Editor’s note: We have encored this article by multiple times, and it deserves another run considering the debate between Joel Davis and Drew Pavlou over the weekend on the subject, “Is diversity our strength?”
Pavlou made the straw man that remigration cannot be achieved without killing millions of people.
“I want my people to rule my country!”
“Oh, so you want to kill millions of people?”
What? pic.twitter.com/oRn1VF6LId
— Klaus Arminius (@Klaus_Arminius) April 6, 2024
Thus he became the meme.
Below, Mark Moncrieff makes a considered argument as to how remigration can be achieved peacefully and effectively.
Earlier this year I was talking to a friend about immigration and he told me that whether I liked it or not they are here now. The implication being that immigrants are here forever. I didn’t accept what he said then and since then I’ve been thinking of a policy that if implemented would turn things around. That policy has been mentioned by Generation Identitaire, which is where the term “remigration” comes from.
Their idea is that just because a foreign population has arrived that does not mean that they will be there forever. After all when we think about immigration that is the assumption that nearly everyone makes. But their point is valid, just because they have arrived does not mean that they will stay. However that is the end of their idea, but it was enough for me.
Why do Immigrants come here?
Do they want better scenery? Do they love us? Do they want to be a part of us? Do they love our culture? Our way of life? Some do.
But most come here because we have a better standard of living than they did in their homeland. So what they really love about us is our money. If that’s true, and I don’t see any reason for it not being true in most cases, why don’t we pay them to leave?
Of course we could not have our current levels of immigration, we would need either a small or zero immigration policy. It has been suggested by others that we have a replacement immigration policy, whereby immigrants are let into the country one for one as people permanently leave. However my policy is here.
We would also need secure borders, where those who violate immigration law are either removed back to their country of origin or imprisoned and then returned. Any wishy washy approach would make this an endless drain on resources.
My proposal is that anyone who has a lawful right to live in Australia, citizen or permanent resident, who also has the right of return to their ancestral home be offered A$100,000 to return to that country. In return they sign a legal pledge that they renounce their Australian citizenship or permanent residence and that they not return to Australia for 5 years, and that any travel to Australia after that not be longer than 60 days in any year. Any longer stay would need the authority of the Minister of Immigration. If any stay lasted longer than 60 days without the Minister’s approval or they returned within 5 years then they are liable for the return of the A$100,000 and are to be subject to any criminal punishment that breaking Australia’s immigration law may invoke.
The only people not eligible would be those people who do not have a right of return to any ancestral homeland. What may surprise many people is that many countries allow people to return even generations after their family left. Some countries believe you never leave, if you are of that nationality, then you always will be.
One criticism is the expense, for A$10 billion dollars, 100,000 people can be paid to leave. But if that person was an Afghan that money would be more than 140 times the per capita income of the average Afghan, that makes someone a very big fish in a small pond. In Indonesia that would be more than 25 times the per capita income. For the United Kingdom that would be more than twice the per capita income.
This money effectively becomes an indirect form of foreign aid, it simply goes directly into the economy instead of being used up by Government. So it can be paid for out of funds currently devoted to foreign aid and to multicultural pursuits.
Another criticism that could be made is that it is racist. Unfortunately the world economy is uneven and an African would benefit to a much bigger degree than someone of European descent. Racist I don’t think so, but it certainly is discriminatory, of course many things in life are.
It even gives people choice, not everyone who immigrates is happy with the decision and here is a chance to help them find their way home.
Originally published at Upon Hope on November 1, 2014.