From a Remigration Summit in Portugal to a Save Europe Act petition in Brussels, a coordinated effort is being made to mainstream a once-fringe idea that experts say breaches fundamental rights.
Léa Marchal
Production: By Europod, in co-production with Sphera Network.
EUobserver is proud to have an editorial partnership with Europod to co-publish the podcast series “Briefed” hosted by Léa Marchal. The podcast is available on all major platforms.
Find the full transcript below:
“Remigration”. Born within the Belgian far right and later embraced in France and Austria, this concept refers to the forced or voluntary return of foreign nationals, but also legal migrants and even naturalised citizens, to their countries of origin. And it is becoming increasingly popular among right-wing forces across Europe.
Is this racial — and xenophobic — policy really realistic and feasible? What impact would it have on European economies and societies?
One month ago, around 500 people, including members of a dozen different European far-right parties — including Vox from Spain, AfD from Germany, and Reconquête from France — gathered on Portugal’s northern coast. They had all come for the second edition of the Remigration Summit.
Far-right political parties differ slightly on the use of the term “remigration” and its practical application, but broadly speaking they all agree that it would be based on three main pillars:
first, the deportation of illegal migrants and rejected asylum seekers; then the deportation of legal immigrants; and finally, that of naturalised citizens perceived as “unassimilated”.
In short, non-white people living in Europe.
Where does this idea come from?
The idea of making remigration compulsory was first put forward by the Belgian far right in the 1990s and was later taken up by French identitarians in the 2010s.
At the same time, the polemicist and future French presidential candidate Eric Zemmour introduced the theory of the “Great Replacement” into the political debate. The idea is simple: a process is underway to replace the French — and, more broadly, the European population — with a non-European population, originating primarily from sub-Saharan Africa and the Maghreb. In short, a non-white population.
This is precisely what remigration aims to counter. And while the term “Great Replacement” caused many people to recoil fifteen years ago, it has now found its place in political debates across many European countries.
Its so-called antidote, remigration, could well follow the same path and shift the Overton window — that is, the range of ideas perceived as acceptable by society at any given time — a little further to the right.
Are we there yet?
In Italy, where the idea has gained ground, the far-right group Remigrazione Reconquista is promoting a bill called the “Voluntary Remigration Pact”. They want to provide financial incentives to persuade people who permanently live in Italy to renounce their right of residence and any future possibility of obtaining Italian citizenship.
Yet, despite the xenophobic nature of this policy, remigration appears to be gaining support among the population as well. In just six months, the proposed bill has gathered nearly 150,000 signatures — three times the threshold required by the Italian Constitution to be submitted to Parliament, which may then decide to debate it.
At the European level, a group of activists has launched a campaign called the Save Europe Act. They are gathering signatures and want to launch a European Citizens’ Initiative.
What do they want? To reject asylum seekers and, going even further, they call for, I quote, “Establish a harmonised EU-wide framework for broader remigration, including voluntary and incentivised remigration measures for non-European migrants who are unintegrated or constitute a serious cultural or financial burden to member states.”
So far, the European Commission has carried out a preliminary assessment of the Save Europe Act and concluded that it is contrary to the EU’s core principles because it discriminates against people on the basis of their ethnic origin. It therefore warned that it may refuse to register the initiative.
Nevertheless, the petition calling for the initiative to be examined has already gathered nearly 500,000 signatures in just one month.
Setting aside the cynical principle of sending people back to countries they no longer belong to, what would be the actual cost of remigration?
Journalists at VD News, our Italian partners within the Sphera Network, note first of all that, according to figures from the Italian Home Office, the repatriation of illegal migrants would cost approximately €1.2bn.
And when it comes to repatriating people who are legally resident, the costs become much harder to estimate. Very substantial financial incentives would be needed, in addition to the funding required to facilitate their reintegration into their countries of origin.
And money can’t buy everything. As VD News points out: “no repatriation can take place without the cooperation of the state that is supposed to take that person back.” This new policy would therefore have to go hand in hand with the negotiation of bilateral agreements with numerous countries.
Perhaps most importantly, VD News explains that remigration would have an impact not only on public finances but also on the Italian economy. According to the Leone Moressa Foundation, the work of immigrants generates around €177bn in added value, equivalent to almost nine percent of GDP.
Finally, accepting the idea of remigration would go against the fundamental rights the EU has long defended. And it would mean accepting that people who have lived legally in Europe for years could suddenly be treated as illegitimate.
