The White House recently listed the term “remigration” as a word to “carry into the new year.” Yet for many, the concept remains taboo. The idea of returning migrants to their countries of origin is routinely dismissed as cruel and heartless. It’s often imagined as police and soldiers dragging families from their homes, tearing apart communities, and herding people onto planes and ships bound for underdeveloped places portrayed as backward or unlivable.
— The White House (@WhiteHouse) January 1, 2026
Look up “remigration” on Wikipedia, and you’ll get an idea of what the establishment thinks of the concept: “Remigration is a European far-right concept of ethnic cleansing via the mass deportation of non-white minority populations, especially immigrants and sometimes including those born in Europe and holding European citizenship, to their place of racial ancestry.”
Meanwhile, public discourse increasingly insists that questioning mass immigration is xenophobic and racist. Borders are cast as inherently cruel and exclusionary, nations dismissed as supremacist constructs, and the importation of millions from radically different cultures is framed not only as virtuous but absolutely necessary. Diversity, we are told, is always a strength, regardless of the social consequences.
And yet, almost none of that is true.
Remigration need not treat people like cattle—but mass immigration often does. There is something profoundly inhumane about uprooting human beings and treating them like interchangeable widgets and dispersing them across the globe for economic gain. Whether driven by force or by the lure of promised prosperity and welfare, large-scale population movement doesn’t just disrupt the host nations; it ultimately severs people from their heritage, their families, and their communities, leaving them rootless, dependent, and disconnected.
People should have a homeland, and those homelands are not neutral spaces to be populated and repopulated at the whim of global elites. They are the product of generations of labour, culture, and sacrifice. They are the inheritance built by previous generations, not for anyone in general, but specifically for their descendants. Treating people as cattle to be shuffled between nations to further global agendas by diluting national distinctions is not generosity—it is exploitation. It’s extraction. And it is costly.
Western leaders constantly assure us that they are attracting the “best and brightest” from the developing world—tomorrow’s doctors, engineers, and scientists—by offering education and opportunity. But even if this claim were true, then their policy is draining underdeveloped nations of the very people those societies need to build a better future.
Imagine Australia wanted more doctors and offered every physician in New Zealand higher pay and better benefits. If most New Zealand doctors accepted, what would happen to New Zealand? Its medical system would collapse. Arguably, mass immigration operates on the same principle worldwide. We are said to enrich ourselves, often at the expense of nations already struggling to survive.
That is—assuming Western nations are truly recruiting the makers of the world, and not the takers. If migrants are productive, their homelands pay the price. If they are unproductive, the host nation bears the cost. In either case, mass immigration creates victims; the only question is who they will be.
Thus, returning migrants to their homelands is not cruel. It is restoration. It helps the host nation, the home nation, and the migrants themselves. It reconnects people with family, community, culture, and heritage—those essential things Western elites convinced many to abandon in pursuit of financial gain. It restores the social networks that no government welfare program can replace.
Strong families and cohesive communities have always been humanity’s most enduring support structures. Governments cannot replace the bonds of kinship, tradition, and shared culture. Remigration helps restore these bonds, offering people a meaningful, stable life within the communities their ancestors built. And where such communities no longer exist, it provides the opportunity to rebuild them for future generations.
Large-scale immigration, on the other hand, will always have a detrimental effect on the host nation. It strains housing, healthcare, schools, transportation, and social trust. Assimilation becomes impossible when numbers overwhelm the native people and their culture. Parallel societies emerge. We end up with nations within nations. And, as we have increasingly witnessed, native populations are told demographic replacement is a moral duty, while being shamed and even threatened for noticing its negative effects.
Remigration relieves this pressure. It allows nations to remain cohesive, functional, and capable of genuine generosity, because a country that cannot house and care for its own citizens cannot meaningfully help others.
Furthermore, mass immigration also strains the asylum system. The line between those seeking economic opportunity and those fleeing war, persecution, or death becomes blurred. In fact, the pressure mass migration places on native populations can make them less willing, or even less able, to assist people in genuine, life-threatening need.
Remigration offers a clearer way to distinguish between those seeking opportunity and those fleeing annihilation—and only the latter truly qualify for asylum. Seen this way, remigration is not cruel; it is an exercise of moral responsibility and good stewardship.
Of course, remigration is bound to face opposition. Critics will label it authoritarian or cruel, often because they cannot argue honestly—and because too many are captive to a toxic form of empathy. No one is advocating the forced roundup of people based on skin colour, so that argument can be set aside. Criminal deportation and the removal of illegal entrants already exist under law and are uncontroversial outside noisy left-wing activist circles. But if that’s not what we’re talking about, what’s the best and most humane method of remigration if the people are in the country legally?
Obviously, people aren’t going to up and leave simply because they’re asked nicely. Remigration cannot simply rely on force—it must be voluntary. Not the stick, but the carrot. Just as incentives were once used to draw people en masse abroad, there must now be incentives to encourage them to invest in their homelands.
So first, the incentives to stay, such as welfare or free housing, must be withheld and perhaps redirected towards remigration. That is, offering financial assistance to those in need to get them resettled and reestablished in their homelands. Much of it will need to be done with the assistance and cooperation of their home governments.
Yes, it will cost the taxpayer. And the taxpayer would be right to object. But governments already burn vast sums importing and supporting people to cover demographic decline, policy failure, and economic mismanagement. Paying to undo the damage is far cheaper than pretending it does not exist. It costs regardless, but it should not be cast as an inhumane or cruel option.
In the end, returning migrants to their homelands strengthens the communities that produced them. Developing nations regain the professionals, builders, and innovators they need to properly develop and prosper. Families are reunited, and children grow up embedded in the culture and tradition of their own people, rather than feeling like aliens in a foreign land.
For the host nation, remigration reduces social tension, housing shortages, and welfare strain. It allows governments to focus resources on genuine refugees fleeing war and persecution, rather than economic migrants seeking opportunity.
Western nations do not need to endlessly import foreign populations to thrive. What they need is competent leadership, stable families, higher birth rates, and investment in their own people—investment in their own families. After all, a nation’s families are its future, and there is no greater institution for the government to invest in.
Developing nations do not need their most capable people siphoned away. They need sovereignty, stability, and the freedom to build without being hollowed out of their most energetic and ambitious citizens.
If current mass migration trends continue, host nations will continue to fracture under cultural and economic strain, while their home nations remain stripped of youth, talent, and opportunity to rise above their underdeveloped state.
Mass immigration, spun as humanitarianism, is often a veil for global opportunism and policy failure. Nothing more. Far from being a “far-right concept of ethnic cleansing,” remigration offers a path meaningful forward—for the migrant, for their host nation, and for their homeland.
