Jump to content

Talk:Remigration

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Grayfell (talk | contribs) at 23:38, 31 October 2025 (→Concerns regarding neutrality and framing of the “Remigration” article: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"Remigration" As a word with varied meanings

Remigration can sometimes be a word referring to a mass deportation of all non-Whites, but it is frequently also used to refer to the mass deportation of *illegal* immigrants, which, regardless of your political perspective, clearly does not fall under the definition of ethnic cleansing. I would like to propose an alternative introduction to note this nuance.

A good source on this:https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/30/state-department-plans-office-of-remigration-to-support-trump-agenda WriterOfScrolls (talk) 20:54, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A more nuanced, less Eurocentric introduction:
"Remigration is a far-right European and American political goal, which varies in meaning between mass deportations of illegal immigrants to soft ethnic cleansing via the mass deportation or promoted voluntary return of non-white immigrants and their descendants, usually including those born in Europe, to their place of racial ancestry."
Good additional sources for this:
https://repository.unic.ac.cy/archive/item/2894
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/30/state-department-plans-office-of-remigration-to-support-trump-agenda WriterOfScrolls (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comments: promoted voluntary return

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is clear consensus to remove "promoted voluntary return". TarnishedPathtalk 13:00, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Should this article describe remigration as "promoted voluntary return" in the lede? Should it be presented as-is, attributed to the groups which describe it as such, removed entirely, or something else? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:55, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Attribute or remove. This article is about the concept of deporting non-whites from a territory and sending them to a supposed place of racial origin. We briefly describe the history of the social sciences term which is better described in articles such as return migration and voluntary return, then present the evolution of the term as co-opted by Identitarians and other far-right populists in the 21st century, specifically as a response to the Great Replacement conspiracy theory and to package the deportation and ethnic cleansing intent of those groups in a way that would be palatable to voters. The examples we give in the article show that to be the case - the closest that any get to "voluntary" are those of Sweden, where it's made clear that if the targeted minorities don't accept the voluntary repatriation programs then forced deportation will follow. It fails NPOV for Wikipedia to describe this concept as "voluntary" without some kind of qualification; I feel that attributing the phrase to the groups that use it (such as in this edit, since reverted) is better service to readers than removing it entirely. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:57, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Atribute, but I don't think it should be likened exclusively to whites and Europeans. The current term is used by them, sure, but historically you did have diasporas getting expelled or more or less voluntarily compelled to leave, as in Population transfers, but also Voluntary_return and Third country resettlement. I wonder if maybe the article should reflect this in context or talk about this phenomenon in a more broader sense. Also given that this was done by the left in Denmark of all places and now entertained by centrist parties over the EU I think we should also not exclusively link it to the far right. FelipeFritschF (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • My gut reaction was that "promoted voluntary return" is a euphemism, but a look at the lead reveals important context. The lead says: Remigration is a far-right European concept of ethnic cleansing via the mass deportation or promoted voluntary return of non-white immigrants and their descendants.... "mass deportation or promoted voluntary return" is very different from "voluntary return" alone, and I don't see the issue with this wording (except that it's a grammatically awkward). Also, @Ivanvector, where's the RFCBEFORE? I don't see any prior discussion of this topic on this talk page. Toadspike [Talk] 20:46, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Attribute or remove per Ivanvector. "Voluntary" is an euphemism that downplays what is, in reality, a case of ethnic cleansing. I get why certain groups choose to frame it that way, but we shouldn't be repeating that in our voice. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:53, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AS IS. Since this is presented as an alternative to forced deportation. That is, it is said in the article that remigration can take the form of either forceful deportation or promoted voluntary migration. Seems like a reasonable description of reality. Vegan416 (talk) 15:59, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AS IS. Exactly, when people talk about remigration, promoted voluntary migration is described as a method to achieve it, it's fundamentally different to forced deportation. It's only a euphemism if they're the same concept, but they're not. So unless someone can explain how they're the exact same thing it should stay the same LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle (talk) 02:26, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Attribute or remove - per Ivanvector. This is not the article on voluntary return, this is about something else. I'm not seeing any explanation in the body of the article of how this form of ethnic cleansing is meaningfully 'voluntary'. The UK section attributes this, so 'voluntary' is not coming from a disinterested party. The Sweden section mentions an allowance as a supposed incentive, but per sources already cited in the article, that allowance already exists and is mostly unsuccessful and irrelevant. To present this in Wikipedia's voice would be buying into far-right propaganda. Grayfell (talk) 05:16, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments below have swayed me that this doesn't belong here even with attribution. Grayfell (talk) 02:34, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Of the two sources currently cited for this being 'voluntary' in Sweden, one seems to indicate that it was irrelevant, at least in its previous form, and the other explains that these incentives are a prelude to forced deportations. Per these sources, the 'remigration' plan is to deport them regardless of their personal preference. Saying this is 'voluntary' is tissue-thin.
If this wrong the article should explain this via sources, otherwise it doesn't belong in the lead. Grayfell (talk) 07:10, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The way I see what the Sweden section says is that on the side a member of the Sweden Democrats party which is not part of the government, and only supports it from the outside, said that if the voluntary action will fail then they will demand forceful deportation. But on other side the minister from party that actually leads the government (the Moderates) only speaks of voluntary remigration and nothing about forceful deportations. So there is a clear distinctions between the voluntary and forceful propositions. But anyway I'll try to add sources and clarifications to this section when I have more time. Vegan416 (talk) 10:09, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"This is not the article on voluntary return, this is about something else." Likewise this article is not on deportations, it's on "remigration" which can be achieved in part through multiple avenues.
I don't see why the existance of some form of incentive in sweden with questionable success proves "promoted voluntary return" policies aren't relevant for the lede.
And let's not play the righteous card, write grand meaningless statements and make discussions on wikipedia a right/left debate thank you. LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle (talk) 11:52, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article strikes me as inconsistent with WP:NPOV, due to its extreme overemphasis on recent interpretations of "remigration", almost to the exclusion of its use during the hundreds of preceding years. I also find some wording, such as "their place of racial ancestry," pretty problematic. Rather than focus on whether "promoted voluntary return" should be in the lead, I think those interested in this article should work on creating a significant section that addresses its non-recent use, which right now only has a few sentences devoted to it, so that the recent far-right use is seen in a larger context. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:41, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't an article about the word "remigration", nor is it a dictionary definition. It's also not about the social science concept of return migration (adequately covered at return migration), nor is it about repatriation nor deportation as general social science concepts. It's an article about the specific anti-immigration policy concept developed by specific far-right writers and groups, rebranded as "remigration" to be more palatable to voters. The history of the word itself is provided in an adequate level of detail and appropriate context for this subject (see WP:WEIGHT). The "significant section that addresses its non-recent use" is either voluntary return or return migration, two articles which are probably due for a merger (I don't understand what the difference is between the concepts described in those two articles). The "wider usage" section could use a rewrite, though, it currently reads like a grade school essay. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:05, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If this article is intended to address only the far-right concept, where the word "remigration" has been adopted as a euphemism, it makes no sense to have a Wider usage section in the first place. What would such a section address other than the usage of the word? Instead, I'd add a Terminology section, where you can note that the word "remigration" has long been used for the concept of "return migration", but these right-wing groups have adopted it as a euphemism, and also discuss the relationship to concepts such as forced migration. It would also be good to explain whatever these right-wing groups mean by a "place of racial ancestry." Where, for example, is the "place of racial ancestry" for a Black person who immigrated from Haiti? (Is it Haiti? anywhere in sub-Saharan Africa? ...) How about for a Jewish person? Etc. Who gets to determine what race someone is in the first place? FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:33, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds like you agree on the page moving to Remigration (right wing ideology) LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle (talk) 22:31, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know how you read that from my comments, but no, I do not. This is a distinct topic; disambiguation is already adequately handled by natural disambiguation and hatnotes. I do, however, agree that replacing the "wider usage" section with terminology (or maybe etymology?) would better serve readers. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 01:26, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. The body describes a couple national parties that pursue "voluntary return" policies in parallel to their remigration policies. This is important information to detail in the body, but it is not an essential characteristic of the remigration concept such that it needs a first sentence mention. I'm surprised to see so many people support attribution, as that would lengthen the attention given to this minor aspect of the subject. I oppose in particular the specific version of attribution linked by the OP, as the cited source does not use the term "promoted voluntary return", and I'm not aware of any major proponents of remigration that use "promoted voluntary return" as a synonym for the mass deportation that is central to remigration. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:43, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Actual sources covering the subject, especially academic ones, don't use this terminology. Only groups with a political bias seem to. The term, properly attributed, can be used in the body when discussing the stance of said groups, where appropriate. But I see no reason why it should be included in the lede. SilverserenC 22:36, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. The sources on that sentence describe it as 'expulsion' (Feffer pp.48) or 'compulsory return' (Camus, ed. McAdams & Castrillon pp.74). The other sources in the lede I could access all seem to agree, with Wilhelmson (pp.298) even addressing claims that mass 'remigration' could occur voluntarily, suggesting they are not credible or representative of the broader movement. The description of it as potentially being voluntary return migration is WP:FRINGE and is not appropriate for inclusion in the lede, even with attribution. Chaste Krassley (talk) 12:06, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Remove some forced WP:FALSEBALANCE is not enough to save such a load assertion. Ivanvector explains it best Bluethricecreamman (talk) 12:37, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove from the lead. It's not how the WP:BESTSOURCES use the term, and even when other sources are quoted on it they're usually treated with skepticism by the best available sources, so it shouldn't be in the lead at all. It can be mentioned in the body, but with the elaboration people mentioned above that "voluntary" is in this case a euphemism for coercion. --Aquillion (talk) 16:49, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove The word "remigration" was exactly chosen as a far-right euphemism for the expulsion/deportation of selected ethnic groups, the intent is laid bare by the coiners of the term such as Renaud Camus (e.g. [1]: "While the concept of remigration has long existed in academia, its hijacking by the far right on social media appears to have begun about a decade ago when French adherents to identitarianism, an ethno-nationalist movement, organised what they described as the inaugural meeting in Paris on remigration."; [2]: "Last January, the German investigative media Correctiv revealed that members of the AFD had participated in a meeting with Austrian neo-Nazis to discuss a plan for remigration to Germany, that is, the expulsion of foreigners as well as German citizens of foreign origin."; [3]: "The former head of the 'Identitarian Movement' in Austria, Martin Sellner, had, according to his own account, spoken about 'remigration' at the meeting. When right-wing extremists use this term, they usually mean that a large number of people of foreign origin should leave the country – even under duress.") The far-right usage of the term (which our article is about) has nothing to do with voluntary back-migration, this was the "unword" of the year 2023 Institute for German Linguistics, Philipps University of Marburg ([4]): "because in 2023 it was used as a right-wing battle cry, a euphemistic camouflage term, and an expression that conceals the true intentions. ... reinterpreted in such a way that a – politically demanded – inhumane deportation and deportation practice is concealed." Voluntary et. al. propaganda should never have been in the article in the first place (and this is 2025). Gotitbro (talk) 00:04, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove – Nothing to add in terms of reasoning for the removal, but as a response to the spirit of Wikipedia and principle, if Wikipedia administrators are quick to ban Nazis from the site per community guidelines and the wider community's wishes, there should be no justification for Nazi talking points being parroted in Wikivoice. Yue🌙 21:17, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Academic secondary sources discussing 'remigration' clearly distinguish between the far right's use of the term in its public propaganda, where phraseology like 'voluntary' is common, and the actual practice being proposed: forced mass deportation/ethnic cleansing. Wikipedia absolutely should not be presenting far-right propaganda phraseology as fact. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:13, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Eva Vlaardingerbroek

I think she should be added as examples of people who have argued and used Remigration to deport non Europeans. We might as well add Afonso Gonçalves from Portugal. 85.241.253.192 (talk) 18:18, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns regarding neutrality and framing of the “Remigration” article

The current article appears to present remigration chiefly through the lens of its critics, repeatedly associating it with “far-right” movements and “ethnic cleansing,” while offering little or no account of the arguments advanced by its proponents—such as cultural preservation, demographic stability, or national self-determination. This selection of sources and diction may contravene Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View policy by giving undue weight to one interpretation. A balanced revision should summarise both supportive and critical perspectives with proportionate citations.

220.244.57.91 (talk) 22:45, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance. The article already appears to offer proportionate citations. Grayfell (talk) 23:38, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Remigration&oldid=1319802973"