Remigration is often conflated with mass deportation – but the concept is more complex than that, explains its main proponent Martin Sellner.
Remigration, a policy advocating the return of migrants to their home countries, is gaining momentum in European politics, with figures like Martin Sellner and parties such as the AfD and FPÖ leading the controversial debate on reversing migration flows to preserve ethnocultural cohesion.
In November 2024, the Bavarian branch of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party adopted a “Resolution for Remigration,” calling for the return of migrants, including those deemed insufficiently integrated, to their countries of origin. This move has ignited significant controversy and drawn criticism from various political figures and parties that view it as a discriminatory policy. Herbert Kickl, leader of the Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ), has championed a similar stance, incorporating remigration into his party’s platform as a means to address immigration and preserve national identity, further amplifying the debate.
Martin Sellner is an Austrian political activist and a leading figure in the Identitarian movement of Austria. In his book Remigration: A Proposal (2024), Sellner outlines strategies for the remigration of culturally, economically, politically, and religiously non-assimilable foreigners. He emphasizes distinguishing remigration from inhumane scenarios, proposing a structured approach to reverse what he terms “replacement migration,” a phenomenon he argues has been ongoing in Europe for decades.
Given his extensive involvement in anti-immigration movements, Sellner is regarded as an expert on remigration concepts. His proposals have influenced political discourse, as evidenced by the Bavarian AfD’s resolution. In this interview with Sellner, we discuss his perspectives on remigration, exploring the motivations behind his proposals, the practicalities of implementing such policies, and their potential societal impacts.
What specific mechanisms or policies do you propose to implement remigration in a way that avoids social instability or international condemnation?
Remigration is based on voluntariness and seeks to reverse the push-and-pull factors of migration by creating incentives for emigration while removing those that encourage harmful immigration. To avoid social instability, the process is implemented gradually and in phases, using ultimatums and announcements where appropriate, depending on the severity of each case. International criticism is addressed by forming broad coalitions across Europe and aligning with countries like England, Canada, and the United States, which are already rethinking their migration policies.
How would remigration policies address the potential economic impacts of reducing migrant populations, particularly in aging societies that depend on migrant labor?
The demographic crisis is often used to justify population substitution and replacement migration, based on the misleading argument that such policies will help fund pensions. In reality, non-European immigration, particularly from North Africa and Arab countries, has been shown to increase the need for skilled labor rather than alleviating it, while also placing significant burdens on healthcare and education systems. Numerous studies have confirmed this, showing that this type of migration generates more costs than benefits. Remigration, particularly of illegal migrants and those who present economic or cultural disadvantages, would significantly ease these burdens. While labor shortages in areas like caregiving exist, the long-term solution lies in promoting domestic labor forces and family policies, as demonstrated by countries like Japan and South Korea, even though transitional measures may still be necessary in the short term.
Are there historical or contemporary examples of large-scale population remigrations that influenced your thinking? What lessons do they offer?
Yes, there are several historical examples of remigration. One significant case is the population exchange between Greece and Turkey, which partly inspired the concept. While this process involved considerable hardships, it successfully prevented many potential civil wars, as illustrated by the situation in Cyprus. In this exchange, the Greek minority in Turkey moved to Greece, and the Turkish minority in Greece relocated to Turkey. Other examples include the reversal of demographic trends in Fiji, where tens of thousands of Indians returned to their country of origin, and recent mass repatriations of Afghans from Pakistan. In the United States, Operation Wetback saw over 1.1 million illegal immigrants returned to Mexico in a single year. The key takeaway from these examples is that migration is not a one-way street. Throughout history, mass migrations have often been followed by remigration movements. It is crucial to acknowledge this reality and foster open, honest discussions about the implications and challenges of such policies.
How do you intend to shift public opinion towards accepting remigration as a legitimate and necessary policy? What steps do you consider essential to make remigration concepts socially and politically acceptable to the majority?
For remigration to gain widespread acceptance, it is essential to highlight its tangible benefits, such as safer streets, more affordable housing, and reduced costs for childcare and education. There are many factors to consider, and overall, eliminating the costs associated with failed integration – such as social welfare payments to migrants, the high expenses for imprisonment, unaccompanied minors, and the surveillance of Islamic extremists – would significantly benefit the state. This would especially help the working population, which would also face less competitive pressure from migrant labor.
It is equally important to point out that mass emigration harms migrants’ countries of origin. In the long term, providing local support – such as improving infrastructure and opportunities in his home country – offers a better solution for the individual migrant. Population replacement neither solves poverty in the migrants’ home countries nor helps our declining birthrate. In fact, it is a misguided approach that worsens both issues. Many Germans are choosing not to have children because the influx of migrants has made it increasingly difficult to afford private schools and kindergartens.
The Bavarian AfD has officially endorsed remigration. Do you believe that other regional branches of the AfD or similar parties in Germany will follow this example?
The remigration resolution passed by the Bavarian AfD is a bold and commendable move, especially considering that the concept of remigration is absent from the federal AfD’s program for the 2025 elections. This omission, in my view, undermines the party’s credibility on this issue. The recent election results in Austria have shown that a clear focus on remigration can win votes, as demonstrated by Herbert Kickl’s emphasis on the topic just before the decisive vote. The Bavarian AfD’s initiative should serve as a model for others as right-wing parties must embrace authentic and distinctive remigration policies to retain their unique identity in an increasingly crowded political landscape.
Do you see the AfD as a long-term reliable partner for advancing the concept of remigration at the political level, or do you fear that party-political tactics might dilute the original vision?
Within the AfD, there is a clear division between those who prioritize pragmatic, immediate political gains – even at the cost of core principles – and those who remain committed to preserving the party’s ideological foundation, including the concept of remigration. The Bavarian AfD’s resolution is a reminder of the importance of staying true to these principles, particularly at a time when rhetoric critical of migration is becoming mainstream. If the AfD abandons its commitment to remigration, it risks losing its unique appeal and alienating its voter base.
The Bavarian AfD’s resolution has sparked widespread criticism and has been labeled as “extremely xenophobic.” How do you respond to such accusations in the context of your own remigration concepts?
This resolution, in my view, is by no means extremely xenophobic. On the contrary, it is discriminatory against natives when a state refuses to regulate migration. It is the most natural thing in the world for a state to choose its migration policies and to stop or reverse migration that harms it. There is, of course, no international right to immigrate to Germany and live off the taxpayers. I find these accusations transparent, consider them to be fearmongering, and, in my opinion, they are entirely unsubstantiated.
To what extent do the AfD’s ideas align with your own views on remigration? Are there areas where you perceive discrepancies or differences?
My approach to remigration is broader and more detailed than the AfD’s current framework as it includes a quota-based migration system inspired by the 1924 U.S. Immigration Act as well as the establishment of model cities in North Africa to facilitate structured returns. Additionally, my three-phase model of remigration offers a more comprehensive roadmap, which parties like the FPÖ and AfD have yet to fully adopt. However, the Bavarian AfD’s resolution is a strong step in the right direction.
Do you believe that the AfD’s voter base is well-informed about the idea of remigration, or do you see a risk that they might reduce the concept to simple deportation policies?
I believe that the voter bases of the FPÖ and AfD understand remigration in the same way we do. For us, remigration means reversing migration flows and implementing migration policies with the clear goal of ensuring that Germany remains Germany – that the German culture, language, and native population continue to form the defining majority in the country. This is precisely why people vote for the AfD and FPÖ.
They vote not just for the deportation of illegal immigrants but for the achievement of a broader goal. That goal is to stop population replacement, over-foreignization, and Islamization. What people truly want is remigration because only remigration can achieve this objective: to prevent Germany from becoming Arabized, Austria from becoming Africanized, and Europe from becoming Islamized. People reject these outcomes, which is why they support right-wing parties, as only remigration can deliver on this goal.
How could a nuanced representation of remigration be achieved if the concept is officially supported by a party like the AfD?
I believe the concept of remigration can be presented in a nuanced and balanced way through education and clear communication. It is essential for both the AfD and non-parliamentary actors to emphasize that remigration is not just about deportation. Deportation should only apply to illegal migrants. Remigration is a broader concept that includes fostering a strong guiding [majority] culture, overcoming societal guilt and self-hatred, creating meaningful pressure for assimilation, reforming citizenship laws, and providing substantial support to migrants’ home countries. This support should focus on structural and developmental projects that offer people viable opportunities in their countries of origin. Such measures not only discourage migration but can also motivate individuals to return, fostering sustainable solutions for both the host and home countries.
Could the AfD, despite controversies, serve as a catalyst for bringing the concept of remigration into Germany’s political agenda?
The AfD and FPÖ play an essential role in bringing remigration into the political mainstream. Both the AfD’s voters and its functionaries largely understand that more is needed than just a few reforms on illegal migration or simply enforcing existing laws. What’s required is a fundamental change to the asylum system, a reform of citizenship laws, and an end to the reckless distribution of German citizenship. There also needs to be a reversal of migration flows. This is exactly what the politics of remigration stands for – a kind of vision that flips a mental switch. The AfD has repeatedly endorsed this term, demonstrating its commitment to this approach.
If the AfD’s remigration ideas were supported by a growing share of voters, do you believe this could lead to a shift in the political center?
Polls in Austria reveal that 50% of the population explicitly supports comprehensive remigration, even after years of media demonization of the term. Even more people support deportations and border closures. A significant portion of people is undecided. I believe the term “remigration” is becoming increasingly normalized, partly due to its use by Trump and the migration policy shifts in Canada and England. The AfD and FPÖ must seize this moment to normalize remigration further and strengthen their platforms.
How do you assess the fact that Donald Trump has incorporated the term “remigration” into his political discourse? Do you see it as a validation of your ideas, or do you fear a potential distortion of the concept?
It is natural for different people to interpret remigration differently, just as with any significant political concept. For example, libertarianism is interpreted differently by different people. Similarly, concepts like communism or a liberated society have been understood in varying ways depending on individual perspectives. However, the core idea remains the same: the reversal of migration flows to safeguard national identity and ethnocultural cohesion. This clarity must be at the heart of public discussions.
What role do you see for Russia in the context of remigration strategies and the reorganization of Europe? Could Russia serve as a partner or a model in shaping migration policy solutions, or do its geopolitical interests conflict with such approaches?
This is a complex question. Migration is often used as a weapon, as seen with both Erdoğan and Putin. However, I believe the real blame lies with Europeans themselves for leaving their borders open, making such strategies effective. Within Russia, there is also internal criticism of its migration policies, particularly regarding demographic changes in core Russian regions. I see a strong connection between remigration, the shift towards a multipolar world, and a critique of liberal, individualistic societies. If Russia genuinely supports a traditionalist worldview and the preservation of peoples and cultures, as it has frequently claimed, then its stance aligns more closely with remigration policies and the defense of ethnocultural identities than with a universalist, liberal approach that prioritizes an abstract humanity and the individual above all else. Remigration is fundamentally a self-defense mechanism to protect ethnocultural identity. This principle was true throughout history, such as on the Fiji Islands, and remains just as relevant in Europe today.
If remigration were fully implemented, what would a successful outcome look like in ten, twenty, or fifty years?
Remigration is a gradual process that cannot be achieved overnight. Within ten years, the asylum crisis should be fully resolved by ensuring that illegal migrants, as well as refugees whose reasons for fleeing are no longer valid or whose visas have expired, return to their countries of origin. This applies particularly to those from non-European countries who engaged in asylum shopping or economic migration through safe third states. Ideally, these returns would be supported by reconstruction projects and reintegration programs. Over the next twenty years, broader issues like over-foreignization and Islamization could be addressed through reforms to citizenship laws. Visas and citizenships would only be granted to fully assimilated individuals or in numbers society can integrate. Residence permits for criminals, long-term unemployed individuals, or those posing economic, cultural, or criminal burdens would not be renewed but revoked.
In the next fifty years, the focus should shift to addressing non-assimilated citizens who were naturalized without integrating and who have formed parallel societies. Policies centered on a guiding culture, structural reforms, and voluntary remigration incentives could encourage many to return to their home countries, while others may assimilate. Parallel societies would shrink as no new members are allowed to enter, and natural emigration rates increase. Over time, these groups would no longer grow and would diminish to a size that poses no significant threat to society. Eventually, they would either integrate into the broader population or disappear entirely, ensuring the preservation of our ethnocultural identity.
