The term ‘remigration’, referring to attempts to induce or compel migrants to return to their countries of origin, has become increasingly common on social media. A recent report by the UK Extremism and Democratic Resilience Centre found that fully one third of Britons support remigration — a figure that was widely cited in the media.
The big problem with the term is that it’s not well-defined, with different people using it to mean vastly different things.
Some proponents of remigration simply advocate deporting illegal immigrants — which isn’t particularly controversial, since it would only mean enforcing laws that already exist. Indeed, a Find Out Now poll carried out on behalf of Restore Britain found that 63% of Britons would support a policy of “deporting all those living in the UK illegally”.
Other proponents of remigration go much further and call for deporting anyone who lacks native ancestry, including citizens and those who were born in the country.
By way of example, the AfD leader Alice Weidel endorses ‘remigration’ for Germany. However, she has clarified that by this she means “nothing other than deporting illegal immigrants, individuals not entitled to reside in the country, and criminals”. Weidel (a lesbian) is in a civil partnership with a Sri Lankan woman, so it is hardly surprising that she would not endorse the more extreme versions of the policy.
The aforementioned 33% figure is based on a poll by More in Common that asked respondents the following question.
Remigration is the idea that migrants, including those who come to the UK legally, should be encouraged or forced to leave the UK and return to their countries [of] origin, in order to preserve a country’s national identity and culture.
To what extent would you support or oppose remigration being introduced in this country?
On first glance, this seems to capture the more extreme versions of the policy, since it uses the word “forced” and refers to those “who come to the UK legally”.
However, the question suffers from a serious problem, namely that it only presents one side of the argument. It mentions “preserving a country’s national identity and culture” as a potential benefit of remigration without mentioning any potential costs, such as, say, “undermining the rule of law by retroactively removing people’s rights”. A more neutral question would mention both the benefits and the costs.
As an aside, this was the same problem that afflicted a question in a poll back in 2024, which found that a third of Britons endorse violence against migrants. Scrutiny of polls that asked more appropriate questions, and of tables provided by the polling company itself, revealed that the true figure is closer to 10%.
Another issue is that respondents may have interpreted “migrants” to mean “recent migrants who do not have the right to stay” rather than, say, “citizens or those who were born here”. They may have had in mind groups like asylum seekers and low-skilled foreign workers.
Indeed, there are indications in the tables provided by More in Common that the question was not widely understood as referring to the more extreme versions of remigration.
The first is that a third of respondents answered “don’t know” or “neither support nor oppose” — much higher than you’d expect for such a contentious policy. The second is that 22% of non-white respondents said they supported the policy, which isn’t substantially lower than the 35% of white respondents who said the same. The third is that 26% of Liberal Democrat voters said they supported the policy. These voters, who are supposedly some of the most liberal in the country, opposed remigration by a ratio of only 2:1.
In light of all these considerations, I wouldn’t attach much weight to the figure from the recent report.
On the other hand, YouGov asked a related question in a poll last year and obtained a similar or, indeed, slightly higher figure. Specifically, it asked respondents whether they would support or oppose a policy of “admitting no more new migrants, and requiring large numbers of migrants who came to the UK in recent years to leave”. 45% of Britons said they would.
However, the item is rather ambiguous, and several follow-up questions revealed that respondents who answered “support” were not actually in favour of remigration for most categories of migrants. For example, when these respondents were asked whether large numbers of people who came “to seek asylum following the correct legal process” should be required to leave, only 39% said they should — which equates to just 16% of respondents overall.
‘Remigration’ is a poorly defined term. At one extreme, it refers to the removal of people who are living in the country illegally. At the other, it refers to the removal of anyone who lacks native ancestry. Substantially more than half of Britons support the former policy. We don’t know exactly what fraction supports the latter, but it’s likely much less than a third.
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to the Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Immigration has become a virtual Free for All. The goal is Global Governance, and in order to achieve that, National Identity, Culture, History and Tradition has to be diluted.
That is what the EU and UK have and are attempting to do because the EU is simply the Dummy Run for Global Governance and the the Political Class in the UK are still aligning themselves with the EU.
I fear the country is LOST. ——What used to be a Nation is now simply a Region, and talk of “remigration” is a pipe dream for those people who remember us as we were and who want to be part of a Nation State, rather than be governed from afar by Technocrats they never heard of or voted for.
You may well be right on the money there!
I support the deportation of illegal migrants.
I support the deportation of all foreign criminals. Jail time is irrelevant; if they have been found guilty of committing a crime they should not be here.
I support the withdrawal of all welfare and social benefits (ie housing) for people living here who do not have British citizenship. If they cannot support themselves, they should not be here. I support giving them a small sum of money to help them resettle “back home.”
I would support a policy that universities and employers who import someone (students, workers) should have to pay an up front sum of money (say £10,000) per individual as surety that the individual will leave when their course/visa ends and it will be forfeited if they don’t. If that means some of our visa-selling “universities” have to close down, so be it.
What kind of reception would I receive if I just showed up at the border of Pakistan or Afghanistan having destroyed personal documentation and claiming to be a child?
Don’t you think the UK’s response to thousands of invaders should be at least similar?
Everyone who has been given refugee status or indefinite leave to remain, with the exception of EU citizens who were given ILR following Brexit, including people who have been given citizenship should have their claim re-examined and much much tougher criteria applied to ensure there’s a very high chance of them facing serious persecution if sent home. For example they’d have to prove they’d been involved in a lot of anti-government protests or belonged to a banned opposition group rather than just coming from a country where the government persecutes a few dissidents.
Anyone not born in the UK who needs to claim benefits for more than 6 months should be deported, anyone can be unlucky, loose their job and need to claim benefits for a short period before they find another one. This would include benefits such as income support and housing benefit that people who work part time and have a low income as well as family members claiming benefits if a spouse works. Every criminal who wasn’t born in the UK should go.
Removing people born in the UK who don’t want to integrate and adopt predominately British values, this mainly applies to Muslims, would be a… Read more »
I do.
100% – it’s them or us.
The options offered were not sufficiently detailed.
I anticipate most of those who support any sort of remigration would expect spouses and dependents to leave as well.
Try asking if anyone not a British citizen should cease to get benefits for themselves or dependents. I anticipate an 80% agreement. Many will find the question itself obtuse.
For criminals I expect the vote would be for their non-British dependents to leave with them.
Next we one to joint nationals. That is people with another state affiliation apart from Britain (UK). I expect the public would think we should not give benefits nor tolerate criminality
Illegals – surely over 90% think they should leave unless the polling is done in London or a woke University city.
That would solve the housing problem, the shortage of prison cells, the rape gang problem and the national budget would be much improved.
Public transport would no longer be overwhelmed. British kids could get places in better schools, at University (where justified) and jobs.
All dual-nationalities should be examined. China does not recognise British/Chinese dual nationality, (only the Chinese part) but we recognise both Chinese/British dual nationality. One-sided and unacceptable.
If someone entered the country without permission or is here illegally they should be removed. Gosh, that wasn’t hard, was it? Just think how that policy could help the desperate inhabitants of Piddington, Crowborough and elsewhere. The thing is, the regime has no intention whatsoever of adopting this policy and it will not stop the invasion.
I would add.
If you came here legally but are unable to support yourself, no benefits. Go.
If you brought your extended family here because some wet lefty judges said so. Go.
If you avow hate for this country and wish to build a new caliphate. Go.
If you have participated in the mass r#pe of our young children. Go. And if your family knew and said nothing. Go
Millions must leave.
There is an easier and cheaper solution—-Announce quite clearly that if anyone enters the country uninvited they will receive NOTHING.—-No food, no money and no accommodation. —-Tomorrow NONE will arrive. There will be no need for deportations etc etc.
The political establishment have, it would appear by their actions, demonstrated that they have no intention of stopping the invasion – quite the opposite – they appear to have adopted the view that they must strive to hasten the flow to achieve the point where the white Briton must accept that they are to become a minority in their own country.