Remigration is Inevitable, Part 3
2,100 words
Break Big Problems Down into Small Ones
The numbers of people who need to be remigrated are immense and growing. Thus, at first glance, the problem seems overwhelming. But just as the biggest meal is consumed bite by bite, the best way to solve intimidatingly large problems is to divide them up into harmless little ones.
Close the Borders
As the saying goes, when you are in a hole, the first step is to stop digging. With immigration, that means closing the borders. We can do it today. If somebody tells you that it is impossible, remind them of Covid. If entire societies can be locked in their homes, we can surely close our borders. Again, it is only a matter of will.
Citizenship Must Be Based on Blood
Any country that grants citizenship based not on descent (jus sanguinis) but instead based simply on being born on its soil (jus solis) needs to change this immediately. Moreover, there is no reason not to make these laws retroactive. It may be unusual, but these are unusually important circumstances.
How to Get Countries to Take Back their Migrants
Many people ask, “But what if Pakistan or Morocco or Ghana does not want to take back its migrants?”
All of these countries depend on both trade and foreign aid from white countries. Threaten to cut those off, and they will take their citizens back.
What if migrants have renounced their citizenship or destroyed their documents?
Aren’t we constantly told that the solution to the “undocumented” is to give them new documents? Print them up then! Replacement documents are cheaper than losing Western aid.
There is no reason that we can’t make the corruption and cynicism of third-world regimes work for remigration, for a change.
Migrants who cannot safely return home should be sent to refugee camps in the closest safe country to their homes, in accordance with international law governing refugees.
Naturally, any country that is serious about remigration must exit all international bodies and treaties that impede that process. But that’s what sovereignty is for. When politicians and bureaucrats say they can’t do something because of the law, the proper response is simply: change the law.
In America, the right to “due process” is often invoked to stall or block deportation. “Due process,” of course, is ultimately what the law says it is. And if existing standards of due process impede the public good by making remigration impossible, then we will simply change the standards of due process.
Begin with the Illegals
Once the borders are closed, we should begin by remigrating the people who are among us illegally.
The most economical way is to get them to deport themselves by cutting off their employment and benefits. Employers, bureaucrats, landlords, etc. must begin to say “no.” Thus the frontline of remigration enforcement will be ordinary people in every community who are used to saying “no” all the time. This will make remigration more palatable to people, because we are already used to people moving due to lack of jobs, benefits, and housing.
Temporary Legal Migrants
Legal migrants fall into two categories: those with temporary and those with permanent leave to stay.
When temporary visas run out, they should not be renewed. The holders of such visas should be notified of this well in advance so that they can plan to leave. Most will leave, and those who stay too long will hardly overwhelm the police, especially given that migrant-driven crimes will be steadily decreasing.
Permanent Migrants who Commit Crimes
Migrants with permanent residency fall into two categories: criminal and law-abiding. Law-breakers should be denaturalized and returned to their homelands of origin. Indeed, there is no reason why we cannot pay to have them imprisoned in their original homelands. It would save a great deal of money. Denaturalization and deportation should be packaged together as part of their punishment, not treated as separate legal proceedings, which would simply make remigration slower and more expensive.
Law-Abiding Permanent Migrants
The hardest migrants to remove are those with permanent residency or citizenship.
The first step is to denaturalize migrant citizens, in effect making them resident aliens. We will never regain sovereignty in our homelands without denying migrants political power.
Denaturalization means that they will no longer enjoy the rights of citizens (civil rights). But of course they will retain their human rights to life, property, and due process, as do all foreigners.
The primary demographic threat from migrants comes from people of child-bearing age. Thus our priority is to remigrate all such people. This group includes the vast majority of law-abiding permanent migrants because migrant communities, unlike white countries as a whole, tend to skew young.
What about the rest? Ideally, they should go back to their homelands as well. But, if politically expedient, we can countenance allowing migrants over the age of 50 who are productive and orderly residents to remain. They should be able to work, retire, and live out their lives with all the benefits they are due, and with full protection of their human rights.
However, we should also make family reunification work in favor of remigration, so elderly migrants will be given every incentive to join their families in their homelands, where their pensions will probably go farther.
Law-abiding migrants of childbearing age can also be divided into industrious and upwardly mobile populations (e.g., elite South and East Asians) and indolent, welfare-dependent populations (Africans, Middle Easterners, low-end South Asians, and Latin American mestizos). The latter population would be willing to remigrate once we cut off their welfare benefits.
As for the energetic and upwardly mobile migrant groups, like most modern people, they move around quite a lot. We will just make sure that their next move takes them outside our homelands. Their children could be educated in the native tongues of their homelands. When they reach college age, they could be sent to college overseas, so it will be natural for them to seek employment there.
Even if we did the slowest possible version of remigration, such policies would restore white homelands within a few decades, and the process would be orderly, humane, and consistent with the human rights of all parties.
The Question of “Roots”
Many people are uncomfortable with remigrating people who have put down “roots” in our homelands. But migrants have tens of thousands of years of roots in their own homelands. Yet somehow they managed to move among us. So if their roots there did not matter to them, why should their “roots” here matter to us? And if their shallow roots here matter to us, shouldn’t our own deep roots matter that much more?
Family Reunification
Perhaps the most brazen condemnation of remigration is that it “breaks up families.” But migration breaks up families too. So if breaking up families is a bad thing, migration is a bad thing as well.
It is also quite brazen that “family reunification” is used only to argue for chain migration, when it can just as well be an argument for chain remigration. If family reunification is a legitimate goal of migration policy, then we must encourage migrants to return to the warmth of their families back in the Old Country.
The Hardest Question: Mixed Marriages & Mixed People
I have saved the most vexed question for last: How would remigration deal with Swedes who marry Somalis or Austrians who marry Bangladeshis? How would it deal with their children? There isn’t a neat and painless way to remigrate such people, which is why such “hard cases” are always lobbed at remigration advocates.
My preference is always to keep families together. So I would remigrate the whole family. Going forward, I would also ban such mixed marriages.
But remigration advocates don’t want to be depicted as heartless homewreckers, causing a thousand Romeo and Juliet-style tragedies. Thus my recommendation is simply to keep our preferences to ourselves and step over the problem in the following way.
White countries all together have tens if not hundreds of millions of people for whom the case for remigration is entirely unproblematic and unambiguous. It might take us decades to remove all the easy cases. So we will just deal with the hard cases later.
Yes, this is a crass political evasion of a difficult question. But white countries have serious problems precisely because it is second nature, when faced with difficult political problems, to “pass the buck” or “kick the can” to future generations. In this case, we should make that vice work for us.
Even if we don’t outlaw mixed marriages, once remigration commences, the numbers will decline naturally, and most existing couples would grow old and die before the question comes up for debate. So, again, our answer should be: “Don’t worry about this. By the time anything happens, you’ll be dead anyway.”
Sustaining Remigration
To start remigration, we must attain political power. To sustain remigration, we must retain political power. The longer the process of remigration, the longer we must hold on to power. Moreover, if we can’t hold on to power forever, then there is always the danger that remigration will be halted or reversed. How, then, do we sustain remigration, perhaps over decades?
First of all, we should create a “Remigration Industrial Complex”: a constellation of industries that profit from remigration (moving companies and airlines, for instance). Furthermore, we should also “privatize” as many remigration related government services as possible.
Moreover, industries that are harmed by remigration must be neutralized as potential sources of opposition. For instance, industries that lose profits due to loss of cheap labor should receive tariff protections, price supports, bailouts—anything, really, to shut them up.
Second, a remigrationist party would not need to hold on to political power forever if the ethnonationalist idea became culturally and politically hegemonic, meaning that all political parties are ethnonationalist and support remigration. It seems impossible, until you realize that multiculturalism and open borders were politically hegemonic until only recently.
Third, remigration will have short-term positive effects: higher wages, lower rents, less traffic, less crime, less ugliness, less stress dealing with foreigners, a greater sense of trust and community, etc. Your life will be better with no extra effort on your part, simply by not allowing Leftists to impose the burden of migrants on you. Once people experience these benefits, they will want more. That’s probably why the Left fights tooth and nail to prevent even a single deportation. Let’s hope remigration becomes addictive.
Fourth, even the long-term benefits of remigration can be enjoyed today. The restoration of white homelands may take decades, even generations. But there will be immediate psychological benefits the moment a people resolves that it will have a future again. There will be less alienation and depression. There will be fewer alcoholics, addicts, and suicides. More people will marry, have children, pursue degrees, start businesses, and contribute to society. Once we restore hope for the future, our people will start living as if that future is already here. As I am fond of saying, “Those who fight for a better world live in it today.”
Is Remigration Really Inevitable?
There are reasons for optimism,[1] but in all honesty, I don’t know if victory is inevitable. Nobody really knows the future. But white extinction isn’t inevitable either. It is happening because of ignorance and evil, both of which can be opposed. Indeed, we are opposing them.
But we don’t need assurance of victory. We only think so because we have a false understanding of moral motivation. We think that we cannot do the right thing unless we have some assurance that we will taste the rewards. But this is a multigenerational fight. None of us may live to see the victory. So we can’t be motivated by personal consequences, whether good or bad.
But that’s fine. We have a better motive: knowledge of our duty. We know that multiculturalism is contrary to nature, that it causes needless suffering and destruction, and that it can only be sustained by lies and oppression. We know that remigration is the right policy to save our race and civilization. That’s all we need to know. The rest is action.
Remigration is only as inevitable as we make it, and we are more likely to win if we stop caring about how this fight affects us personally and think only of the greater good. We fight for remigration simply because it is the right thing to do. So let’s get to work.
Note
[1] Greg Johnson, “Reasons for Optimism,” Against Imperialism (San Francisco: Counter-Currents, 2023).
I must declare an interest: if I have grandchildren, the likelihood is they will be half Japanese. Given that we find it hard to deport even the vilest Bomalian criminals, my concerns are probably academic. Nonetheless, I would be interested to know why, if I’ve understood rightly, you take the view that mixed-race citizens should, in principle, be remigrated even if they are 50% native (this will be particularly fraught if other countries adopt the same policy).
Excellent article thank you! I agree with every point you raised! Remigration must happen for us to have a future, for generations to come need this from us; it is our duty to push for remigration.