‘Remigration’ promises order but risks causing disorder

Sovranista: Let’s start with a simple fact: for years, Europe has focused primarily on immigration, reception and inclusion. The result is plain for all to see: social systems under strain, suburbs that are difficult to govern, and irregular entries that often slip through the net. The term ‘remigration’, used by the AfD and Vannacci, refers to a clear principle: those who have no legal right to remain must be repatriated. Those who commit serious offences must be deported. Those who obtain documents through deception should lose them. Where is the scandal?

Constitutional expert: The scandal is not repatriation in itself, which is already provided for by the law. It is turning it into a catch-all term that promises a blanket clean-up. The law makes a distinction between: irregular migrants, criminals, rejected asylum seekers and naturalised citizens. Politics must manage these categories, not lump them together into a single, indistinct mass. When everything becomes ‘remigration’, there is a risk that the scope of the measure will extend beyond the bounds of the law.

Sovranista: But the problem today is precisely the ineffectiveness of repatriation. Europe has created an unbalanced system: easy entry, difficult exit. Meanwhile, areas of lawlessness are growing, along with parallel communities and people left without legal status. To speak of ‘remigration’ is to remind us that the state must also be able to remove those who have no right to remain.

Constitutional expert: The point is not to deny the need for repatriation, but to avoid political drift. Words are not neutral: if it becomes an ideology, ‘remigration’ tends to encompass ever-broader categories, to the point of affecting integration or citizenship. The law, on the other hand, must remain selective: those without legal status must be repatriated; those with citizenship are citizens without conditions.

Sovereignist: However, integration has often been naive. We have granted rights without demanding enough obligations in return. The result is that, in some areas, parallel rules to those of the state have become established. If no limits are set, the state loses its authority.

Constitutional expert: The opposite mistake is to turn integration into a moral rather than a legal category. Democracy does not measure the cultural assimilation of citizens. It measures compliance with the law. Those who break the law must be prosecuted, regardless of their origin. But there is no political criterion for deciding who is ‘sufficiently integrated’.

Sovranista: However, even citizenship cannot be absolutely untouchable. If a naturalised citizen joins violent or anti-democratic movements, why shouldn’t they lose it?

Constitutional expert: In extreme cases, revocation may be possible, but only subject to strict safeguards. The problem with ‘remigration’ is that it does not originate as a legal category, but as a sweeping political term: it lumps together undocumented migrants, criminals, those who have not integrated and, at times, citizens under suspicion into a single category. This is what makes it problematic.

Sovranista: However, even the debate on inclusion has become ideological. Those who call for controls are accused of xenophobia. Those who talk about borders are discredited. Meanwhile, the state is losing control. People see this and are demanding simple answers.

Constitutional expert: The questions are legitimate. The problem lies in the oversimplification of the answers. There are real issues: security, education, employment, the suburbs, social services. But reducing them to single, simple solutions is a mistake. Saying ‘more effective repatriation’ is a matter of governance. Making ‘remigration’ a political identity is something else entirely.

Sovranista: However, that term does at least break a taboo. For years, the discussion focused solely on reception. Now the conversation also includes departure.

Constitutional expert: The problem is not the taboo, but the generalisation. A serious state must be able to say: regulated entry, repatriation carried out, strict citizenship rules, demanding integration. But without turning everything into a single narrative of expulsion.

Sovereignist: Ultimately, this is the difference between us: I fear a state that no longer controls its borders.

Constitutional expert: And I fear a state that controls them without any legal limits. Migration policy must balance both requirements: firmness and the rule of law. Repatriation is necessary. But when it becomes an all-encompassing ideology, it ceases to be governance and becomes political simplification.

Sovranista: So what are you proposing?

Constitutionalist: A less dramatic word: government. Government over immigration, repatriation, citizenship and integration. Democracies do not function with one-size-fits-all solutions. They function through distinctions and limits. The risk is not merely the absence of the state. It is also its transformation into an instrument devoid of restraint.