The History of This Word Reflects the Rise of Anti-Immigrant Politics
"Remigration" is meant to soften the real policy goal—forced removal.
When the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) posted a single word—remigrate—on X in October 2025, it wasn't a vague message. A once neutral term dating back to the 17th century, meaning "to migrate back" or "to return," remigration has evolved into a euphemism for forced deportation under the guise of policy. A government agency invoking it naturally sparked debate about this historically fraught concept.
Remigrate.
— Homeland Security (@DHSgov) October 14, 2025
Google Books Ngram, an online tool that tracks the historical frequency of word usage in print, shows remigration peaking in 1797 amid a surge of nativist sentiment that would soon produce the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798—a series of restrictive laws that increased residency requirements and empowered the federal government to deport "dangerous aliens."
The next peak occurred nearly 150 years later, in 1945. This marked the resettlement of the Jewish diaspora following World War II as hundreds of thousands of Jewish expatriates, facing rampant antisemitism, struggled to return to their war-torn homes.
Harking back to this dark historical epoch, modern usage of remigration—which, according to Google Ngram, has increased threefold over the past 50 years—carries increasingly xenophobic connotations. Right-wing groups, predominantly in Europe, have co-opted the word as a dog whistle. "In Europe, it's an established part of the linguistic toolbox of white supremacy," Nicholas J. Cull, a professor of communication at the University of Southern California, told Time magazine.

While campaigning for the European Parliament, Renaud Camus—the chief architect of the white nationalist conspiracy theory known as the "Great Replacement"—promoted remigration as a part of his campaign platform, using it as a euphemism for the mass expulsion of immigrants. "We shall not leave Europe," his campaign slogan opined. "We shall make Africa leave Europe."
Remigration has also become especially prominent in German politics—so much so that, in 2023, German linguists distinguished it as Unwort des Jahres ("Bad Word of the Year").
Germany's far right touts remigration in its radical vision to reshape the country. Speaking to party delegates, Alice Weidel, leader of the Alternative for Germany (AfD), the country's leading populist political party, spoke of "large-scale repatriations."
"If it's going to be called 'remigration,' then that's what it's going to be: remigration," Weidel said.
Remigration softens the troubling image of rounding up and expelling countless people from a country, as is the goal of any euphemism. "In five to 10 years, everyone in Europe will be calling for remigration," said Martin Sellner, a prominent Austrian white nationalist.
Sellner may be right. The AfD currently polls higher than it ever has, and two out of three Germans believe the country should "take in fewer refugees."
Support for remigration has spread beyond Europe's far right, as evidenced by the DHS' social media. This one word speaks volumes about the current anti-immigrant zeitgeist sweeping through liberal democracies worldwide.
This article originally appeared in print under the headline "DHS Brings an Ugly Past Back to the Surface."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
It is a hell of a thing for the open borders at any cost side to gripe about euphemisms. See "undocumented migrants" instead of "illegal aliens".
The anti-immigrant zeitgeist might have something to do with high immigration societies becoming more low trust, dangerous and enduring official coddling of immigrant criminals.
The Truly Enlightened Ones use the term "illegal sub-human scum", and in maritime crusades, "kinetic-action-processed fish-bait"!
Out of "kinetic-action-processed fish-bait" and Dear Orange Caligula's buddy's Sterling Vanguard Example, the cumming orgy of "kinetic actions" against Venezuela swill SNOT be called a "war"; shit will be called a "Special Military Operation"!
In the past week we had a judge dismiss the conviction of a Somali involved in massive public health care funding fraud because they might not have understood that what they were doing was illegal because of their home culture.
We have the British government more concerned about the reaction of the native public to terrorist attacks, than the racial and cultural hatred problem they have in their immigrant population. Same with Germany and sexual assaults by immigrants against German women and girls. What the West is doing right now with mass immigration is reducing quality of life and the pro immigration side is whistling past the graveyard in ignoring the bad effects.
Shit is common to find a lower-ranking underling and offer him or her up ass a scapegoat. Trump and Hag-Smith offering up the Admiral comes to mind. Was this particular Somali a leader-originator-mastermind of the fraud, or was he just slogging along, trying to earn some pay? "Doing what everyone else is doing" isn't much of an excuse, sure... Heaping shit all upon ONE scapegoat isn't good, either! And how many of us follow our conscience and do what is right, AGAINST the crowd, and do NOT do what everyone else is doing, at penalty to us? I could mention some behaviors on this particular forum here, butt that sounds like too much whataboutism...
Here's what "Perplexity", my favorite AI, has to say about the case, below:
The case you are referring to appears to be the recent decision by Hennepin County Judge Sarah West to overturn a jury’s fraud and racketeering conviction of Abdifatah (often reported as Abdi Fatah) Yusuf in a $7.2 million Minnesota Medicaid personal care assistance scheme, but the written ruling that is publicly described focuses on evidentiary issues and the defendant’s knowledge of the fraud, not on a “Somali culture” defense or an idea that Somali customs make fraud acceptable.[1][2][3]
## What actually happened in the case
Reports describe Yusuf as operating a home health care agency, Promise Health, which billed Medicaid for personal care services that prosecutors said were not actually provided, leading to about $7.2 million in allegedly fraudulent payments. A jury convicted him on fraud and racketeering charges after hearing evidence that the business was run out of a mailbox address and that there were patterns consistent with a billing scam.[2][3]
After the verdict, Judge West entered what is called a “judgment of acquittal,” setting aside the jury’s decision. According to reporting that summarizes her order, she concluded that the prosecution’s case relied too heavily on circumstantial evidence and did not adequately rule out reasonable interpretations under which Yusuf might not have personally known of or directed the fraud, even though fraud clearly occurred through the company.[3][1][2]
## Where the “cultural defense” claim comes from
Commentary in partisan outlets and on social media has framed this as a “woke judge” excusing fraud or treating the Somali community as above the law, sometimes implying reasons like cultural norms or immigration background. However, the descriptions of Judge West’s legal reasoning that are available in news coverage emphasize the standard criminal‑law requirement that the state prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this specific defendant knew about and participated in the fraud, not that he simply owned the business where fraud happened. There is no clear, sourced indication in the public reporting that she grounded the ruling on Somali cultural practices or on the idea that he did not understand U.S. law because of his home culture.[4][5][1][2][3]
## How to interpret it in broader context
The case is unfolding against a backdrop of major investigations into fraud in Minnesota programs like Medicaid housing services, autism services, and the Feeding Our Future child‑nutrition network, in which many defendants are from the Somali community. That broader pattern has led to political backlash and narratives about a “Somali fraud problem,” which make any decision that benefits a Somali defendant especially charged and easily framed as culturally or politically motivated, even when the judge’s explanation is couched in ordinary evidentiary standards.[6][7][8]
So, what happened is: a judge used her authority to overturn a jury verdict because she believed the state had not adequately proven that this particular defendant had the required criminal intent, in a highly politicized context involving Somali‑linked fraud cases. The idea that she dismissed the conviction *because* Somali culture supposedly normalizes fraud does not match what is currently documented in the available reporting about her ruling.[1][2][3]
[1](https://conservativeinstitute.org/conservative-news/minnesota-judge-overturns-jurys-fraud-conviction-somali-stole-7m-medicaid.htm)
[2](https://alphanews.org/judge-tosses-conviction-of-somali-man-who-ripped-off-minnesota-taxpayers/)
etc. ...
What I recall seeing last week was that the "personal care assistance" organization did not have the facilities to provide the services they were billing the state for. That they were providing kickbacks to their clients to not talk about the fact that they were providing no services. That a similar operation was run out of the same office address the previous year. That is what is meant by "circumstantial evidence".
If anything, this is just the beginning:
https://slaynews.com/news/trump-admin-fires-8-immigration-judges-new-york-city/
Look. If you just ugnore all negative externalities and reality, the welfare state, the crimes, the spending, the fraud....
Open borders works.
Plus food trucks.
*Right-wing groups, predominantly in Europe, have co-opted the word as a dog whistle.*
Funny how only one side can have dog whistles. How about when the media refers to "illegal immigration", which is a specific act with a specific meaning, as "migration"? That's a dog whistle meaning an invasion of tens of millions of unscreened people with a 3rd grade education is just like a doctor moving his family from NYC to Samta Barbara. And, more to the point, that the native population and those who jumped through all of the hoops to get in the right way have to just STFU and take it or they're racist, nativist trash.
Meanwhile the ILLEGAL ALIEN criminal trash are set free in N.Y. City to terrorize the rest of the population.
It is Leftard Self-Projection.
What they do is those other peoples fault.
The German 'white cleansing' was done by the [Na]tional So[zi]alist party yet the Leftards then and now just keep trying to blame their F'Ups on the 'right'.
Blame-Shifting is all they've operated on since the beginning of time which plays right along with how their 'poor' is somehow the 'riches' fault.
Where-as the "blame-shifting [Na]tional So[zi]al[ism]" is all the 'right' desires to reject.
How about “white supremacy” being a dog whistle in the linguistic toolbox of the Woke Elite?
Europe is the indigenous home of white people. Does "white supremacy" even make sense as something to complain about? Do we complain about black supremacy in Africa?
Wealth-Status, Class, Color, Sex "[WE] Identify-as" special get to grift from those 'icky' people is the very foundation of the Democrats platform and their [Na]tional So[zi]al[ism] .
.. because 'guns' don't make sh*t.
They just *conquer* and *consume* what those 'icky' people earned.
Yes, especially in the Union of South Africa, where the Negroes have destroyed once a wonderful country. Southern Rhodesia?
I should have said "do the same people complaining of white supremacy in Europe complain about black supremacy in Africa".
By now, what with the investigation into the criminal fraud that took place in Minnesota and continues to happen, if there are no American taxpayers who are not disgusted by the revelations of the Somali scammers who took more than a billion dollars in aid money and sent much of it to a terrorist group in Somalia, the toilet of the world.
Meanwhile Minnesota Governor Tampon Tim Walz not only knew about it but protected it. He may have just sentenced himself to prison for it.
Americans, if they haven't had enough by now, never will. Trump is correct. Send them all back and make sure ICE gets all the protection they need to do the job. Jail everyone involved including Tim Walz , Keith Ellison and Jacob Frey.
What about American citizens who defraud the taxpayer huh? Checkmate! /s
'"In Europe, it's an established part of the linguistic toolbox of white supremacy," Nicholas J. Cull, a professor of communication at the University of Southern California, told Time magazine.'
Hey, Nick, is "white supremacy" part of the linguistic toolbox of university progressives?
Checked his Twitter. Pronouns confirmed. He appears to be on a crusade to prevent Trump from shuttering the now extremely pointless "Voice of America."
'JAY STOOKSBERRY is a writer and editor based in Delta, Colorado.'
Unless Jay is a full-blooded Ute or Shoshone, he'd better remigrate somewhere.
Here are some dog whistles: Refugees. Migrants. Free-movement. No widespread fraud. Living your truth. Kids in cages.
“War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.” -George Orwell (1903-1950)
The science is settled, words are violence, mostly peaceful protests...
Dammit. I accidentally clicked on a Jacobin article. *checks URL* Um, what exactly is happening?
The New Reason, brought to you by the WEF. And maybe the Socialist Workers Party.
There sure is a lot of crying and bawling about taking what some never had a 'right' to; to begin with.
It's like listening to a car-thief cry and bawl because you got your car back from them.
Gates & Children: Children? Which Children?
There are children, and there are children. Which children does the Gates Foundation subsidize through grants to NGO's? N*groid children in primitive sub-Saharan Africa? Yes. Euro-Caucasian children in developed Western countries? No.
https://www.nationonfire.com/negroes/ .
Rarely discussed is the fact that a biological war rages among the races. Given current trends, African N*groes and their descendants will continue to flood the Western world displacing Euro-Caucasians ("Whites") through miscegenation. Misguided but seemingly well-intentioned fools like Gates support the displacement of his own kind. Recall that this is the man who, by his own admission, saddled the world with a terrible operating system for computers called "DOS", which remains the foundation of "Windows".
“Hell is full of good intentions or desires.” -Saint Bernard of Clairvaux (1091-1153)
In the end, biology not sociology rules. Those who deny reality doom themselves to a dismal destiny. They wallow in ignorance. They perish in arrogance.
"Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces." -Matthew 7:6
[Optional Note: During the 1960s, a Negro from Barbados named Keith Baird (1923-2017) then residing in these United States of America began a campaign to erase the word “Negro” from applying to Negroes; thereby, substituting abstract sociological ideology for operational biological reality. He proposed the term, “African-American”, as a replacement, ignoring the fact that Caucasoid Americans originally from South Africa also would be “African-American” and that Arabs from Northern Africa are Caucasians.] -Excerpt from the novel, Retribution Fever
https://x.com/RMXnews/status/1862454634293395477
A huge 65% of all crimes in Milan are committed by foreign nationals, despite representing 20% of the population, damning new stats from Italy's Interior Minister
@PiantedosiM
have revealed.
Christian Pulisic's unchecked crime spree must be stopped.
Something Trump defenders fail to understand is that criticism for current immigration policy does not equal support for no laws at all. No, they equate the two. That's why the response to any and all criticism of the current immigration system is to attack a strawman that wants completely open borders with no restrictions at all. And boy oh boy do they give that strawman a wallop. They beat its ass every time.
Speaking of strawmen, Strawcasmic…
I’m hard pressed to recall Reason ever agreeing with illegal immigration enforcement actions in the 20 years I’ve posted here.
Which makes sense given their stance on free movement of goods and people. I just don’t think it’s realistic in a world with nation states.
The irony is the Democratic Party doesn't actually want free movement. In the most egregious cases (Somalis in Minnesota, Hatians in Ohio), those people didn't emigrate there, they were put there intentionally to serve political and economic interests.
But God forbid we ever have that discussion.
I’m hard pressed to recall Reason ever agreeing with illegal immigration enforcement actions in the 20 years I’ve posted here.
Why should they? Immigration law, as it stands today, is arbitrary and unjust.
Which makes sense given their stance on free movement of goods and people. I just don’t think it’s realistic in a world with nation states.
What makes sense? Wanting to change the law doesn't mean wanting to eliminate it entirely. I doubt anyone at Reason opposes screening potential immigrants for diseases and criminal histories. I doubt anyone except the strawmen that Trump defenders routinely trounce support criminal gangs gaining a foothold in this country. Those are all bad faith arguments made by liars who will say anything to attack critics of their Dear Leader.
By the way, if I recall correctly, Obama supporters made these same dishonest arguments against Reason when they pointed out how his administration was treating immigrants. That's because libertarians and Reason have these things called principles, things that neither Trump defenders nor Obama defenders are capable of understanding.
My point was that they pretty clearly don’t support any kind of meaningful immigration laws, as they’ve demonstrated consistently through 4 presidencies. And that such a position is logically consistent with their free movement principles, thus “making sense”.
Basically I disagree that it’s a strawman, since any kind of restrictions have been met with criticism, and rightly so from their position.
What law restricting immigration in any form would be supported when it comes down to brass tacks? Name one.
I have not seen support for any restrictive immigration law over the years.
Approximately 42% of Somali households in the United States are on welfare.
The fraud defendants in Minnesota are almost all Somalia immigrants.
Why are we importing parasites from Somalia? Send them ALL back.
Your cites fell off!
Unlike lazy YOU, I made a simple question to the AI; see below. You may be accurate with regards to SNAP.
What I would like to know, in balance, is just HOW MANY barriers to honest employment are these people (often along with the rest of us) facing, due to over-regulation by Government Almighty?
There is no single, official “Somali households on welfare” percentage published by the U.S. government, but the 42% figure is a plausible estimate for Somali households receiving SNAP (food stamps), not for “welfare” in general.[1][2]
## Where the 42% number comes from
A widely shared chart claims that about 42.4% of Somali households receive SNAP benefits, based on American Community Survey (ACS) microdata broken out by ethnicity. Independent reporting on this chart notes that it is specifically about SNAP participation by household, not about all forms of public assistance (cash welfare, Medicaid, housing vouchers, etc.) and not about individuals.[2][1]
“Welfare” is often used loosely online to mean any government benefit, but SNAP is only one program; using a SNAP-only percentage as if it covered all welfare programs is misleading. The USDA’s own national breakdown shows that most SNAP recipients are U.S.-born and that foreign‑born participants (including refugees) are a minority of the caseload, so Somali households are a small slice of the overall program even if their within-group participation rate is high.[2]
## How accurate or reliable this is
The 42.4% figure is not an official Census or USDA headline statistic; it is an estimate derived from ACS microdata grouped by reported ancestry or birthplace. That method can be statistically reasonable, but it depends on correct coding of “Somali” in the data and on the analyst’s choices, and it usually carries sampling error that is not visible in a simple meme or chart.[1][2]
Because neither the Census Bureau nor USDA publishes a neat “X% of Somali households are on welfare” fact sheet, any single number you see online should be treated as an approximate, program‑specific estimate, not a precise, authoritative figure for “welfare” in general.[3][2]
[1](https://x.com/grok/status/1996179036859707797)
[2](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/10/29/fact-checking-a-viral-chart-on-us-food-stamps-recipients-race-ethnicity)
/posts/news-nearly-half-of-all-afghan-somali-households-in-the-united-states-are-on-wel/1348478049983805/)
etc.
A once neutral term dating back to the 17th century, meaning "to migrate back" or "to return," remigration has evolved into a euphemism for forced deportation under the guise of policy.
This is retarded sophistry. Words' meanings are largely, if not entirely contextual. Every term is "once neutral". The alternative is pictures and ideograms and even they don't necessarily or entirely escape context.
Doubly so for dishonest "bordurz is konstruktz" historically-retarded, misanthropic hacks. Lincoln, at least initially, didn't want the slaves to integrate and hoped they would *remigrate* back to a society of their own, even if it was somewhere in S. America rather than Africa, after the Civil War. Neutral, but still favoring separation/exile.
Forced removal is meant to soften the desired intent: unceremonious immediate ejection.
Remigration softens the troubling image of rounding up and expelling countless people from a country
There's nothing troubling about that image.
Remigration describes the image of rounding up and expelling countless illegal invaders of a country
FTFY