Report
January
20, 2026
https://www.csohate.org/2026/01/20/remigration/
Remigration:
The Rise of a Fringe Idea into the Political Mainstream
This
report traces how “remigration” evolved from a fringe far-right concept into
mainstream political discourse, mapping its spread across Europe and the US
(2010–2025).
Introduction
Once a
word that commonly referred to the return migration of individuals to their
countries of origin, “remigration” has been redefined and politically
weaponized to advance an ethnonationalist agenda. On November 28, 2025, the
U.S. Department of Homeland Security posted on X, “The stakes have never been
higher, and the goal has never been more clear: Remigration now.” Earlier in
the day, President Donald Trump had likewise included the phrase “REVERSE
MIGRATION” in a post on Truth Social. These two posts, published only hours
apart,v signify the growing popularity of the term “remigration” and its
associated policy proposals.
The
concept of remigration originates from French author Renaud Camus, who also
infamously coined the Great Replacement theory — a population replacement
conspiracy which alleges that leftist politicians and the “globalist” elite are
deliberately undermining birth rates in Western countries through increased
non-white immigration levels in order to tip the demographic balance.
Remigration, in parallel, refers to the mass deportation of non-white
immigrants, regardless of their citizenship status. The phrase has become the
latest call to action, viewed as a solution to the alleged denigrating effects
of the Great Replacement. For the far-right, the Great Replacement is
considered the diagnosis for society, while remigration is the prognosis.
The term
was quickly adopted by European far-right activists, specifically the
pan-European Identitarian Movement, inspired by Camus’ writings during the
2010s. De facto Identitarian Movement leader Martin Sellner, author of the book
Remigration: A Proposal, describes the enactment of a remigration agenda in
Europe targeting migrants categorized into three different groups: illegal
migrants (including applicants under the asylum process and temporary
protection status); legal non-citizen migrants who hold a residence permit
and/or work visa (but are considered “an economic, criminal, or cultural
burden”); and “non-assimilated” migrants who have obtained citizenship (and are
seen as “maintaining loyalty to foreign nations or radical religions,” i.e.,
Muslim-majority countries and Islam, respectively). Sellner proposes a
centralized “assimilation monitor” database that includes details of migration
backgrounds, crime rates, and social welfare benefits claims.
The
remigration procedure is divided into three corresponding phases, tailored
toward each target group. The first phase, occurring over a period of five
years, calls for an immediate end to the asylum system and comprises strict
border security measures, the repatriation of “illegal” migrants, political
pressure on countries of origin, and the creation of “remigration cities” in
North Africa to relocate asylum seekers. The second phase, spanning 10 years,
focuses on immigration reform, including the termination of naturalization, a
stringent review of visa holders, and the enforcement of a quota system. Taking
place over the span of about thirty years, the third and final phase aims to
secure long-term restoration of national and European pride and the reversal of
the Great Replacement, including efforts towards “de-Islamization” (e.g., bans
on minarets and the cessation of the foreign financing of mosques), and
implementing return programs that offer migrants financial incentives for
repatriation as well as the establishment of “remigration centers.”
A once
obscure concept, remigration has quickly gained traction in European — and,
more recently, American — far-right circles, although its target groups and
phases of adoption vary across these contexts. Nonetheless, the concept of
remigration has become increasingly salient, particularly as a catch-all term
signifying support for mass deportation, repatriation, and forced emigration.
Remigration began appearing online in the 2010s but did not gain popularity
until 2023–2024, subsequently reaching widespread visibility in 2025.
In 2025,
remigration gained momentum within both grassroots and formal political arenas.
The former is suitably encapsulated by the Remigration Summit held in Italy in
May, featuring far-right activists and politicians attending from Germany, the
Netherlands, Belgium, Ireland, Portugal, France, Ireland, the U.K., and the
U.S. In September, the Unite the Kingdom rally in London (which became an
impromptu memorialization of the recently assassinated Turning Point USA
founder Charlie Kirk), leveraged longstanding anti-immigrant rhetoric by
displaying calls for remigration among attendees.
Remigration
as a policy has also been backed by far-right parties across Europe in recent
electoral campaigns. Notable examples include its embrace by the Austrian
Freedom Party (FPÖ) in September 2024, the Alternative for Germany (AfD) in the
German election in February 2025, and the Forum for Democracy (FvD) and
Conservative Liberals (JA21) in the October 2025 Dutch elections. Remigration
is additionally supported by Flemish Interest (Vlaams Belang) in Belgium,
League (Lega) in Italy, Vox in Spain, Alternative for Sweden (AfS) in Sweden,
Finns Party in Finland, and Reconquest (Reconquête) in France. The euphemistic
nature of the term has allowed it to be taken up more freely by these political
parties, especially in Germany and Austria, where there is a strong association
of the term “mass deportation” with the Holocaust. Crucially, these political
parties lend normalcy to the concept and the proposed enactment of remigration
in their manifestos, which is then legitimized by the democratic electoral process.
In the
U.S., the Trump administration has likewise embraced a remigration agenda in
both foreign and domestic policy by expanding the capacities of the Department
of State and Department of Homeland Security. The swift institutional capture
of a far-right idea with European origin signifies the development of a truly
transnational movement rooted in shared anti-democratic and anti-egalitarian
principles.
Against
this backdrop, this report traces how the term remigration first appeared
online in 2010 and rose in prominence over the subsequent fifteen years before
gaining mainstream visibility in 2025. This analysis draws on a social
listening tool to provide an overview of online posts mentioning remigration
and the narratives driving engagement around the term. We observed that X
(formerly Twitter) emerged early as the dominant platform for social media
conversations about remigration. The platform’s affordances — e.g., algorithmic
amplification, quote-tweeting, trending topics, and public engagement metrics —
promote a performative environment in which content that generates outrage and
public signaling is rewarded. Mentions of remigration often include sensationalist
or fear-mongering discourse that creates a sense of urgency, frequently
amplified by high-profile accounts on the platform.
We then
compare these insights with a purposive sample of key Telegram accounts that
align with the most influential accounts on X posting about remigration. In
contrast, Telegram provides encrypted or semi-encrypted channels, asymmetrical
broadcast structures (from administrators to followers), and minimal
moderation, resulting in tightly curated ideological micro-publics. These
differences in platform architecture influence not only the circulation of
narratives but also the extent to which far-right actors strategically adapt
their messaging to align with specific platform vernaculars. Through this
cross-platform comparison, we demonstrate that Telegram operates as a medium to
test the saliency of concepts like remigration, whereas X serves a strategic role
in building broad support for the term across audiences in Europe and the U.S.
Key
Findings
Remigration
narratives portray Muslim migrants as a demographic threat to white European
societies, framing them as incompatible with Western culture and values. These
narratives link Muslim migration to fears of “Islamization” and Islamist
terrorism, promoting moral panics about an existential threat to Europe.
Interpretations
of remigration have evolved to adapt to different geographical contexts,
especially from Europe to the U.S. where remigration is most often directed
towards (particularly undocumented) migrants and used as justification for
ongoing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deportation efforts. The
transnational architecture of social media has made the exchange of ideas
around remigration highly visible and rapidly scalable.
Mentions
of remigration first began appearing online in 2010, with Dutch far-right
politician Geert Wilders an early adopter in 2012. It did not receive
significant traction until 2016, coinciding with the emergence of ISIS and the
refugee crisis in Europe. Thereafter, there were 32,000 mentions of remigration
from 2016 to 2022 on X.
Between
2023 and 2025, the volume of posts referring to remigration significantly
increased, with the largest surge in activity occurring between September 2024
and December 2025, with 498,000 mentions originating from 198,000 unique
authors on X.
The first
major spike in mentions of remigration since the term first appeared online
occurred in October 2023, with 13,000 total mentions originating from 9,822
unique authors on X. This can be attributed to two separate incidents: a viral
tweet claiming that Sweden was building “re-migration centers across the
country”; and high-profile accounts posting in support of a staged
demonstration by Identitarian Movement activists outside the European
Parliament calling for remigration.
2024
witnessed a dramatic surge in online activity referring to remigration, with
467,000 total mentions originating from 133,000 unique authors. The term’s
virality peaked in 2024 from September to October, with the largest volume of
posts correlating with the Austrian Freedom Party’s (FPÖ) election victory.
In 2025,
remigration gained mainstream visibility. Throughout the year, it had received
952,000 total mentions originating from 303,000 unique authors. The biggest
spikes in mentions occurred in three waves: January to February (43,000
mentions), September to October (243,000 mentions), and late November to
December 2025 (172,000 mentions).
The
highest number of online mentions of remigration ever recorded occurred in the
week of September 1-8, 2025, totaling over 71,000. This surge in overall volume
of content can be attributed to a few high-profile figures posting in
succession on the same day: X CEO Elon Musk, Dutch far-right activist Eva
Vlaardingerbroek, and Flemish far-right activist and former Vlaams Belang
politician Dries Van Langenhove. Their viral posts collectively promoted the
idea that the public sphere is dangerously overrun by violent “foreigners”
committing crimes against the white majority population, and remigration is a
necessity for public safety.
Methodology
The
report uses a mixed-methods approach to content analysis to examine how the
term remigration has evolved over time. We examine the use and amplification of
the term across online sources from 2010 to 2025 using a social listening tool,
drawing on purposive sampling from X (Twitter) and Telegram. Data was collected
using a keyword-based query that captured explicit mentions of remigration as
well as related framing keywords. The following keyword search was used to
identify narrative trends and patterns associated with remigration:
(
“remigration” | “re migration” | “re-migration” | “reimmigration” |
“re-immigration” | “remigrations” | “re-migrations” | “remigrate” |
“remigrieren” | “remigratie” | “total remigration” | “mass remigration” |
“forced remigration”) + (“great replacement” | “replacement” | “population
replacement” | “illegal” | “illegal migrant” | “illegal migrants” |
“non-assimilated” | “asylum seekers” | “migrants” | “non-white migrants” |
“mass migration” | “invasion” | “naturalization” | “naturalized” | “delinquent”
| “criminal foreigners” | “foreign offenders” | “imported crime” | “rape” |
“Islam” | “Islamization” | “de-Islamization” | “Deislamisierung” | “no go zone”
| “summer, sun and reimmigration” | “deportation airline” | “migrant flights” |
“deport” | “deportation” | “repatriation” | “reverse migration” | “European
again” | “eliminate multiculturalism” | “Save America” | “Save Europe” | “Save
Germany” | “Make Europe Great Again” | “Office of Remigration” |
“re-immigration ministry” | “Vision remigration” | “Junge Tat” | “Globalist
agenda” | “AfD” | “Identitäre Bewegung” | “Action Radar Europe” | “generation
remigration” | “refugee resettlement” | “reconquest” | “Reconquista” | “ethnic
cleansing” | “white genocide” | “Boer lives matter”)
Although
non-English translations of remigration (e.g., the German “remigrieren” and the
Dutch “remigratie”) were included, we found that an overwhelming majority of
posts consistently used the English term remigration. Based on our analysis, we
interpret this choice to be a deliberate strategy to mainstream the term across
diverse linguistic contexts, as discussed in our findings below.
Quantitative
data were examined from 2010 onwards, marking the earliest appearance of the
term remigration in the dataset. Aside from several noteworthy social media
mentions between 2016 to 2022, the term became more prominent from 2023 to
2025. Observed spikes were analysed in-depth to assess discourse formation and
amplification dynamics. To complement these findings on X, we conducted a
qualitative analysis of six public Telegram accounts associated with far-right
and Identitarian actors, each featured as the top accounts by engagement on X
posting about remigration. To conduct a cross-platform analysis, a custom
Python scraper using the Telegram API was used to collect posts from each
channel, from the earliest available to the most recent (as of November 30,
2025). The dataset was then filtered by time frame and manually coded using the
same keyword-based query.
Our aim
was to examine narrative shifts within each Telegram channel, including
frequently used keywords used in conjunction with remigration, as well as how
Telegram posts correlated with spikes in activity on X. This type of
cross-platform comparison of selected accounts provides key insights, which are
discussed below. Our approach ensured analytical consistency across platforms,
providing insight into how different platforms, in this case, Telegram and X,
contribute to the framing of remigration over the period under analysis.
Analysis
EARLY
PHASES OF ADOPTION (2010-2022)
The term
remigration first began appearing online in the early 2010s in websites and
chat forums, although its use was extremely rare and not yet clearly linked to
the Identitarian movement, which promotes a far-right ideology rooted in
ethnonationalism that frames immigration as an existential threat to European
cultural and demographic identity. The initial concept of remigration was
developed after the publication of Renaud Camus’ book Le Grand Remplacement
(The Great Replacement) in 2011, which continues to be a central guiding text
for the Identitarians.
One of
the earliest proponents of remigration was Dutch far-right politician and
leader of the Party for Freedom (PVV) Geert Wilders, whose 2012–2017 election
manifesto included the statement: “Daarom moeten we stoppen met de immigratie
van mensen uit islamitische landen. Remigratie is een schone zaak” (That’s why
we must stop the immigration of people from Islamic countries. Remigration is a
clean business). Soon thereafter, the term began to circulate in Dutch-language
counter-jihad chat forums in the Netherlands and Belgium, as well as in
right-wing alternative media op-eds and the comment sections of online
newspaper articles, with this usage continuing into the mid-2010s.
In 2014,
social media posts containing the term remigration began to emerge, although
they were extremely limited in number and reach.
That same
year, the leading American conservative outlet National Review notably reported
on an anti-immigrant protest in Paris — attended by Camus himself — which
featured signs that read “Immigration — Islamisation, Demain la Remigration!”
(“Immigration — Islamization, Tomorrow the Remigration!”).
Only a
few weeks later, the Lyon branch of the Identitarian Movement in France
organized a social gathering featuring a self-defense workshop that aimed to
train women and men to protect themselves from Muslim male migrants. The event
was shared online by supporters, including on the world’s largest neo-Nazi
internet forum Stormfront in a post on the Croatia subforum that expressed
admiration for the Identitarians’ strategy to push for greater visibility of
remigration. The uptake of the term within street demonstrations was also
documented in the Netherlands, where the neo-Nazi Dutch People’s Union (NVU)
party marched with banners that read “Nederland is overvol, geen immigratie
maar remigratie” (The Netherlands is overcrowded, no immigration but remigration).
Throughout
2015 and 2016, the rise of ISIS and ISIS-inspired terrorist attacks coincided
with the refugee crisis in Europe, creating conditions in which the idea of
remigration began to gain momentum. In March 2015, the Belgian far-right
Flemish Interest (Vlaams Belang) party pioneered a so-called “remigration
campaign” 20 targeting “radical” Muslims by offering ten one-way plane tickets
for “those who yearn for the Islamic caliphate.”
Remigration
began circulating more visibly on Twitter in 2016 and 2017, with posts
originating from bot accounts that promoted narratives linking Muslim migrants
with “Islamization” and calling for their remigration. During this critical
period, the term became closely associated with perceptions of Muslim migrants
as a demographic threat to white European societies, framed as fundamentally
incompatible with Western culture and values.
The term
also circulated across North America during this period. In a notable offline
incident, the far-right group Atalante Quebec displayed banners bearing
“#remigration” at several sites housing asylum seekers across Quebec City and
Montreal in August 2017. Around the same time, prominent American white
supremacist and alt-right movement leader Richard Spencer posted that
“remigration is possible” in response to a news article reporting that Germany
was offering financial incentives for migrants to return to their countries of
origin.
Although
mentions of remigration had been increasing gradually since 2016, the term
remained relatively dormant until small spikes in activity in March and June
2018. These increases coincided with court trials related to the ongoing
“grooming gangs” scandal in the U.K., which had drawn heightened attention from
far-right groups. Narratives portraying British Pakistani men as perpetrators
of child sexual abuse and exploitation — primarily targeting young white
British girls — circulated widely, framing Muslim men as rapists and criminals.
Such discourse reinforced pre-existing Great Replacement narratives that
represent Muslim and non-white migrants as hypersexualized, violent, and
predatory. These characterizations would later shape discussions of remigration
in relation to grooming gangs.
A key
figure in debates surrounding remigration, Martin Sellner, posted the term on
Telegram for the first time in 2018, writing:
“So after
destroying communities through mass immigration and multiculturalism, which in
turn acted as a breeding ground for terrorism, it is now these same, broken
communities that are supposed to be able to stop it? #Remigration defeats
Terrorism!” (Telegram, November 16, 2018)
At this
point, the discourse reflects the adoption of securitized framing in which
Muslim migrants are associated not only with demographic anxieties and
conspiratorial messaging of “Islamization,” but also with the perceived threat
of Islamist terrorism. In the wake of several ISIS-inspired attacks in Europe
since 2015, ascribing such incidents as preventable risks to public safety
acted as a mechanism of legitimacy while simultaneously promoting anti-Muslim
hostility and stigmatization.
Meanwhile,
a number of reactionary far-right political parties emerged in Europe in 2018,
with stated opposition to Islam and immigration. This wave of newly founded or
reformed parties quickly seized on the concerns of voters disaffected with the
political establishment and claimed issue ownership on both immigration and
integration. While remigration had not yet been widely incorporated into policy
proposals, broader socio-cultural conditions and years of far-right digital
activism laid the groundwork for its eventual adoption.
Later in
2019, one week after the Christchurch terrorist attack, the Identitarian
Movement — whose ideology had influenced the shooter — held a demonstration
protesting the Great Replacement and calling for remigration.
Despite
efforts to distance itself from the Christchurch shooter, whose manifesto was
titled “The Great Replacement,” as well as proclaiming that the organization
“reject[s] any form of political violence or terrorism,” the Great Replacement
theory had been circulating widely among far-right networks, largely due to the
Identitarian Movement’s activism. The group subsequently shifted its focus to
promoting remigration as a solution to the Great Replacement, framing it as a
fully legal approach. By arguing that remigration could be achieved through
nations’ exercise of sovereignty over their borders, the Identitarian Movement
reframed the concept as a moderate and pragmatic proposal grounded in legal
enforcement, obscuring its conspiratorial foundations.
From 2019
to 2022, mentions of remigration remained minimal, though relatively
consistent. Usage of the term was primarily amplified by far-right accounts
across Europe and the U.K., such as posts by Dutch PVV party leader Geert
Wilders and the British Homeland Party, as well as several anonymous propaganda
bot accounts.
Narratives
associated with remigration continued to promote moral panics centered on
defending Europe against the purported existential threat of Islam, which is
presented as an “imported” problem resulting from migration. Similarly,
discourse surrounding the grooming gangs scandal in the U.K. persistently
misrepresented perpetrators as “Islamic child groomers,” thereby conflating
pedophilic behavior with religious practices. Together, these fear-mongering
narratives equate male migrants from North Africa, the Middle East, and South
Asia with the imminent dangers of Islamist extremism, sexual and physical
violence, and organized crime.
Significantly,
in the run up to the French presidential election in April 2022, Éric Zemmour
— candidate and founding leader of the
far-right Reconquest (Reconquête) party — proposed a Ministry of Remigration
with the aim to repatriate at least 100,000 “unwanted foreigners” annually.
This
marked the first time a political party officially adopted remigration as a
policy while proposing a dedicated government agency to implement it. The
party’s name itself invokes the historical Reconquista, the period of Christian
campaigns against Muslim rule on the Iberian Peninsula. A longtime proponent of
the Great Replacement theory, Zemmour warned that “France will be a Muslim
country by 2060” if current migration levels continued. While Zemmour
ultimately lost the presidential bid, his proposal established the template for
institutionalizing remigration through dedicated government infrastructure.
RISE IN
POPULARITY (2023-2024)
The first
major spike in mentions of remigration since the term first appeared online
occurred in October 2023, with 13,000 total mentions originating from 9,822
unique authors on X. This surge can be attributed to two key events: first, a
viral but unsubstantiated tweet by Swedish far-right journalist Peter
Imanuelsen, an early proponent of remigration since 2018, claiming that Sweden
was building “re-migration centers across the country”; and second, positive
reactions from high-profile accounts to a staged demonstration by Identitarian
activists outside the European Parliament in Brussels, who called for
“Remigration Now. Deport Terrorists.”
The
discourse surrounding remigration reinforces the portrayal of migrants as
criminals and terrorists deliberately seeking to “invade” Europe and “import
conflict” from their countries of origin. Migrants from Muslim-majority
countries are depicted as fundamentally incompatible with Western culture and
societies due to alleged non-assimilationist behaviors and are framed as an
imminent security threat of Islamist terrorism. Subsequently, Identitarian
activists consistently blame the European Union for creating permissive
immigration policies that prevent individual nation-states from exercising
control over their borders due to the Schengen agreements.
That same
October, pseudo-intellectual magazine The American Conservative published an
article on “re-immigration” aspirations in Europe, introducing the concept to
its U.S.-based audience. The article compares both the United States and Europe
as facing “massive invasions by immigrants,” though it distinguishes between
the two contexts. In the American case, immigrants were described as Christian,
Latin American refugees from socialist countries with the potential to
assimilate. In contrast, the article described “Moslems pouring across the
Mediterranean into Europe” who are allegedly commanded by a religion that
prohibits acculturation. “Re-immigration” is thus heralded as a solution
promoted by European right-wing parties to “preserve European civilization”
from “invaders.”
Overall,
discourse about remigration in 2023 remained largely confined to far-right
activists in Europe who promoted the concept in tandem with calls for urgency
to end the Great Replacement and secure borders. However, the platform
environment had shifted significantly. Following Musk’s acquisition and
rebranding of Twitter to X at the end of 2022, content moderation weakened
under the banner of “free speech,” while previously banned figures such as
Martin Sellner returned to the platform. Coupled with algorithmic changes that
amplified hateful and sensationalist content, these conditions resulted in the
perfect storm for fear-driven messaging.
By
comparison, 2024 witnessed a dramatic surge in online activity referring to
remigration, with 467,000 total mentions originating from 133,000 unique
authors.
A spike
occurred in January 2024, when protesters gathered across cities in Germany
following the publication of an investigative report by media outlet Correctiv.
The report revealed that members of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party’s
Potsdam branch had secretly met with Identitarian Movement activists, including
Martin Sellner, to discuss “remigration” plans to deport not only migrants but
also German citizens with migrant backgrounds back to their ancestral
countries. Despite widespread public backlash and the protests — some of which
drew hundreds of thousands of participants — the AfD would eventually adopt
remigration into its election manifesto for the 2025 federal election, likely
emboldened by state-level election victories in September 2024.
During
this period, we observed that transnational support for remigration began
accelerating, indicated by increased posts from far-right political party,
activist, and commentator accounts based in the U.K. and the U.S.
The same
narratives expressing anti-migrant and anti-Muslim hostility pervaded. However,
a subtle but significant shift emerged: the discourse increasingly focused on
naturalized citizens of immigrant background, who were now also framed as
threats. The notion of revoking citizenship based on ethnonationalist
conceptions of loyalty not only establishes a dangerous precedent but also
calls into question the legitimacy of democratic institutions and the rule of
law.
A
significant number of posts during this period also include the phrase “mass
deportation(s),” which had not commonly appeared in conjunction with
remigration in posts until 2024. The adoption and circulation of this phrase —
given the association of mass deportations with the Holocaust — was initiated
by prominent Anglosphere accounts before being embraced by European actors.
Our
analysis reveals spikes in cross-posting about mass deportation between X and
Telegram at key periods, namely, in January, May, and late September. Although
these spikes do not always correlate across the platforms, it demonstrates that
there a periods in which we see waves of similar activity. Thus, high-profile
Telegram channels help drive the same conversation on X during spikes. Often,
discourse begins to trend on Telegram prior to X. For instance, British
far-right activist Tommy Robinson emerged as a key proponent of mass
deportation, beginning to post the term on Telegram in 2022. Robinson
singularly mentioned mass deportations 94 times between August 2024 and
November 2025 on his channel. However, not until June 2025 did mass deportation
reach widespread use with its articulation by President Trump in the context of
ongoing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids in the United States.
In
general, mentions of remigration remained consistent before increasing once
again online during the Southport riots across the U.K. from late July to early
August 2024. During the riots, European Identitarian activists promoted a
campaign titled “European Lives Matter” alongside photos of the victims of the
Southport attack, proclaiming that “remigration saves lives.” Rampant
misinformation surrounding the attack, combined with escalating anti-immigrant
sentiment, created a flashpoint for mobilization, with remigration serving as a
rallying narrative.
The
term’s virality peaked in 2024 from September to October due to corresponding
events. Most notably, the Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ) secured victory in the
national election while openly campaigning on a platform favoring remigration.
The largest volume of posts in 2024 correlated with the FPÖ’s election victory
at the end of September.
The
Identitarian Movement branch in Austria attributed the election outcome to
years of strategic engagement and building popular support for the party’s
agenda:
“💪The FPÖ’s election victory is the
fulfillment of 5 years of education, action and resistance. All the patriots
who spoke out, who took to the streets in the freezing cold against the corona
dictatorship, have contributed to this.
Street and parliament, party and movement have
won. Austria must become the country of reconquista and remigration.”
(Telegram, September 29, 2024)
The
Identitarians’ strategy relied on metapolitical activism focused on shifting
public attitudes over the long term by emphasizing salient social and cultural
issues in the realm of digital activism. The concept of remigration had thus
emerged from sustained grassroots mobilization into fruition within the formal
political arena — a development the movement lauded as a success.
At this
stage, remigration had become a transnational far-right phenomenon. Tommy
Robinson generously used the term, cross-posting the same message on X and
Telegram in support of FPÖ. Meanwhile, the far-right news aggregate website
Visegrád 24 reported that Sweden was implementing a remigration policy,
claiming that migrants would receive financial incentives for repatriation.
Only a
couple of days after Visegrád 24 reported on news of the Swedish policy,
then-presidential candidate Donald Trump and his political advisor Stephen
Miller both posted their support for remigration in the run-up to the U.S.
general election. Immigrants were positioned as unwelcome “invaders” intent on
destroying the American cultural fabric of small, rural communities. Notably,
mentions of Islam or Muslim migrants were omitted, indicating that remigration
is a concept that can be recontextualized to fit differing interests and
priorities. Within the MAGA movement, targets of remigration comprise broad
groupings of immigrants who are collectively portrayed as a threat to white
Americans. Thus, over the course of one year, the idea of remigration gained
trans-Atlantic resonance, popularized through influential European and American
figures.
MAINSTREAM
PROMINENCE (2025)
In 2025,
remigration gained mainstream visibility. Throughout the year, it had received
952,000 total online mentions originating from 303,000 unique authors. Three
key significant spikes in posting activity occurred throughout the year:
January to February (43,000 mentions), September to October (243,000 mentions),
and late November to December 2025 (172,000 mentions).
The
German federal election on February 23, which resulted in a 20.8% vote share
(the highest ever received) for the AfD, openly championing a remigration
policy, accounts for the first spike, generating over 43,000 mentions. Social
media posts celebrated AfD leader Alice Weidel’s openly stated commitment to
close the country’s borders, restrict benefit claims for asylum seekers, and
enact “mass remigration” efforts within the first 100 days in government. Video
clips of the statements originated from the leader’s speech at the party
conference in January, which marked the first time Weidel openly used the word
“remigration” in public. Only a couple of days beforehand, Elon Musk
livestreamed a chat with Weidel on X, using the social media platform to amplify
the AfD’s message ahead of the election, including the narrative that Germany’s
open borders allowed mass, uncontrolled migration into the country and the
subsequent need for deportations.
Notably,
we observed spikes in activity on Telegram channels prior to spikes in activity
on X. For instance, Martin Sellner’s Telegram account mentioned remigration 24
times in early January, whereas a spike on X occurred in late January and early
February. In the run-up to the German election, remigration became a mobilizing
narrative on Telegram before it featured prominently on X. Thus, we contend
that Telegram serves as a platform for in-group identity and community building
in which mobilizing narratives are tested and reinforced among members of a
channel with extremist views, whereas X is used for mainstreaming and achieving
broader visibility aimed for public engagement. The strategic use of different
platforms for cross-messaging relies on platform-specific affordances for
ideological diffusion and engagement.
Between
March and August 2025, mentions of remigration fluctuated between 5,000 to
16,000 posts monthly. Recurrent themes included depicting migrants as criminals
or rapists, portraying Islam as an existential threat, and blaming politicians
for enabling demographic destruction — collectively presenting a dystopic
reality. By employing sensationalist tones and invoking moral panics, these
posts by far-right activists and commentators call for urgent action in the
form of remigration as a solution.
The
descriptor “invasion” and its variant “invaders” were frequently employed
across these posts, simultaneously dehumanizing migrants while invoking a sense
of crisis. Within the United States, this discourse was appropriated to fixate
on the constructed threat of rampant illegal immigration. In May, the Trump
administration announced that the U.S. Department of State would create an
‘Office of Remigration,’ aimed at coordinating the return of non-citizens to
their countries of origin. The proposed branch of the federal agency has yet to
be fully implemented, but reflects a broader policy agenda of the
administration that aligns with transnational European far-right interests,
echoing Zemmour’s proposed Ministry of Remigration from three years earlier.
The
second major spike in activity in 2025 occurred between September and October,
with the highest number of mentions of remigration ever recorded in the week of
September 1-8, totaling over 71,000. This surge in overall volume of content
can be attributed to a few high-profile figures posting in succession on the
same day: X CEO Elon Musk, Dutch far-right activist Eva Vlaardingerbroek, and
Flemish far-right activist and former Vlaams Belang politician Dries Van
Langenhove.
These
viral posts share a common premise: that the public sphere is dangerous and
fundamentally unsafe, allegedly overrun by violent “foreigners” intent on
committing crimes against the white majority population. By constructing a
narrative of collective victimhood rooted in fear, the posts deploy an
emotional appeal that channels outrage and demands accountability. Within this
framework, remigration is touted as a “logical” and necessary solution to
perceived public safety threats.
Following
this initial surge, the term remigration remained consistently high throughout
the remainder of the year, at times exceeding 45,000 mentions in a single week.
Peaks in activity corresponded with the widespread circulation of
sensationalist stories involving young white European girls allegedly subjected
to sexual assault or violence by migrant Muslim men. These incidents —
frequently presented as “evidence” — are leveraged to justify conspiratorial
narratives such as the Great Replacement and the notion of “cultural decay”—a
phrase cross-posted by Eva Vlaardingerbroek on Telegram and X. While many of
these posts originated from European-based accounts, they were amplified by
high-profile American users, significantly generating visibility for the term
and its associated discourse.
Notably,
during this period, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security posted a single
word on X: “Remigrate.”
Although
largely unfamiliar to most viewers, posting about remigration served a dual
purpose. First, it acted as a signaling mechanism to an online MAGA base
already familiar with far-right discursive norms, reinforcing a shared in-group
identity. Second, because the post originated from an official government
agency account, it functioned to cultivate public support for the
administration’s actions and to legitimize national security operations through
institutional authority.
Within
the U.S., mentions of remigration persisted throughout the off-year election
period. As documented in our report on Islamophobic attacks and rhetoric
targeting New York City mayoral-elect Zohran Mamdani, the term surfaced on X in
calls for his deportation and denaturalization. These posts depicted Mamdani as
a Muslim terrorist and portrayed him as a national security threat, deploying
the language of counter-terrorism to justify his violent removal from the
United States.
Toward
the end of the year, a third spike emerged following November 26 in Washington
D.C., in which an Afghan refugee wounded two National Guard soldiers, one of
whom later died. Despite reporting that the perpetrator had previously served
in a CIA-operated elite counter-terrorism unit and entered the U.S. through the
Operation Allies Welcome resettlement program, President Trump and senior
administration officials posted in open support of remigration in the immediate
aftermath of the attack.
The
administration moved swiftly, pausing issuance of visas for Afghan nationals,
suspending decisions on pending asylum applications, and initiating a review of
previously approved refugee status cases. These actions were legitimized
through a remigration approach, framed not only as necessary national security
measures, but as efforts to defend “Western civilization.” Within this
discourse, primarily Muslim immigrants were constructed as fundamentally
incompatible with American values, reinforcing civilizational binaries that
cast migration as an existential threat.
Finally,
the end of the year saw a renewed reinforcement of remigration messaging when
the U.S. Department of Homeland Security posted on X: “All America wants for
Christmas is remigration.” The post links to a government webpage containing
information about the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Home Mobile App, which
is targeted at undocumented migrants who can choose “voluntary self-departure.”
The app is described by the DHS as “a historic opportunity for illegal aliens
to receive cost-free travel, forgiveness of any failure to depart fines, and a
$1,000 exit bonus to facilitate travel back to their home country or another
country where they have lawful status.” Individuals who submit documentation
through the app indicating intent to depart the U.S. are allegedly
deprioritized by ICE for detention and removal prior to their scheduled
departure.
The
humorous tone of the post sanitizes a concept often interpreted as a form of
ethnic cleansing, trivializing policies that result in the dehumanization and
mass expulsion of migrants. Soon thereafter, the message solidified as a meme,
with prominent Belgian far-right activist Dries Van Langenhove posting the same
day: “All I want for Christmas is remigration.” Similarly, the men’s
nationalist club Second Sons Canada held a demonstration in Ontario with a
banner reading “All I want for Christmas is remigration” while chanting “Ho ho
ho, they have to go.” This rapid uptake illustrates how state-issued messaging
can be easily absorbed into — and amplified by — transnational far-right
ecosystems, further blurring the line between official policy communication and
extremist propaganda.
Once a
fringe concept circulating primarily among European far-right activists,
remigration had, by the end of 2025, reached peak popularity in the U.S. From
there, the term was re-exported back into European far-right ecosystems,
reshaped through new rhetorical forms and political contexts.
In 2024,
online conversations surrounding remigration largely centered on political
developments within Europe, including electoral outcomes such as the Austrian
Freedom Party’s victory. Over the course of the year, the term gained traction
within far-right networks, where its usage functioned as an ideological signal,
indicating shared alignment and in-group belonging to the respective audience.
By
contrast, remigration discourse in 2025 shifted away from country-specific
European developments (with the exception of the German election) and instead
toward a more generalized narrative structure. Posts increasingly relied on
keywords commonly associated with remigration rhetoric, including “immigrants,”
“invaders,” and “foreigners” to describe target groups, alongside terms such as
“raped” and “victims” to relate high-profile allegations of sexualized
violence. While anti-migrant and Islamophobic tropes have long circulated
within far-right discourse, the uptake of “remigration” serves a symbolic
purpose: consolidating these narratives into a singular call to action that can
be readily applied across disparate national and political contexts.
Conclusion
This
report documents the emergence and rapid rise in popularity of the term
“remigration.” Originating among European far-right ideologues in the early
2010s, the concept gradually expanded into a transnational phenomenon over the
course of the 2020s before reaching peak visibility in 2025.
Our
analysis of online content spanning the past fifteen years demonstrates that
the term’s proliferation is driven by recurring narratives that depict migrants
as criminals or rapists, frame Islam as an existential threat, and portray
political leaders as complicit in demographic destruction. These narratives
tend to intensify during moments of political salience (e.g., AfD’s success in
Germany) or following violent incidents in Europe or the United States (e.g.,
cases of alleged sexual assault). These incidents are presented as “evidence”
to support conspiratorial claims such as the Great Replacement theory.
Remigration is consequently heralded as a radical yet necessary policy response
to thwart perceived Western civilizational collapse. The positioning of
remigration within a national security framework further imbues the concept
with a sense of urgency and institutional legitimacy.
As a
euphemism, “remigration” connotes a fundamentally anti-democratic and
dehumanizing worldview. While the term originally developed as an expression of
anti-Muslim hostility — galvanized by decades of Islamophobic mobilization — it
has since evolved and adapted to new contexts to serve as a flexible tool of
weaponization against other marginalized groups.
In Europe
and the U.K., the primary target out-group continues to be Muslims with migrant
backgrounds. Although the targeted communities vary by country, they largely
encompass populations from North Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia, which
are collectively conflated as an imminent threat of Islamist extremism, sexual
and physical violence, and organized crime. In the U.S., by contrast,
remigration is most often directed towards (particularly undocumented) migrants
crossing the southern border — though this framing is not exclusive, as
demonstrated by the response to the Afghan refugee incident. Within segments of
the MAGA movement, especially among white nationalist adherents, any non-white
migrant is considered validly exposed to remigration efforts. Despite these
differing interpretations, political actors have increasingly weaponized the
concept of remigration to advance policy agendas, often at the behest of a
highly engaged grassroots base.
To date,
remigration has primarily functioned as a central mobilizing narrative within
far-right movements across the Global North. However, its adaptability suggests
the potential to spread to the Global South as well. In parts of Southeast
Asia, for example, exclusionary and dehumanizing rhetoric targeting Rohingya
refugees continues to proliferate, creating fertile ground for remigration
narratives. As this report demonstrates, the term’s malleability allows it to
be easily recontextualized to suit new contexts. The transnational architecture
of social media has made the exchange of ideas around remigration not only
possible but highly visible and rapidly scalable.
Ultimately,
this report serves as a case study in how a concept migrates from the margins
to the mainstream. The concept of remigration may still be abstract to the
general public, but its adoption and exponential embrace within political
discourse is deeply concerning. The term’s uptake symbolizes an ascendent,
globally connected far-right movement promoting an ethnonationalist vision that
seeks to leverage the full power of the state in order to violently target and
vilify migrants. Once a fringe concept, remigration has entered the highest
levels of political office through deliberate strategies of repetition,
institutional validation, and algorithmic amplification. Its ascent underscores
the urgent need to scrutinize not only extremist actors, but the discursive
pathways through which exclusionary ideas are rendered governable.
.jpeg)
