Remigration or ReImmigration: Two Different Approaches to Immigration Policy Welcome to a new episode of the podcast “Integration or ReImmigration.”
My name is Fabio Loscerbo, I am an Italian immigration lawyer, and in this episode I would like to explain an issue that is becoming increasingly relevant in the European debate on migration: the difference between remigration and reImmigration. Over the past years immigration has become one of the central political questions across Europe, and the United Kingdom has also been at the centre of this debate, especially after Brexit. In many political discussions a term has started to appear more frequently: remigration. Remigration is generally described as the idea that large numbers of immigrants—or sometimes even people with immigrant backgrounds—should return to their countries of origin. Behind this concept there is often a demographic or cultural interpretation of migration. According to this view, immigration has significantly transformed European societies and the proposed solution is to reverse or reduce those changes by encouraging large-scale returns. However, there is another way to think about immigration policy.
This is what I call reImmigration. ReImmigration does not emerge from identity politics or demographic theories. Instead, it is a legal framework for governing immigration, built around one central principle: integration. The idea is straightforward.
If a migrant integrates into the host society—by working, respecting the law, learning the language and participating in the social life of the community—then that person should be able to remain in the country. If integration does not occur, then returning to the country of origin may become a legitimate outcome. In this approach, integration becomes the key criterion for residence. This perspective is particularly relevant within the European legal context. European states do not have unlimited freedom in immigration policy. They operate within constitutional systems, international obligations and human rights conventions that impose clear legal limits. In my book “Complementary Protection,” I explain how European legal systems include safeguards such as the principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits returning a person to a country where their fundamental rights could be at risk. Additionally, Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects the right to private and family life, which often plays an important role in immigration decisions across European courts. These legal constraints show that immigration policy cannot simply rely on mass removals or purely political solutions. It must function within the framework of the rule of law. This is precisely where the concept of reImmigration becomes relevant. It attempts to reconcile three essential elements that are often treated as incompatible: human rights, social integration and national interest. For countries like the United Kingdom, which are trying to redefine their migration policies in the post-Brexit era, the challenge is not simply to choose between open borders and strict removal policies. The real challenge is to build a system where the right to remain in the country is connected to a genuine process of integration. That is the core idea behind the paradigm “Integration or ReImmigration.” Thank you for listening to this episode.
I am Fabio Loscerbo, and I will see you in the next episode of the podcast.












Questo episodio include contenuti generati dall’IA.