Few terms in recent years have polarized the debate on migration in Europe as strongly as “remigration”. Initially merely a slogan of some small identitarian groups, it has now become a fixed part of the political vocabulary of many right-wing populist and far-right parties. While supporters understand it to mean the resolute deportation of migrants who are required to leave the country, critics see it as a political concept that goes far beyond existing migration law and calls into question the fundamental principles of the democratic rule of law. This debate illustrates how political terms from ideologically marginal milieus 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 Génération Identitaire (now banned) used this term and made it a central element of their political strategy. Ideologically, the concept is linked to the ideas of the so-called New Right, which since the 1970s has sought to place cultural identity and national belonging more centrally in political debates.
Originally, remigration referred to the return of migrants to their countries of origin. Over time, the meaning of the word expanded. In publications and political programs of various identitarian groups, it no longer includes only people who are required to leave or asylum seekers whose applications have been rejected. It sometimes also includes foreigners with permanent residence rights, naturalized citizens, or even people born in Europe with a migration background, if, in the view of these representatives, they are considered insufficiently culturally integrated.
<pThis expansion in content explains why the term goes far beyond traditional demands that merely call for a restrictive immigration policy.A strategically chosen term
The linguistic element contributes significantly to the political success of the concept of remigration. Unlike terms such as “mass deportation” or “banishment,” the word “remigration” appears more neutral and technical. This designation suggests an orderly repatriation policy and is often associated with voluntary departure programs or financial support for returning home.
Media researchers point out that political terms are often deliberately chosen to soften controversial content linguistically. For this reason, many critics regard this wording as a strategic euphemism. In many programmatic texts of identitarian movements, one can find ideas that go far beyond voluntary return programs and would require far-reaching changes to citizenship and residence law.
The different meanings of the term make an objective discussion more difficult, because different political actors may understand very different concepts under the same wording.
Germany as the center of controversy
The debate on remigration was particularly intense in Germany at the beginning of 2024. It was triggered by an investigation by the investigative outlet Correctiv into a meeting in Potsdam attended by representatives of the Identitarian movement, businesspeople, and individuals from the circle of the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party.
According to the investigation, concepts were presented at the meeting that, under the label of remigration, would include the departure or deportation of a very large number of people—including German citizens with a migration background. The publication of this information triggered strong political reactions across the country. In the following weeks, demonstrations took place in many German cities, with millions of people protesting against right-wing extremism and the possible radicalization of political views.
The AfD maintains that it primarily supports the resolute deportation of people who are required to leave the country and rejects many interpretations of the content and significance of the meeting. Nevertheless, these developments have led to a heated debate about the limits of lawful migration policy and the influence of far-right ideologies on parliamentary parties.
Spread across Europe
The term has long since ceased to be limited to Germany. In Austria, some politicians from the Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ) also use the concept of remigration. In Belgium and the Netherlands, the term has been part of the vocabulary of many nationalist and identitarian groups for years.
In France, the term appears mainly in the circles of identitarian movements as well as among some figures on the nationalist right. The Rassemblement National party uses it much more cautiously. Instead, it mainly speaks of limiting immigration, controlling external borders, national preference, or deporting foreign nationals who commit crimes.
These differences show that even among right-wing parties there is no uniform definition of the term.
Why is this concept supported?
The increasing spread of the term in the context of migration is one of the political issues dominating Europe. Since the refugee crisis of 2015, immigration, integration and asylum policy have become subjects of prolonged and intense social debate.
Many developments contribute to the growing appeal of such demands. These include the increase in migration flows into Europe, integration problems in some neighbourhoods, terrorist attacks carried out in the name of Islam in recent years, debates about national identity, as well as economic and social insecurities. Added to this is the broad reach of social media, where political slogans can spread rapidly across the continent within a short time.
For its supporters, remigration is a way to preserve national identity, social cohesion and internal security in the long term. Opponents, on the other hand, argue that it is a concept that is difficult to reconcile with the fundamental principles of liberal democracies. They point in particular to the principle of equality, protection against discrimination and the rights associated with citizenship.
A term without a legal definition
An important reason why the controversy persists is that remigration is not a legally defined term. Unlike deportation, issuing an order to leave, or voluntary return, there is no binding definition of this concept at either the European or national level.
Depending on the political context, remigration can therefore have many different meanings. Some understand it simply as the deportation of people residing illegally or the return of rejected asylum seekers. Others include voluntary return programmes with financial support. In the most extreme interpretations, the term also includes people with a permanent right of residence or even citizens whose belonging to society is called into question.
The ambiguity of this concept contributes significantly to the fact that parties often talk past one another in the debate. Some actors use the term as a synonym for the strict enforcement of existing law, while others associate it with much broader socio-political ideas.
Therefore, remigration is less a clearly defined political program than an ideological signal. Its development illustrates how terms from initially small political milieus gradually enter broader societal debates. At the same time, this controversy shows how significant language is in migration policy. Behind each term are often very different ideas about citizenship, national identity, integration, and the role of the state. For this reason, the discussion about remigration is likely to remain a key topic in European politics.
Author: P. Tiko