Talk:Remigration

Greenland

@Carewolf has, twice, attempted to insert an unsourced claim about a center-right political party from Greenland. I have reverted on the basis on lack of applicable citations but I really, really dislike edit warring so let's please come here to discuss whether this is appropriate for this page. Simonm223 (talk) 17:35, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Undue material

I removed a bunch of national summaries that boiled down to either "a speech made by a single MEP" or less. I tried to retain anything where "remigration" policies were being considered by those states in some even remotely realistic sense but it was becoming a clearing house for WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTBLOG trivia. Simonm223 (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

United Kingdom, suggested edit

Under United Kingdom, it currently mentions that Restore Britain uses 'remigration rhetoric'. However, as of this week, the party's official spokesperson, Charlie Downes, has for the first time stated that its official policy includes "embarking on an ambitious process of civilised remigration". https://x.com/cfdownes_/status/2053830281920987281

Perhaps this significant change in the party's position should be noted? ~2026-28800-74 (talk) 00:13, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

that's basically remigration rhetoric though? User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 02:47, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Agree. Calling it "civilized" is supposed to be "significant"? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:14, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

I think what they mean is the difference between using the rhetoric of remigration without the literal use of the term, vs. just saying the word outright? But that's just my best guess here. Harryhenry1 (talk) 09:34, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

I think my query is whether whether it is "remigration rhetoric" anymore, after they have started to use the term outright?

Surely it more accurate to say "Restore Britain directly advocates for remigration" instead of "rhetoric"? ~2026-28832-70 (talk) 21:09, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, it's a primary source, so it would be better not to use it unless secondary sources take note. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:49, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Source from the Jacobin

Should the article be using sources from the Jacobin? It seems to be a bit biased towards socialism

https://jacobin.com/2025/09/herzog-postmodern-fascism-afd-maga Regna sereno intenso ed infinito (talk) 20:17, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:JACOBIN, its an opinion site. If its due, we have to wp:Attribute it User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 21:08, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

it's cited alone Regna sereno intenso ed infinito (talk) 21:46, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

The citation here is specific to a book review of Dagmar Herzog's new book. She is an expert in studies of political extremism and has made significant contributions to the study of contemporary fascism. While we could change the citation directly to her book this would be replacing WP:SECONDARY coverage of an expert's views with WP:PRIMARY. For the time being I've restored the Jacobin cite but recommend we add a second cite directly to Herzog's book. Simonm223 (talk) 14:12, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

what's the book called? Regna sereno intenso ed infinito (talk) 14:13, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

It's literally the first line of the Jacobin source you removed: The New Fascist Body (Wirklichkeit Books, 2025) Simonm223 (talk) 14:29, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Remigration Is a texbook definition

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)

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)

Hatnote

The hatnote is helpful: “This article is about the political promotion of coerced or forced deportation. For the social science concept, see Return migration.” However, this leaves out that the word “remigration” is used for the target article. In other words, people who come to this article, who are specifically interested in the social science concept called “remigration”, will not necessarily understand if it’s covered in this article or the other one. Another issue is that a large majority of people in many countries support involuntary return of people who have not immigrated lawfully, so does the scope of the present article include those majorities, and label them as "far-right"? A third issue with the hatnote is that it's unclear why the present article is not about a social science concept; the article on return migration says it's about both voluntary and involuntary return, and this article is presumably a subset of that one.

There are several ways to deal with all this. For example:
(1) We could use a piped link in the hatnote, like “Remigration (voluntary or not)”; or
(2) We could set up a redirect and link to it without piping; or
(3) We could rephrase the hatnote for clarity, to say something like, “This article is about involuntary return of people, who immigrated legally, to their countries of origin or ancestry. For return regardless of voluntariness or legality, see Return migration, sometimes called remigration.”
My preference is #3. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:21, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Some of the examples in this article seem to be about politicians talking about illegal immigrants, so I'm not sure your phrasing in #3 is accurate. I've updated the hatnote to say: This article is about the political promotion of coerced or forced deportation. For the more general social science concept that is sometimes called "remigration", see Return migration. Hopefully that helps a little? Cadddr (talk) 15:10, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I like that. Simonm223 (talk) 15:11, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

That's a little better. But I would still like to know if the scope of this article includes political promotion of coerced or forced deportation of people who immigrated unlawfully. Because then a fairly large percentage of people in the U.S., for example, would be covered by this article. Between 40% and 60% depending on how the question is asked. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:48, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately the answer is that these things exist on a spectrum. It's easy to say a person who, for example, deploys the slogan "no person is illegal" or "borders are made up" opposes remigration. It's also easy to say that a person who seeks to end birthright citizenship and deport people on the basis of skin colour unambiguously support remigration. For those 40-58% of US citizens polled in this article who, depending on how the question is framed, support the deportation of immigrants classified as illegal. I mean... Kind of yes, kind of no. There are probably many within that group who would be morally incensed at the idea of remigration (likely including the entirety of the 18% who changed answer depending on question framing) and who would not see their support for deportation of "illegal" immigrants as being the same thing. And there are probably also people within the 40% who did not change their answers who would have no problem with ending birthright citizenship. The problem here is that the forced deportation of "illegal immigrants" is a related and overlapping phenomenon with forced remigration. You're asking for us to square a circle here but I think the truth (as supported by reliable sources) is that it's more of a Venn diagram. Simonm223 (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, we seem to be currently implying that 40% to 60% of the U.S. population favors "a far-right concept referring to ... ethnic cleansing," If that's not what is intended, then the opening paragraph ought to be clarified accordingly. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Again, I'm sorry that this article cannot give you the clarity you want about 40-60% of Americans but the problem is not the opening paragraph - the problem is the vagueness of how public opinion polls captured their opinions and the dubiousness of the category of "illegal immigration" within sociological and geographical academic literature. This is a domain issue to a certain extent. I suspect Average American Survey Respondent is not reading journals on regular and irregular human migration patterns. But those of us who edit these sorts of articles are. Simonm223 (talk) 19:00, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Also, just to note, the phrase Mass deportation is a specific one that is likely differentiated from what non-racist survey respondents intend and expect when it comes to deporting irregular migrants. Simonm223 (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

It would seem quite simple and straightforward to say in the opening paragraph whether deportation of immigrants is included in the article scope if they immigrated unlawfully. Or does it depend on the motivations of those who support deporting them? I think this article would be a lot more focused and useful if it would only discuss the far-right supporters of deporting even people who have immigrated legally. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:06, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

As I've tried to explain above, you're asking for too narrow a box for a rhetorical territory that has permeable boundaries. The answer is sometimes yes, sometimes no. Simonm223 (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Okay, if that's how the article should be, then let's clarify up front that not everyone who supports enforcement of immigration laws is included in the article scope, because there are many motivations besides ethnic cleansing for supporting enforcement of immigration laws. Incidentally, such reasons include a belief that a country would be overwhelemed if borders were opened, a belief that too much immigration can lead to non-assimilation, stuff like that. If this article is not intended to paint 40 to 60% of American as far-right racists, then it would be quite easy to remove that implication. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:15, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

• My suggestion per the discussion below is to add: “This article is about the political promotion of coerced or forced deportation for the purpose of ethnic cleansing. For the social science concept, see Return migration.” The clarification that it is for the purpose of ethnic cleansing is central to what makes remigration its own topic and separates it from other forms of deportation, and reflects the first sentence of the lead. This would address the concern that people might come across the page and think that it covers other deportation initiatives that are not aimed at ethnic cleansing. --Aquillion (talk) 19:41, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

  For now, this sounds agreeable to me. I sympathize with the confusion as this is a semi-complex term that has seemingly become a casualty of dog whistle politics, but the sources interpreting the various meanings appear legitimate. Cheers. DN (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah, that's fine. Simonm223 (talk) 23:46, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

  Seems reasonable to me. Cadddr (talk) 04:06, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand why you guys didn't just change the title and have remigration redirect to the far more reasonable article. This is just confusing. ~2026-34318-36 (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Clarifying article scope in the opening paragraph

At the end of the opening paragraph, I suggest we add this sentence: "Concern about non-assimilation is one of many non-racist reasons (justified or not) why people may support using deportation to enforce immigration laws, whereas the present article is focused solely on the racists." Here are a couple footnotes for the end of that sentence:

• Miller, David (2016). Strangers in our Midst: The Political Philosophy of Immigration. Harvard University Press. ISBN 9780674969803.
• Caldwell, Christopher (2009). Reflections on the Revolution in Europe: Immigration, Islam, and the West. Doubleday. ISBN 9780385529242.

Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:38, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

This seems pretty WP:SYNTH to me. You're trying to selectively minimize scope on the basis of two citations. Simonm223 (talk) 20:14, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

And at least one of those is a journalist rather than an academic. Simonm223 (talk) 20:15, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Doesn't seem likely to belong in the opening graph per MOS:OPEN and WP:LEADREL. Even with attribution it doesn't seem appropriate to put it at the top. Maybe in the last paragraph of the lead if it has enough WEIGHT, but not likely? Cheers. DN (talk) 23:05, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I’m not using them for the positions asserted, I specifically disavowed them when I said “justified or not.” Look, we’re already implying that anyone who supports mass deportations is a far-right racist. If you think clarifying otherwise is “minimizing scope” then this article is a biased opinion piece that deserves deletion as WP:POVFORK of return migration. If you don’t like the particular sources I chose, both from reputable publishers, then go ahead and select two others. Meanwhile, I will look for particular quotes instead of entire books. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:56, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Was taking a look over this article as it'd been brought up on another talk page.

It seems neither of those sources explicitly refer to remigration, so their inclusion would be WP:OR.

Strangers in our midst : the political philosophy of immigration

Reflections on the revolution in Europe : immigration, Islam, and the West Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:20, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Well sure. Remigration has often referred to non-racist immigration enforcement, but using one of those sources here is forbidden because this article is about the new, explicitly racist uses of the term. All the while we fail to say here that deportations can have non-racist motivations. It’s a catch-22. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:24, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't mean that they're using some definition of remigration different from this article, I mean that they don't use the term remigration at all. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:29, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

So using synonyms isn’t good enough. And using published books by journalists isn’t good enough. Are you saying that you don’t mind if I use a source explicitly using the old sense of the word “Remigration” which doesn’t use it in a racist sense, or is that unacceptable as well? All that’s going on here is an effort to portray immigration enforcement as racist, without any balanced explanation that it isn’t necessarily always so. This is a POV fork of return migration. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:35, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

To clarify, are you saying it is a POV fork because "we fail to say here that deportations can have non-racist motivations"? Cheers. DN (talk) 23:40, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I’m saying it’s a POV Fork because another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) has been created here to present a particularly negative point of view on the same subject. Editors here have said they’re not interested in simply confining the present article’s scope in the first paragraph where it belongs, to racist deportations, and are not interested in acknowledging that there is substantial support for mass deportations on grounds other than racism. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:44, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

This article is about a specific term, so we can't use sources that don't mention that term to define its scope. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:57, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

This is not Wiktionary. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:02, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

The Hatnote seems to address this, and the 3 suggestions above to improve it further seem more appropriate than adding a sentence that seems to defeat the purpose of the Hatnote, but I could be wrong. Cheers. DN (talk) 01:28, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Do you have secondary sources supporting the idea that Remigration has often referred to non-racist immigration enforcement? My understanding was that before the far-right usage described in this article, it was mainly used in academic social science (not by governments or politicians), often in reference to voluntary migration. Politicians just used words like "deportation" or "repatriation". As far as I know, it's very recent that the use of the word in reference to mass deportation moved from the far right to the mainstream. Cadddr (talk) 09:34, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

We should not be saying in wikivoice "the contents of this article only apply to racist supporters of mass deportation and not the good supporters of mass deportation" in the lead and on the basis of weak citations. This article is about a far-right term surrounding mass deportation but, even if it were Wikipedia's job to absolve some supporters of mass deportation of a perceived moral stain (it is not), the problem remains that this is not something with sharp boundaries. Simonm223 (talk) 10:51, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Here, let me clarify what I'm getting at with some sources. I am looking at peer reviewed articles about mass-deportation in the United States published before 2016 in order to cut away the Trump of it all.

1. NATIONAL VITALITY, MIGRANT ABJECTION, AND COERCIVE MOBILITY: THE BIOPOLITICAL HISTORY OF AMERICAN DEPORTATION. Authors:Blue, Ethan1, Leonardo; 2015, Vol. 48 Issue 3, p268-269, 2p In the early 20th century, rail technologies enabled an economical assemblage of steel and law, of racism and politics, attempting national purification by expelling 'undesirable aliens.' The process differentiated between the categories of privileged citizenship and abject alien-age. The possibilities of national cleansing through deportation allowed new modes of sovereign governance, defined territories, and controlled populations--foundational aspects of modern nationhood.
2. The Public and the Politics of Immigration Controls. By: Gilligan, Chris, Journal of Ethnic & Migration Studies, 1369183X, Aug2015, Vol. 41, Issue 9 There are a range of different factors—including the stage of the policy process, the role of actors, institutional frameworks (such as political system or legal obligations), mass media representations, flows of immigration, 'external shocks' or events (such as the 9/11 attacks), other Government policies (such as welfare reform or housing policy) and subjective factors (such as ideology or the framing of issues —which mediate the relationship between the public and immigration policy-making). Further exploration of these mediating relationships is likely to benefit from both extensive single case studies (which should provide insights into the relative importance of mediating factors and their interactional effect), and comparative studies (which should provide insights into what are country specific and what are more general factors).
   We have tried to make the case for bringing the place of the public in immigration control policy into sharper focus. We hope that by bringing the varied contributions to this collection together into one place we will help to draw attention to the complexity of the topic, and stimulate further research
3. Recession and the Risks of Illegality: Governing the Undocumented in the United States. By: Boehme, Eric, New Political Science (Taylor & Francis Ltd), 07393148, Dec2011, Vol. 33, Issue 4Recessions always bring about a host of political arguments for deregulation, for a renewed effort to implement neoliberal policies. These arguments are based on concepts of individual behavior and responsibility from neoliberal ideologies. According to these claims, budget deficits and the bubbles of the recession are created by the behavior of people, the dependencies shaped by state regulation, and the uncompetitive environment states generate by their overregulation. The political discourse of neoliberalism and the rationalities of limiting state power for free trade, deregulation, and open markets, all involve this devolution of responsibility onto the individual. Here the discourse of the criminality of undocumented immigrants gets welded to anti-welfare language and forms a potent anti-immigrant set of arguments.
4. The New Right and the Old West. Rizzi, Nicholas, Journal of the West. Winter2015, Vol. 54 Issue 1, p64-73. 10p.Further exacerbating racial tensions and consolidating racialized identities was the creation of the Border Patrol in 1924. The Border Patrol’s actions transformed their broad mission to regulate unauthorized migration into the almost exclusive targeting of ethnic Mexicans whose phenotype marked them as “illegal.”4
5. THE AFTERMATH OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001: THE TARGETING OF ARABS AND MUSLIMS IN AMERICA. By: Akram, Susan M., Arab Studies Quarterly, 02713519, Spring/Summer2002, Vol. 24, Issue 2/3In contrast, the new provision will deny visas to broad classes of aliens who will now be ineligible for adjustment of status, release pending deportation, asylum and withholding of removal, with no more than an unrebutted presumption on the part of the government that they were associated with someone engaging in terrorist activity. Anyone who has been involved in a knife fight will be inadmissible under the new law. No more than prior law, the Patriot Act will not make immigration officers mind readers, to be able to determine what an individual with no past criminal history plans to do on entering the United States.

What I am trying to present with these sources is that mass deportation is a complicated topic that involves multi-directional influence flows. It's actually a misnomer to cite any given survey and say, unambiguously, that it represents a certain percentage of the population with a natural inclination toward support for mass deportation as many of these tools of deportation involve not just public influence on states but also on state influence on the public. And this is a situation that predates Trumpism, the alt-right and the "remigration" discourse. So, no, we can't just conveniently narrow this to "the racist ones" because that also assumes that there are unchanging categories. @Anythingyouwant I keep telling you that this is a field of study where definition is messy and clear boundaries do not abound. I hope these citations help to demonstrate what I mean. Simonm223 (talk) 11:18, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm guessing this wasn't meant to be a reply to my comment? I totally agree, though. Cadddr (talk) 12:04, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, threaded replies. I tagged @Anythingyouwant in the second one. Simonm223 (talk) 12:06, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• I'm not certain I understand precisely what you're suggesting here. Are you saying we should add the bolded text to the article? To the hatnote? Do you genuinely, actually believe that that language is something we could insert in a hatenote? And can you point to the quote, or at least the page, in those sources that you feel supports your assertion that Concern about non-assimilation is one of many non-racist reasons (justified or not) why people may support using deportation to enforce immigration laws - I searched the sources you presented for "racist" and didn't find anything relevant; I assume there's a specific page where you feel they explicitly say "whether justified or not, these reasons why people support remigration are not racist" (or something that you feel functionally paraphrases to that) but you'll have to point it out to me. If they simply talk about concerns over non-assimilation without mentioning racism that obviously isn't enough to describe those concerns as "non-racist" in the article voice; you would need a source explicitly labeling them that way (or using analogous terms.) But at the very least you'll need to point to the specific page and how you feel your proposal summarizes it. (I would also point out that the article itself doesn't mention the term racism, which makes your proposal nonsensical; the part you seem to object to is far-right, so what you really need is a source describing remigration as something that isn't part of the far-right. The two terms are not synonymous.) --Aquillion (talk) 02:42, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I believe both the subheader and the first comment in this subsection refer explicitly to the opening paragraph. I will change the header level to make that more clear. I'm a little bit hesitant to scour for quotes, because there was sentiment here that any quote would need to include the magic word "remigration". But I will try to scour tomorrow. You also seem a bit hung up on a particular word ("racist") whereas this article clearly refers to that concept, e.g. when it uses words like "ethnic cleansing" and "racial" and "identitarian" all in the opening paragraph. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:33, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

I mean, it's important to be precise; the wording around these things matters. Remigration is a very specific and narrow concept that sources describe as referring to the ethnic cleansing via mass deportation of non-white minority populations, especially immigrants and sometimes including native-born citizens, to their place of racial ancestry. It's not an umbrella term for all deportations, obviously; if you have other sources that refer to the use of forced deportation as a mechanism for ethnic cleansing (central to the definition of remigration), which specifically says that they want to do so non-racist reasons, we could consider whether that boils down to remigration even if they avoid the word; but it feels more like what you're actually pushing to assert is "deportations also occur outside the context of remigration", which, while trivially true, doesn't seem meaningful or leadworthy. Alternatively, if you believe we are getting the definition of remigration wrong (ie. you don't think the term necessarily involves ethnic cleansing) then of course you will need sources using the term explicitly. Either way, to reiterate, do you genuinely believe that Concern about non-assimilation is one of many non-racist reasons (justified or not) why people may support using deportation to enforce immigration laws, whereas the present article is focused solely on the racists is something that we could put in the opening paragraph of an article, in the article voice? It feels like a slightly WP:POINTy suggestion to me. --Aquillion (talk) 17:57, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

If you think that statement is basically correct but too POINTy, then please suggest what phrasing would be acceptable. If Wikipedia has an article about people who spit in order to spread disease, then perhaps it would be worth mentioning up front that people spit for other reasons too. Otherwise it's just a crummy POV fork meant to make spitting seem a lot worse than it actually is. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:00, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

As I said, we already clarify things when we say, in the very first sentence, Remigration is a far-right concept referring to the ethnic cleansing via mass deportation of non-white minority populations... That makes it clear that deportation that isn't related to ethnic cleansing is excluded from its definition. Beyond that, you should WP:DROPTHESTICK; it should be obvious at this point that no one agrees with your perspective on the article. --Aquillion (talk) 15:44, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

This was a helpful edit you just made to the hatnote, thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:47, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

The book by Christopher Caldwell, Reflections on the Revolution in Europe, belong to the eurabian literature thus is unreliable for Wikipedia. I do not know this David Miller, but Wikipedia has an article about him. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 10:46, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

This article is unfortunately very biased, and is in need of an NPOV template.

From a brief glance at it's contents, I see it immediately referred to as being the concept of deporting "non-white" peoples. This is biased as it refers to it only from the point of view of "majority-white" European nations, while the concept may also be employed by other nations not fitting that description calling for the deportation of historical immigrant families. "Remigration" could also apply to immigrations classed as "white" from other countries.

It as if I invited a single friend of mine who happened to be homosexual to a private function, and am then accused of being biased against heterosexuals due to the fact I did not invite any. The nationality of familial origin is what is in the crosshairs - not the colour of their skins, although that is not to say that the term cannot be employed as a "dog whistle" for racist cleansings by those who do have such characteristics in mind. ~2026-35289-70 (talk) 01:59, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on what reliable sources say on how the term is actually used. Not on how users think how it "could" be used. Your problem is that the article is not in line with your opinion, but the rules do not require it to be. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:39, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Trust 'Hob Gadling', political Wikipedia's very own Vladislav Surkov, to be both incredibly incorrect and atrociously confident whilst doing so. Who says this article is about a term rather than a concept? It says "concept" directly in the opening line.

Perhaps your time would be better spent reading the articles you discuss rather than engaging in succinct, smug "take downs", which I see you doing here frequently. ~2026-35289-70 (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources that would justify changing the article or not? If not, there is nothing to do here. This page is neither for chatting about your homsexual friends nor for comparing other users to Russian guys I never heard of. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:54, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

If you have/know reliable sources about the Remigration concept being used by other groups than white supremacist, then add the Template:Globalize to the article. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 16:10, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Euphemisms should be avoided

Per WP:Euphemism:

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)

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)