Europe’s Far-Right Weaponises ‘Remigration’
The idea of ‘remigration’, a tinpot construct deeply rooted in the far-right ideology, has made its way to the political discourse of European countries. Gaining traction within the radical right, the term alludes to the forced or voluntary return of foreign nationals, asylum seekers, or people of foreign ancestry, accusing them of being a blot on the cultural fabric of the host countries.
Originally coined in France, and later gaining popularity amongst the extreme right factions across Europe, ‘remigration’ has been weaponized against the so-called ‘mass immigration’. The purpose behind pushing such rhetoric seems to be guarding the national identity of the host countries. Additionally, such narratives are also gaining momentum within the ranks of Italian political leadership. But the question remains, what ‘national identity’ are they working to protect? One that is separate from compassion and human rights?
In Germany and Italy, the term ‘remigration’ has drawn attention for the wrong reasons. The press had revealed a November 2023 meeting in Germany that included right-wing extremists, Alternative für Deutschland (AfD, far-right), members of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU, conservative), entrepreneurs, and law practitioners. They debated about this very dodgy concept, thereby giving it undue attention and outrage.
In Italy, the term gained notoriety following several incidents of reported sexual harassment allegedly by men of foreign origin, emphasizing the derogatory connotations attached to it. The term then caught the attention of political figures and was used by Andrea Delmastro, undersecretary of the Ministry of Justice from Fratelli d’Italia.
On 26 July, a conglomerate of far-right factions match in Vienna, asserting their idea of ‘remigration’. Backed by Danish militants who publicly demanded the expulsion of foreign nationals and cease of Islamisation in Denmark, it emphasized the vehemence of such regressive narratives.
However, the concerning issue is not just the adoption of such divisive and prejudiced rhetoric but the desensitization that slowly seeps in with their repeated use. In May, Italy hosted ‘Remigration Summit 25’, an event that further drove the term into the public consciousness.
Despite the ongoing debates surrounding this controversial term, the key figures of the Italian political scene seemed strangely absent from the forum. However, members of Lega party have been openly endorsing the term remigration.
General Roberto Vannacci, MEP and deputy secretary of Lega, expressed his support for remigration in a video message at the summit. According to Vannacci, suffering from a gross misunderstanding, remigration was necessary to retort against those who defy the laws of the land and ‘reject’ the host culture.
The term ‘Remigration’, a veiled euphemism for deportation, recently entered the Treccani dictionary in Italy in 2025. The far-right groups have propagated it as a masking tool for their ethnic replacement theories. This is possibly one of the grave misinterpretations of cultural integration and values, and unsurprisingly it’s coming from such far-right ideologies.
Additionally, the Austrian ideologue, Sellner, plans to publish a book titled ‘Remigration’ in Italy. This, again, subtly pushes such draconic outlooks towards immigration and integration to the forefront.
The term had its early pioneer in French identitarian factions like Bloc/Génération identitaire. They populated the public discourse with the idea of returning immigrants and their offspring to their home countries, hiding behind a poorly constructed facade of national preservation.
The ethnocentric narrative championed by these groups envisions a grand move of foreign nationals not just to their home nations, but to other countries where they have no ties. It’s essentially a half-baked concept that ignores human rights and practicality.
In conclusion, while the far-right groups try to drive the narrative and dominate the conversation about immigration policies, it’s important to actively challenge such thinking. One must remember that fostering this kind of divisive rhetoric will only lead to creating a more polarized world.