Talk:Remigration/Archive 1

The Day of Revenge and arguably the land seizures in Zimbabwe show that remigration is a general nativist policy that may be promoted by any ethnicity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:6E00:1FF0:CF01:A0A5:67E4:1FF6:FE6D (talk) 10:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

"Remigration" as a word makes no sense, as the "re" prefix claims that that following word would be done again, which in the context of what the word means in practice is not the case, suggesting that the word is just a fancy, irrational creation, for an existing word, which words would you suggest would that be? I suggest that the mentioned context should be added to the article, including the word, which actually hides behind the artifical creation. Forsen1337 (talk) 12:12, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

The terminus is used in the sociology of immigration for pehomenons in the transnational and internal migration.

• Russell King: Return Migration and Regional Economic Problems. Croom Helm, London 1986, ISBN 0-7099-1578-0
• Russell King, Katie Kuschminder (editors): Handbook of return migration. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham 2022, ISBN 978-1-83910-004-8.

Interesting might also be the remigration of surviving German refugees (jews, political dissiedents and artists from US/UK to Gemany/Austria after WW2). 5glogger (talk) 17:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

"Repatriation" is shown as a bold synonym in the lead, yet there is a separate article titled Repatriation. Maybe the term should be introduced in quotes instead of bold, along with an explanation of what the term usually means and a link to the other article. Consider adding this article to Repatriation (disambiguation) as well. Jruderman (talk) 03:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

It might make sense to link to Opposition to immigration somewhere. Jruderman (talk) 03:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

It might be appropriate to show Template:Discrimination_sidebar and add a link in the sidebar-template to this article. Both Ethnic cleansing and Opposition to immigration use the sidebar, so it seems within scope. I'm not sure what the procedure is for determining which articles get listed in a sidebar. Jruderman (talk) 03:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I think there is an error in the page. remigration defintion: The meaning of REMIGRATION is the act of migrating again; especially : the act of returning to one's original or previous home after a migration. To conclude that this concept is in all aspects "far-right" is the same as saying that globalism or multiculturalism is "far-left". Neither of these are correct or helpful, or factual. Thank you a lot, I will proceed further with this matter in case it is not revised or seriously looked at. If this is not removed, then it seems only natural that globalism and multiculturalism be revised as far-left "concepts" as well. Best regards, DK2828 (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

See WP:RGW and WP:THETRUTH and WP:POINT. Polygnotus (talk) 18:12, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

The claim is sourced to 2 books, one by A. James McAdams and one by John Feffer. Which of those books do you disagree with? Which specific quotes? Why? Can you make a list of the WP:RELIABLE sources that support that view? Polygnotus (talk) 18:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

The lead starts with equating "repatriation" with "remigration" as a euphemism, citing three sources, none of which actually uses the term "remigration". IMHO this article is not about all euphemisms of "deportation", but about one well-chosen term that is very-little used for non-deportation purposes yet at the same time sounds very innocent (witness the 2024 scandal that failed to ignite). If we want to discuss other euphemisms, this should be done in Deportation, IMHO. I propose to remove the "repatriation" from the lead along with all three sources. Викидим (talk) 05:43, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

To expand the scope of the article should Trump's mass deportation plan be included in this Wikipedia article? Zyxrq (talk) 03:35, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

That's a wrong place to do that. This article is about remigration, and this term is practically unused in the US outside of sciences like biology. We have an article Deportation. For avoidance of doubt, I happen to think that this is WP:UNDUE there as well. We have multiple articles about Trump and his policies. Викидим (talk) 03:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

There's already a section of the article that talks about trump wanting remigration. saying that we should mention it as an example of remigration in practice isn't that far fetched in my opinion. Zyxrq (talk) 04:05, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, Trump used the word - once AFAIK. IMHO we should not follow China's example of Little red book and include quotes from Trump into almost unrelated articles, like Chinese did with Mao Tse-tung. We already have enough coverage of a single utterance IMHO. For the avoidance of doubt, I do think that a mention of Trump using the term is relevant here: the article is all about normalizing the talk about the deportations using the term, after all. Викидим (talk) 04:50, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Wouldn't splitting/moving the article to European Remigration Movement help fix the many problems people have with this Wikipedia article? Zyxrq (talk) 04:21, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

We could turn this into a Disambiguation page Zyxrq (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I had never heard about such a movement. What sources (see WP:RS) do you propose to use for this new article? Викидим (talk) 04:40, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think understand what I'm talking about. I'm talking about renaming the page to Somthing like Remigration (European Movement) or Remigration (Far-right Ideology) to describe the European ideology of remigration, in a way that doesn't confuse people with Repatriation or Return migration. I have noticed that this is a common problem Wikipedia editors and readers have with this article. Zyxrq (talk) 05:02, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I think I understood your point, but there is no "remigration movement" at this time to the best of my knowledge, so this would really confuse our readers. OTOH, I have no problem splitting the euphemism (i.e., most of this article) and the traditional use of the term into separate articles like Remigration (far-right ideology) and Remigration (science) and leaving this one as a disambiguation. I am not sure what the reaction of the other editors would be, so let's wait. Pinging the December 2024-Januaryy 2025 editors @Harryhenry1, Neiltonks, Alcaios, Muaza Husni, Jolielover, Mrevan, Maxeto0910, Ixocactus, Qualiesin, Cannolis, and Faolin42: Викидим (talk) 05:17, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

From this page in 2024 @DK2828, Polygnotus, Lenny Marks, Jruderman, and 5glogger: Викидим (talk) 05:26, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

This article is clearly heavily politically biased, and uses inflammatory and partisan language. It's also current political comment rather than a useful artifact; c.f. Wictionary's own definition at https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/remigration, and countless other dictionaries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.189.168.31 (talk) 14:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Claiming that remigration is somehow an extreme right-wing idea is just wrong. It would perhaps be correct to say that support for unlimited migration and refusal to deport illegal immigrants are extreme left-wing ideas. The current English language article reflects this political bias.

Speaking as a European, there are two groups that are commonly discussed under the term "remigration":

- Illegal immigrants. If someone is illegally here, they need to be deported. That's obvious, and shouldn't be controversial at all. However, many governments have lacked the political will to actually enforce their own immigration laws.

- Immigrants who fail to assimilate. This is more controversial, but consider: If someone is allowed to immigrate, but (after a suitable amount of time) refuses to learn the local language and refuses to accept the local culture? Why should they be allowed to stay? European nations do not claim to be (or want to be) "melting pots". Anyway, unassimilated immigrants are refusing to "melt". 147.86.175.63 (talk) 12:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree or disagree with the concept, it is very much being pushed the most by far-right groups. Harryhenry1 (talk) 11:50, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

That doesn't refute his point at all. It tells more about the European far left and center-left than about the far-right, really. That deporting illegal immigrants (100% normal practice - in fact, a lawful obligation of the state when the bulk are work migrants and not fleeing any war) is somehow made "controversial" and relegated to the realm of the far right by the political elites, just shows how extremely skewed Western politics are to the left. This is a neutral concept in nature, really. 94.188.139.98 (talk) 11:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

The concept of remigration goes far beyond just illegal immigrants. Proponents (such as the IP user I replied to) make it clear that even legal immigrants aren't exempt from being deported if they're seen as not having done enough to assimilate into the wider culture. Harryhenry1 (talk) 12:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

"Are you sure that white means of European origin? Because there are many Arabs who look more European than Greeks."

it's rather a precision, not a synonym. Azerty82 (talk) 19:54, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

“A precision” is a term originating in the European Union administration. “Euro-English” DenverCoder19 (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I don’t think anyone is surprised that this is a hotly debated topic, but I feel like this is the kind of article that should have edit restrictions.

If there are prerequisites to it like vandalism that it doesn’t qualify for, I understand. If not, wouldn’t it be best to add a little security for this page? Kabaivanoff (talk) 04:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Pages on Wikipedia aren't typically protected pre-emptively. In this case, actual disruptive editing must occur before protection is applied. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 19:08, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Remigration is not a word invented by a French communist newspaper. This article is ridiculous. Remigration is defined in several dictionaries but you use a newspaper to define it. This is a word with a vast history(i.e a people remigrating back to their country after war) not a new political concept. Here is a definition. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/remigration. I move toward writing the introduction with the actual definition and then mentioning it as political concept. This will allow the article to be expanded overtime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.52.89.222 (talk) 22:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Remigration on Wiktionary uses the prevailing definition per Webster's as well. At this point, linking to that entry instead of this article seems preferable. --NFSreloaded (talk) 03:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not going to lie this is the first time I've ever heard of repatriation as a far-right Ideology. This article confuses Remigration and repatriation with some Right wing ideology. Its either that the article needs to be rewritten or the page needs to get moved to something like Remigration (Far-Right Ideology) or Remigration (Right-wing Ideology). The Article title is extremely misleading and I actually find it amusing. Zyxrq (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

+1 to moving to Remigration (Right-wing Ideology) or even outright deletion/redirect to repatriation, this article just isn't what the word means according to history or widespread dictionary usage. Many other issues on this page too LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, this article is a mess. It is a simple word with a clear definition and long history outside Europe. DenverCoder19 (talk) 18:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

This article is enormously Eurocentric, I propose making it more neutral in the lead and moving the more Eurocentric parts to "Modern use" LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle (talk) 11:04, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

There are plenty of reliable sources (already cited in the article) that emphasize the European origin and continuing nature of remigration discourse. Are there sources that disagree with that origin story or that frame the issue as less predominately European? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:13, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

This article seems to suffer from neutrality problems. The term appears has a range of meanings in different contexts (such as the social sciences vs political movements) and to different people. The article relies heavily on only one interpretation of the term and uses contentious terms such as "extremist" to represent a particular viewpoint. Accordingly, I have added a POV tag to the article. -- Lenny Marks (talk) 16:09, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

"Remigration" is a concept in far-right thought that is widely discussed in scholarship. A Google Scholar search for "remigration" and "far right" returns approximately 6,100 results: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=fr&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=remigration+far+right&btnG= Alcaios (talk) 12:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Remigration in English is 300+ years old indeed. However, it was a very obscure subject until picked up by Identitarians, so it is almost impossible to find anything substantial (beyond definitions, the term is also used in biology and chemistry) on the pre-radical-right meaning of the term (I tried). We currently have a section "Wider usage" that can be expanded (if you have some good sources, please let me know). If detailed coverage of the old meaning is found somewhere (I doubt it), it would be easy to split the article. Until then, the bulk of the article will be about radical right per WP:WEIGHT. Викидим (talk) 14:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I have added the POV tag because the article lacks neutrality in its presentation of the subject. Specifically, it gives undue weight to one perspective while downplaying or omitting significant opposing views. Additionally, the language used in certain sections is biased or promotional rather than encyclopedic. These issues compromise the article’s adherence to Wikipedia’s neutral point of view policy and require further review and balancing of content. ZeroGlyph (talk) 07:40, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

What you tried to remove included several well-sourced paragraphs about the connections to the identitarianism and other far-right movements. Do you have a problem with the sources themselves? Harryhenry1 (talk) 08:20, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, you've been edit warring today, across two separate accounts, in order to force that pov.

please stop that.

As regards identitarian thought as relates to historical meanings, and finding balance in the article, let's do it without removing other sourced content. Augmented Seventh🎱 08:28, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

No, I haven't but you've been canvassing, please stop that. Only confirms wikipedia's reputation of being run by power-user mafias enforcing their bias on pet articles.

I acted to apply WP:NPOV and excised irrelevant text even if it is technically correctly sourced. If my correction was too excessive, I apologize and I will refrain from further edits until a better consensus is reached.

My issue is that it is very clear that that there is adamant and high interest in your group to guard the biased language of the article. I acknowledge that the sources cited are academic, but there's a noticeable pattern of privileging works that align with a particular ideological perspective. This risks giving a distorted impression of the academic consensus. ZeroGlyph (talk) 08:44, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Judging by the edits made during the edit war, I think we should remove the POV tag. Removing top-quality sources and their description of the topic would worsen the NPOV of the article. If there are issues that can be fixed without making the article worse, it would help to discuss them specifically. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:27, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Definitely not. The article is already bad due to egregious neutrality issues. Reduction in content isn't making the article worse. It is in need of a complete makeover.

But we can certainly try to point to concrete issues with the article, and seek consensus. Or escalate it to a dispute resolution board and have other parties look at it if there is no consensus.

The article labels and leads with “remigration” as “ethnic cleansing,” which reflects a fairly extreme critical lens and without framing this assertion as being contested. Which it 100% is. It lacks clear attribution and balance with proponents' perspectives.

The tone is overwhelmingly condemnatory and presumes malicious intent to an abstract concept (remigration), without neutrally explaining how different groups define or use the term—even though some argue it refers to voluntary return.

The sourcing on a cursory look appears to be some sociology student-editor's pet academic articles/books. There is a heavy use of watchdog and activist sourcing. These are explicitly anti-extremist NGOs or state-funded media with an overt focus on far-right monitoring. While not necessarily unreliable for reporting on extremism, they are not neutral or academic and are not balanced with opposing or more scholarly or public perspectives. ZeroGlyph (talk) 13:37, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I think you've summed up a lot of the issues very well LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle (talk) 13:48, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Given the user turned out ti be using sockpuppeted accounts, and the way he's insulted the site "being run by power-user mafias enforcing their bias on pet articles", I can't take his critiques or POV tag for the article as being in good faith. Harryhenry1 (talk) 01:45, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Tu quoque fallacy. A smoker pointing out that meth is bad for you doesn't mean the smoker's claims are wrong. The substance of the argument still stands. Itefutue (talk) 08:41, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Even then his arguments basically amount to whitewashing the subject, as we saw with the numerous sources that he tried to remove, sneering at "watchdog and activist sourcing". I do agree the focus on AfD specifically could be cut back, but otherwise I still object to the substance of his arguments. Harryhenry1 (talk) 08:53, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Not really. You enforcing your own counter-agenda and preferences is also "washing." Since you are troubled by his hypocrisy, you should be keenly aware of your own.

Only relying on majority watchdog/opinion sources is something to look down upon; this point should not be lost on you if you are serious about factuality and balanced neutrality. I'm sure your intents are noble in seeking to prevent right-wingers from trying to co-opt articles on Wikipedia, but enforcing an overwhelming leftist-narrative view on this article is fighting fire with fire. This is an encyclopedia at the end of the day.

If you want to prove your own good faith and sincerity for the neutrality debate, what are your suggestions for actually improving the neutrality of this article? Itefutue (talk) 09:24, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

The article does not rely solely on "watchdog/opinion sources", and I wouldn't want that either. I was just pointing out where the editor's biases were, and that was an example of it.

As for my suggestions? Aside from cutting back on the AfD focus, I think this article's current state is as neutral as it can be given the fraught nature of the subject matter. But if there are reliable sources editors can bring to the table which presents a different perspective, we can go from there. Harryhenry1 (talk) 10:02, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

How does describing remigration as ethnic cleansing "lack clear attribution"? The citation in the lead cites 6 different sources that refer to it as such. Harryhenry1 (talk) 14:05, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I was rambling to give a very broad summary of issues, I'm sure there are lots of nitpicks to make in my ramble, especially since I'm not a native english speaker.

The full context is: "It lacks clear attribution and balance with proponents' perspectives."

My attempted point was that what room has been given for proponents of remigration? Barely any it seems? All of the attribution that has been given to sources, are for critical sources. But that is just *one* major problem with this article. ZeroGlyph (talk) 14:20, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I'll add that it is only now that I'm also realizing why there was a bee-hive reaction from multiple users over any edits. They have perched over this article in some kind of battle against Afd over in Germany.

Ctrl + F searching "Afd" and "Germany" makes this very clear that this article is being used a bludgeoning tool in some kind of slapfight activist editors are having with the Afd. Huge swathes of content is just about 2010s and 2020s german politics. Which is extra noteworthy as this is the english article and not the german langauge article.

It explains the extremely weird euro-centric focus. And it suddenly makes sense why the whole article mimics the structure of a watchdog report, not an encyclopedia entry. Very tiresome. ZeroGlyph (talk) 14:12, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Pinging LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle and Ivanvector, who have added and reverted new content about the UKIP's approach to remigration, as sourced to the party's manifesto. I agree with Ivanvector that the content should be left out. Since there are many high-quality secondary sources available on this topic, we should almost never be pulling from primary, non-independent sources. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:18, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

The topic at hand is what policy a party supports, and I'm citing their own website which says what they support. This is a textbook example of when to use [[WP:SELFSOURCE]].

I think the UK section needs more information on what policies are parties are proposing. Especially now LachlanTheUmUlGiTurtle (talk) 13:33, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The parties (all parties, but those with extreme views especially) soften and outright misrepresent their positions in order to appeal to a broader audience. That was what the whole "promoted voluntary return" discussion was about, and really why this article is a notable topic at all (because those parties misappropriated apocryphal social science terminology). You masked your link to WP:SELFSOURCE for some reason, but the very first bullet in that list on when not to use a self-published source is when the material is unduly self-serving, and there is plenty of reason to believe that it is in this case. As Firefangledfeathers notes, there is ample third-party analysis of the parties' positions that we should use, rather than their own self-promotion.

The UK section may need to be expanded on which entities are promoting remigration, but it should be sourced to independent third parties. And this section is not free advertising for the parties: we absolutely do not need to be adding laundry lists of everything these parties are up to, they have their own articles for that. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:50, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

It seems incredibly promotional by a political party to describe their position as such. Every reliable source says this is a policy to forcibly expel ethnic minorities and UKIP is clearly sanitizing the language.

Arguably, unless other reliable secondary sourcing takes UKIPs self description seriously, we dont need to devote so much to this characterization User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 14:16, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

The selfsource link has that carveout about not using unduly self serving info. This language clearly falls into that category User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 14:18, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

I have removed this sentence from the US subsection: "The term was reused in November 2025 following the killing of one National Guardswoman and the shooting of another by an Afghan refugee."

The "by an Afghan refugee" was just added by a temporary account, and is factual based on citations in the shooting article, although it does seem to be a loaded addition. But that's not my concern. The sentence was cited only to the tweet that it references, and because anyone can tweet literally anything I prefer to find third-party coverage for any content referring to a tweet, to demonstrate that it is due for inclusion. The only source I found for this was MSN republishing an article from The Mirror, a US edition of a well-known British tabloid (see WP:DAILYMIRROR). I found other coverage of DHS' ramp-up following the shooting but those sources didn't mention DHS tweeting "remigration" at all, but focused on Trump's tirade about it (he used "reverse migration", a term he seems to have invented, not "remigration"). I removed the sentence because I think we can't establish that it's a significant event without coverage of it, and I didn't change it to be a reference to Trump's rant because that would be like mentioning in an article that the sun rose today. I'm bringing it here in case anyone wants to try to find a better source to include this, but I think it just doesn't need to be there at all. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:18, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

"Temporary" account in question here, does your objection to a tweet count if its a reference to the department of homeland security's twitter? And what would the distinction be between a citation of the twitter account of DHS versus a news article commenting on the tweet by DHS? This mentions both the DHS tweet and Trump's diatribe on the matter. I wont comment on the validity of whether or not it should be there at all as to not come off as biased but id appreciate further comments! Nothannari (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, a few days went by with no reply and I moved on to something else and didn't see your message. Nothing was meant by my "temporary account" remark, just to clear the air: early last month the WMF made a switch so that what used to be IP contributions are now masked. Now any time someone who isn't logged into an account makes an edit, the software creates a temporary account for them, and then their contributions are attached to the temporary account instead of their IP address. You can read more about that at Wikipedia:Temporary accounts. But actually that wasn't you anyway, you added the reference to the tweet, and some time later a temporary account ("~2025-37367-13") added "by an Afghan refugee" onto the end of what you added, and that's what I was referring to. Sorry for the confusion, anyway.

My issue isn't with using Twitter (although I do have issues with that, just not specific to this situation), clearly the DHS made that tweet, anyone can go on Twitter and check for themselves. My issue is whether or not it's appropriate to include it here, given the situation at the time that reliable sources weren't covering it. WP:DUE suggests that we shouldn't include information like this in our coverage of a topic, even if it's true, if it's not being included by reliable sources covering the same topic. And at the time I couldn't find any that were, that's all. Your WaPo article didn't show up for me when I was looking for other sources, but it does refer to the DHS tweet specifically. That would lend itself to establishing due weight for inclusion, except that it's still the only one I've seen.

I still think that it's a little bit weak, but if you added this back I would not remove it again. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:37, 16 December 2025 (UTC)