Talk:Remigration

Remigration Is a texbook definition

The following discussion 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.

---

shame on you people ~2026-34816-40 (talk) 13:03, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

let me be clear: This article pretends to perform neutrality, but it fails. A more honest approach would be calling the article: "remigration as a far right concept". Since it isnt, it can only be read as an attempt to do politics through wikipedia. And a very lame one.

The word remigration Is far older (see oxford) and much less contended than other, more modern terms such as "return migration". You are taking a phenomenon you dont like and encapsulating it under am umbrella term that has been used for centuries without controversy.

Lame AND shameful ~2026-34816-40 (talk) 13:20, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Take up your problem with the sources we use, not Wikipedia itself. Harryhenry1 (talk) 13:54, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Furthermore we are not a dictionary. Simonm223 (talk) 13:54, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

This article says that the purpose is ethnic cleansing.

That's not what reimigration is. Reimigration is about priorotising the population in place, and not taking in immigrants just to get votes and for political power (in the short term). It's about thinking ahead rather, and respecting the sacrifice forefathers have made, not giving away the resources to others than the individuals who have them and use them well.

Calling it ethnic cleansing is at best extremely outdated. Jesus Kristus er stor (talk) 09:14, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

The seven reliable sources we use say it's a type of ethnic cleansing, and all are fairly recent. In what way is it "extremely outdated"? Harryhenry1 (talk) 12:09, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

It's literally ethnic cleansing. Deporting people based on ethnicity and race. ~2026-39971-59 (talk) 15:17, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I think there may be an important distinction between how some reliable sources describe remigration and how supporters of remigration describe their own position.

The term "ethnic cleansing" is generally used to describe the removal of a population based primarily on ethnicity, regardless of factors such as individual conduct, integration, or contribution to society. By contrast, many advocates of remigration argue that their position is centred on prioritising the long-term interests of the existing population, reducing immigration, and in some cases encouraging or requiring certain non-citizens to return to their countries of origin for shorter or longer timespans. That may again enable them to prepare better if they really do want to stay.

My concern is that the article may present the "ethnic cleansing" characterisation as an uncontested fact rather than as a description used by particular sources and scholars. If reliable sources exist that describe remigration differently, those views may also deserve coverage in proportion to their prominence under Wikipedia's neutrality policies.

I would appreciate it if editors could consider whether the article adequately reflects the range of reliable-source descriptions of the concept. Jesus Kristus er stor (talk) 18:42, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

This is Bs Klaci034343 (talk) 09:37, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

You decide wich sources to use? Jesus Kristus er stor (talk) 09:16, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Which* DN (talk) 09:34, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

No, but other editors have. And Wikipedia doesn't just allow any source to be used. Harryhenry1 (talk) 12:06, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Why that? --Weissmann (talk) 10:18, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

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.

Euphemisms should be avoided

Per WP:Euphemism:

“ Euphemisms should generally be avoided in favor of more neutral and precise terms. Died and had sex are neutral and accurate; passed away and made love are euphemisms. Some words and phrases that are proper in many contexts also have euphemistic senses that should be avoided: civilian casualties should not be masked as collateral damage. ”

Do people agree that euphemisms should be avoided? Do people agree that "remigration" is a euphemism as applied to ethnic cleansing? A non-euphemistic title would be something like "Race-based deportation" or "Deportation to achieve ethnic cleansing". Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:48, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

"Remigration" is the common name for the modern proposal, even in academic articles. I think changing the name of the article will only confuse readers. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 10:37, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps, but euphemisms can be confusing too. That's why Wikipedia tries to avoid them. So I'm thinking it might be useful to get some more opinions at the NPOV noticeboard. There are ways of addressing this issue by supplementing the word "remigration" in the title rather than removing it. For example, inserting a parenthetical could help ("ethnic cleansing"), or perhaps adding a few words, like "via ethnic cleansing". Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:29, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Changing the name of the article would be clarifying actually. I don't think anyone typing in Remigration expects an article breaking down a specific far-right concept of ethnic cleansing or whatever, thus the hat note that only needs one more sentence to be considered a paragraph of its own. ~2026-39034-29 (talk) 19:20, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Personally, that is what I expect when I type in "remigration". And when I google "remigration", every result on the first page is about the concept described by this article. That fact makes me doubt I'm the only one. Cadddr (talk) 20:17, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Agree woth howard, common name takes precedent. Besides, its important to dispel what these euphemisms all are in their actual language. Much less impact if we arent directly calling it out as remigration, which is a concerning enough term as is User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 21:31, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

I've got concerns

What is the scope of this article? I've read the article and I'm somewhat concerned there is inadvertent WP:SYNTH going on here. The lead of the article says it talks about the far-right usage of "remigration" as a euphemism for ethnic cleansing via forced deportations, but they don't make any claim that every single thing that is referred to or translated into English as "remigration" qualifies for this description. Some of the examples in this article are using news reports translated into English where the term is used to describe policies that do not involve forced deportation, for which there is practically no RS support behind calling ethnic cleansing as they definitionally do not match the thing that the sources in the lead are talking about. One an example in there of a politician explicitly contrasting "remigration" with "forced deportation".

So, is the article looking to discuss the term "remigration" broadly, or it's usage in the ethnic cleansing and forced deportations sense? Because right now it's doing both and that's causing a WP:COATRACK of putting statements by WP:BLPs as being examples of calls for ethnic cleansing and forced deportation when they aren't, and that's not ideal. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 16:43, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

The scope of the article should not be including situations where there is not compelled departure or advocacy for the same. If there are examples where the word "remigration" is being used in translation for more regular immigration patterns then those should be removed as out of scope for this specific article. Simonm223 (talk) 16:57, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, Simon. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 17:05, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Even if there’s compelled departure, it’s still out of scope of this article, absent ethnic cleansing. For example, if a mass murderer sneaks across a national border against the laws of both countries, then deporting him to the country of origin is not ethnic cleansing. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:11, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Compelled departure for other reasons than as a tool of ethnic cleansing, yes, I don't see how a policy of deporting non-citizens who commit serious crimes would qualify, for example, as it wouldn't have an ethnic component (with an exception for cases where reliable sources are actually saying ethnic cleansing is the intended goal of the policy). –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 20:22, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

You see we are headed toward difficulties. For example, if Switzerland had chosen to limit its population to 10 million people, and barred further immigration, and deported people who thereafter enter unlawfully, then some would say it’s for ethnic reasons, while others would deny that. So we’d need reliable sources reporting as fact that it is or isn’t ethnic cleansing, just like they report any other fact. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:36, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

What do you mean we are headed towards difficulties? I believe what you have just said is in line with what I have just said. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 21:07, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

What I meant is that there will be disputes here about whether some deportations are “ethnic cleansing” or not. Some editors will say, “look at all these reliable sources that mention the deportations without suggesting anything about ethnic cleansing.” But then other editors will say, “you’re wrong because we should only be relying upon reliable sources that use the word remigration” which of course most reliable sources won’t do because it’s a euphemism favored by sources that tend to support open borders and that see racism around every corner. This problem could be avoided by moving the article to something like "Deportation for the purpose of ethnic cleansing" as it already says in the hatnote. Otherwise, User:Maltazarian, the reliable sources for this article will be narrowed radically, to include only sources that use the magical euphemism "remigration." Of course, per WP:NEO, "Articles on neologisms that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term." So we should decide if this article is to be about an ever-shifting and obscure euphemistiuc neologism, or is it to be about deportation for ethnic cleansing? Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:35, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

I think the scope is whatever articles state are remigration. The term is a bit of a political neologism and is subject to change.

if there is a case of forced migration but the term remigration isnt used, we shouldnt include it. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 22:02, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

That poses a problem in that "remigration" is used in a much broader sense than just meaning ethnic cleansing by forced deportations. Granted, it might be a good idea to go with a broad focus and rewrite the lead to fit it. Granted, I haven't done any analysis on how common usage of the term in different senses is in reliable sources yet, but my initial impression is that it certainly seems there is some conflation of different sources going on. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 23:24, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

If you can find a specific example where that conflation might be happening, that might help ground the discussion. I'm no expert on this topic, but outside of academic social science, I've personally only seen the term used in the far-right nationalist sense described in this article, so it's hard for me to understand exactly what your concerns are without an example. Cadddr (talk) 03:21, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

You've got it:

I removed a part of the Sweden section that involved Johan Forssell, who was making some comments in connection to him becoming the new Swedish Minister of Migration. Aftonbladet reported on him saying that återvandring is an important policy question for him and the Swedish government's, who have been providing funding to applicants wishing to voluntarily remigrate. This policy, though, as one can tell by the coverage of traditionally anti-Moderates Aftonbladet (reliable, though), is criticised mainly for being uneconomic rather than being ethnic cleansing. Aftonbladet's coverage was then cited by Hungarian and not particularly reliable Orbán-funded publication The European Conservative, with their coverage of it in English using the term "remigration". That coverage is cited in our article together with studies that say the far-right uses the term as a euphemism for ethnic cleansing to use the statement by Johan Forssell as an example of someone calling for ethnic cleansing.

Even as someone who is by no means a big fan of the Moderates, that's a fairly clear case of WP:SYNTH being used to make some serious claims about a BLP. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 04:11, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I totally agree that examples like that with WP:SYNTH and bad sourcing should be removed. We shouldn't be including any example without a reliable secondary source that describes it as an example of "remigration" rhetoric in the far-right sense. Cadddr (talk) 04:38, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

It is a coatrack, im not sure listing every country makes sense.

at bare minimum, id like to do a source review to see if they use the word remigration at all. (If/when i have time) User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 21:42, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it's a mess. The term "remigration" seems to generally mean three different things: 1. mass deportation of illegal immigrants (how Trump and his administration use the term); 2. mass deporation of citizens and non-citizens with foreign ancestry, especially those of non-white ancestry (how the European far-right has used this term since the 2010s); and 3. voluntary remigration of immigrants to their country of origin. The latter definition is the only one used by Wiktionary. This article, meanwhile, uses all three definitions more or less interchangeably. For example, the Dutch PVV has a "remigration" policy that they claim will mostly promote "voluntary" remigration, a claim included in this article; do we remove the entire PVV section of the article, then? Do we remove the several Trump quotes in which he uses "remigration" as a shorthand for mass deportation of illegal immigrants?

Unfortunately, I don't know if this is fixable. I believe the lack of clarity surrounding this term is, to some extent, by design. How does one write an article about the bailey without including the motte? I don't know. But the article as it stands is highly flawed. Ultramoth (talk) 22:41, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree this article raises significant issues regarding WP:COATRACK, WP:POVFORK, WP:EUPHEMISM, and WP:NEOLOGISM. One possible solution would be to simply rename it to something like Deportation for ethnic cleansing. That's the purported scope anyway, per the hatnote. My main concern is that the article title suggests no reliable sources will be allowed except ones that specifically use this exact term. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:45, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Have you found reliable sources that use a different term to describe the same concept? Harryhenry1 (talk) 00:47, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia article don't have to have one-word titles. If Deportation for ethnic cleansing is too long, then Racist deportation is shorter. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:51, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

The issue here is that the main use of "remigration" is by the far-right as a euphemism for ethnic cleansing. We could, following a source review, likely turn this article into a redirect to Ethnic cleansing and it would solve the problem of sorting crypto-fascist propaganda from the much more minor use of European countries using it as a euphemism for Return migration. That's the main source of ambiguity - it isn't prevarication over what immigration is "illegal", itself a pretty hard-line right-wing concept even before it reaches the ethnic cleansing stage. Simonm223 (talk) 01:30, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I would support a redirect to either Ethnic cleansing (disambiguation) or Ethnic cleansing. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:06, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

This is like claiming that "flying" means several different things, including flapping your wings like a bat, gliding like an albatross, hovering like a hummingbird, steering airplanes and balloons, and so on. Those are all just flavors of the same phenomenon. Trump and his minions may claim that they are mass-deporting "illegal immigrants" but actually they are also, maybe even mainly (because there are not enough illegal immigrants for them to reach their arbitrary deportation goals), deporting legal immigrants as well as citizens caught wearing the wrong skin color. "Voluntary remigration" is one of the German AfD's cop-outs: on top of deporting non-citizens, they are planning to make non-Aryan citizens' life hell until they leave voluntarily, and for them, it is part of the same plan.

We can only say those three are totally different things if reliable sources say they are. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:07, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

+1 Well said. Simonm223 (talk) 11:43, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

The article for Flight covers all of those cases in the opening sentence. The same can't be said for the remigration article. A better comparison might be Neoliberalism, which means a million different things depending on who you ask - and to that article's credit, it covers this ambiguity in the opening paragraph.

Again, the problem is that the murkiness is somewhat intentional. So of course, yes, reliable sources inevitably will say different things. Here are some sources from the U.S. section of the article. Times of India: "The term "remigration," popular among far-right nationalist groups, refers to sending immigrants back to their countries of origin." This article does mention a member of "European ethnonationalist circles" using the term, but stops short of claiming that Trump's usage of the term is itself ethnonationalist. Mediate doesn't define the term at all, simply noting that Trump used it in conjunction with ICE funding and mass deportation. News18 also doesn't define it, but does quote Trump, who defines it as the deportation of illegal immigrants. This will be common in straight reporting, because when the President (or anyone) says that he means one thing, many outlets will not clarify that he actually means something else. Indeed, the current Wikipedia article for the Office of Remigration doesn't mention ethnic cleansing at all. It cites a source (Wired) which notes that "For critics, the term is synonymous with ethnic cleansing." But you'd be hard-pressed to find a reliable news outlet which outright states, as a fact rather than as an opinion, that the unit's goal is ethnic cleansing.

One solution might be to put greater emphasis on the euphemistic and intentionally murky nature of the term, which is discussed in some reliable sources. Ultramoth (talk) 17:44, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Okay so, disregarding the tensions in this discussions, I think it can safely be said that "remigration", on paper, means the same thing as "return migration" – the prefix re- outright carries the same semantic meaning as "return" – but has that additional euphemistic sense where it refers to ethnic cleansing by deportation.

This causes issues for this article because you can't tell what sense is meant when the word is used, and this is especially true if you are doing translations due to the semantics I spoke of above, which lead to both words translating to the same thing for many languages. Editors including material cited to sources using the term "remigration" inadvertently do WP:OR in a lot of cases, as they are themselves analyzing what sense the word is being used in.

The default solution to this is simple: get rid of stuff when the only sourcing for them do not clearly stated what sense the word "remigration" is being used in. An alternative solution would be to make the article be about the modern use of the term in general, discussing how it often is a euphemism but is also used to refer to return migration. That would require consensus, and, judging by the how the discussion as gone so far, would likely to take us to an RfC. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 13:23, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I tepidly agree with the alternative solution, with the caveat that the article shouldn't be about all uses of the term remigration, but specifically about uses of the term that can be traced to far-right European circles in the 2010s. Thus, it can be discussed even when it is used to mean something else (e.g. mere deportation of illegal immigrants), provided that reliable sources make the connection. That is, the term began within the Identitarian movement, and spread from there to the point where it's now sometimes used in mainstream right-wing rhetoric, but many reliable sources reporting on the latter will mention this origin and diffusion.

The problem is that even the original Identitarian usage is intentionally murky, meant to imply a "voluntary" mass remigration that is, of course, absurd on its face. Consider, for example, this NPR correspondent who spoke with an Identity Evropa member: "I remember asking him how did he think the U.S. would become a white nation if not with violence. And he said he thought people would just remigrate." So, the idea of voluntary remigration is part of the far-right/Identitarian usage, but it's sort of conflated with forcible deportation in a sometimes-unspoken way. Ultramoth (talk) 18:39, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes what I was thinking was not to discuss the use of the term in the sense of pure return migration studies, but rather the use of the term in contemporary political discourse. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 20:14, 18 July 2026 (UTC)