Podcast – Integration or ReImmigration Title: The Security Taboo: How Anti-Racism Prevents Italy from Governing Immigration Welcome to a new episode of Integration or ReImmigration.
In this episode, I want to explain a dynamic that plays a major role in the Italian debate on immigration — a dynamic that international listeners need to understand in order to see what is really happening inside the country.
It’s not just about statistics or political arguments.
It’s about the way the issue of security is often removed from the public conversation by shifting everything onto a moral level. In Italy, whenever someone tries to talk about the relationship between immigration and security, the discussion rarely stays focused on facts or data.
It immediately moves toward judging the intentions of the speaker.
The question becomes: “Why are you bringing this up? Are you suggesting something discriminatory?”
As a result, security is no longer treated as a normal area of public policy.
It becomes a suspicious topic — something you’re not supposed to touch. Over the past months, this pattern has become very clear.
Several public statements and media interventions have insisted on the idea that security concerns are exaggerated, distorted, or the product of cultural bias.
This approach has one predictable effect: it makes it impossible to address what is actually happening on the ground.
The challenges faced by local authorities, the tensions in certain neighborhoods, and the daily problems experienced by residents are pushed into the background.
The issue is no longer the reality itself.
The issue becomes the person who dares to describe it. For an international audience, this may sound unusual.
But this is exactly the point: Italy is not rejecting immigration.
It is stuck in a form of paralysis.
A part of the public debate is afraid that talking about security automatically means criminalizing immigrants.
And this confusion creates a damaging overlap: analysis is mistaken for hostility, and responsibility is mistaken for prejudice. This confusion has very real consequences.
If the State cannot speak openly about problems, it cannot solve them.
It cannot distinguish between people who integrate and people who do not.
It cannot intervene in areas where integration is failing.
And, above all, it cannot maintain a clear balance between rights and duties. This is where the “Integration or ReImmigration” paradigm comes into play.
It is not a political slogan.
It is not an ideological stance.
It is a method of governance.
It means that anyone who comes to Italy must follow a clear, measurable, verifiable path.
A path built on work, language learning, and respect for the rules.
When this path succeeds, staying in Italy becomes natural.
When it does not, staying cannot become an automatic right. ReImmigration is not a punishment.
It is the logical consequence of a system that wants to be coherent and credible.
A system that evaluates, distinguishes, and decides.
A system that is not afraid to address security just because someone might misuse the word “racism”. Italy today is not rejecting immigration.
It is rejecting the idea that immigration cannot be discussed.
It is rejecting the idea that moral categories should replace factual analysis.
And it is trying to build a model that puts reality back at the center of the conversation. “Integration or ReImmigration” was created for this purpose.
It helps return security to the field of public policy.
It restores the State’s ability to actually govern migration flows.
And it offers a sustainable balance based on rights and responsibilities — not silence and fear. I’m attorney Fabio Loscerbo, and I invite you to read more analyses and insights at www.reimmigrazione.com.