the next installment of the “Integration or ReImmigration” podcast.