『Immigration Control, State Authority and the Rule of Law_ the “Integrazione o ReImmigrazione” Paradigm』のカバーアート

Immigration Control, State Authority and the Rule of Law_ the “Integrazione o ReImmigrazione” Paradigm

Immigration Control, State Authority and the Rule of Law_ the “Integrazione o ReImmigrazione” Paradigm

無料で聴く

ポッドキャストの詳細を見る

概要

 Welcome to a new episode of the podcast “Integrazione o ReImmigrazione.”
I am Fabio Loscerbo, an Italian immigration lawyer. This podcast approaches migration from a legal and institutional perspective, with the aim of restoring the debate to the core categories of public law: state authority, enforcement of legal decisions, and the rule of law. In much of Europe, immigration continues to be discussed primarily in economic or humanitarian terms, while its institutional dimension is often under-examined. The paradigm known as “Integrazione o ReImmigrazione” was developed precisely to address this imbalance. At the outset, it is essential to clarify that this paradigm must not be confused with political or ideological notions such as “remigration” found in other European debates. ReImmigrazione is not a translated term and does not refer to an ideological project. It is a legal and institutional concept, grounded in individual assessment, procedural safeguards, judicial oversight and the constitutional framework of the State. Within the “Integrazione o ReImmigrazione” paradigm, integration constitutes the condition that legitimises lawful residence. Integration, however, is not limited to labour market participation or economic contribution. It is understood as a legal relationship between the individual and the State, based on compliance with the legal order, respect for fundamental rules, and acceptance of public authority. Where such integration does not take place, ReImmigrazione refers to a structured and lawful return process, implemented in accordance with due process and the rule of law. A structural weakness shared by many European systems lies in the absence of a dedicated immigration enforcement authority. Immigration governance is largely entrusted to administrative bodies responsible for documentation and procedural decision-making, but lacking the operational capacity to exercise territorial control or to ensure the effective execution of removal decisions. From this perspective, the analysis of the United States model, and in particular the role of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, is institutionally significant. In the United States, immigration control is treated as a matter of internal security and is entrusted to a federal law enforcement agency operating within a defined legal framework, subject to judicial scrutiny, institutional accountability and public oversight. The incident that occurred in Minneapolis on 24 January 2026, widely reported in the media, must be considered within this institutional context. The assessment of individual conduct properly belongs to the courts. However, from a systemic standpoint, the episode highlights a fundamental principle: immigration enforcement is a core function of the State, not merely an administrative activity, and cannot be structurally delegitimised on the basis of individual cases. In European and British debates alike, enforcement is often perceived as inherently problematic, while administrative management is assumed to be sufficient. This results in legal systems where rules formally exist, but their implementation remains inconsistent. Such an approach ultimately undermines legal certainty, public trust and the credibility of integration policies themselves. The “Integrazione o ReImmigrazione” paradigm is grounded in a straightforward legal premise: without enforceability, law loses its normative effectiveness. Integration is not solely a social process; it is a legally relevant relationship between the individual and the State, involving rights as well as obligations. When that relationship fails, the State must retain the institutional capacity to act. For this reason, the existence of a specialised immigration enforcement body is not a matter of political preference, but an institutional requirement. The experience of ICE demonstrates that such a body can operate within a constitutional framework, under judicial control, while ensuring that immigration law is effectively applied. The question facing the United Kingdom, Italy and Europe more broadly is therefore institutional rather than ideological: whether immigration will continue to be managed as a predominantly administrative issue, or whether States will equip themselves with the necessary tools to give concrete effect to their legal decisions. This is precisely the reflection advanced by the “Integrazione o ReImmigrazione” paradigm.

Questo episodio include contenuti generati dall’IA.
まだレビューはありません