Few terms have polarized the European debate on migration in recent years as much as “remigration.” What originally began as a slogan of small identitarian groups has become a fixed component of the political vocabulary of various right-wing populist and far-right parties. While its supporters understand it to mean the systematic repatriation of migrants required to leave the country, its critics see it as a political concept that goes far beyond current migration law and calls fundamental principles of the democratic rule of law into question. The debate exemplifies how political terms from marginal ideological circles can gradually enter public discourse.
Origins in the identitarian movement
The term “remigration” emerged in the early 2010s within the European identitarian movement. Particularly in France, Austria, and Germany, organizations such as the now-banned Génération Identitaire adopted the term and made it a central component of their political strategy. Ideologically, the concept is rooted in the ideas of the “New Right,” which since the 1970s has sought to place cultural identity and ethnic belonging at the center of political debates.
Originally, remigration referred to the return of migrants to their countries of origin. Over time, however, the term has gradually expanded. In publications and programs of various identitarian actors, it no longer concerns only people required to leave the country or rejected asylum seekers. Sometimes, it also includes foreigners with a permanent right of residence, naturalized citizens, or even people born in Europe with a migration background, insofar as, according to the representatives concerned, they are considered insufficiently culturally integrated.
It is precisely this expansion in meaning that explains why the term goes far beyond mere demands for restrictive immigration policy.
A strategically chosen term
The political success of remigration is due in particular to its linguistic effect. Unlike terms such as “mass expulsion” or “deportation,” “remigration” appears relatively neutral and technical. The term suggests an orderly return policy and is often associated with voluntary departure programs or financial return assistance.
Communication specialists, however, point out that political terms are often deliberately chosen to linguistically soften controversial content. This is also why the expression is regarded by its critics as a strategic euphemism. In many programmatic texts of identitarian movements, one finds ideas that clearly go beyond voluntary return programs and would require profound changes to nationality and residence law.
The different meanings of the term also complicate a factual discussion, since various political actors understand very different concepts under the same word.
Germany as the center of the controversy
Remigration was the subject of particularly intense debate in Germany in early 2024. The trigger was an investigation by the investigative media outlet Correctiv into a meeting in Potsdam attended by representatives of the identitarian movement, businesspeople, and individuals connected to the circle around Alternative für Deutschland (AfD).
According to the investigation, concepts were presented there which, under the term remigration, envisaged the departure or expulsion of a very large number of people — including German citizens with a migration background. The publication triggered significant political reactions throughout the country. In many German cities, several million people demonstrated in the following weeks against right-wing extremism and against a possible radicalization of political positions.
The AfD, for its part, stated that it primarily advocated stricter enforcement of deportations of people required to leave the country and disputed various representations of the content and significance of the meeting. However, the events gave rise to an intense debate about the limits of legitimate migration policy and the influence of far-right ideologies on parliamentary parties.
Spread in Europe
The term is no longer limited to Germany. In Austria, too, remigration is used by some representatives of the Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ). In Belgium and the Netherlands, the expression has been part of the vocabulary of various nationalist and identitarian groups for years.
In France, the term is mainly found among circles associated with identitarian movements as well as among some representatives of the nationalist right. The Rassemblement National, however, uses it much more cautiously. Instead, it speaks of limiting immigration, stricter control of external borders, national preference, or the expulsion of foreigners convicted of criminal offenses.
These differences show that there is no uniform definition of the term even within right-wing parties.
Why is the concept gaining support?
The growing spread of the term comes at a time when migration is among the dominant political issues in Europe. Since the migration crisis of 2015, immigration, integration, and asylum policy have been subjects of intense and ongoing public debate.
Several developments contribute to the appeal of such demands. These include increasing migration flows to Europe, integration problems in certain neighborhoods, Islamist attacks in recent years, debates about national identity, as well as economic and social uncertainty. Added to this is the enormous reach of social media, through which political slogans can spread across Europe in a very short time.
For its supporters, remigration is a means of preserving national identity, social cohesion and internal security in the long term. For its opponents, it is a concept that is difficult to reconcile with the fundamental principles of liberal democracies. They refer in particular to the principle of equality, protection against discrimination and rights associated with citizenship.
A term without a legal definition
One of the key reasons for the ongoing controversy is that remigration is not a legally defined term. Unlike deportation, removal or voluntary return, there is no binding definition of the term at either European or national level.
Depending on the political context, remigration can therefore mean very different things. Some understand it solely as the deportation of people residing irregularly or the removal of rejected asylum seekers. Others include voluntary return programmes accompanied by financial support. In the most radical interpretations, however, the term also encompasses people with a permanent right of residence or even citizens whose belonging to society is called into question.
This conceptual imprecision largely contributes to the fact that the debate often takes place at cross purposes. While some actors use the term as a synonym for a strict application of existing law, others associate it with far-reaching socio-political visions.
Remigration is therefore less a clearly defined political programme than an ideological marker. Its development illustrates, in exemplary fashion, how terms originating in initially restricted political circles can gradually enter public debate. At the same time, the controversy highlights the importance of language in migration policy. Behind individual terms often lie very different conceptions of citizenship, national identity, integration and the role of the state. It is precisely for these reasons that the discussion on remigration should remain a central topic of European policy in the future.
Author: P. Tiko