6 ms·

Remigration [...] is a [...] political concept referring to the forced or promoted return of non-ethnically European immigrants, often including their descendan

Remigration [...] is a [...] political concept referring to the forced or promoted return of non-ethnically European immigrants, often including their descendants who were born in Europe, back to their place of racial origin, typically with no regard for their citizenship [^1] Sounds pretty racist to me. Maybe you can be clearer on what you mean by non-racist remigration? The far-right groups, which are, at least in my country (Germany), the only once using the term to my knowledge, clearly mean it in a racist way. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remigration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remigration

poncho_romero 2y ago
People want temporary foreign workers--who immigrated here in unprecedented numbers in recent years--to leave the country, not anyone who has darker skin. No no brought up remigration.
- mainframed 2y ago
  > No no brought up remigration. Not sure how "No no" is, if it is a language barrier or if you meant to write "No one". But the parent comment to mine brought it up. > People want temporary foreign workers--who immigrated here in unprecedented numbers in recent years--to leave the country, not anyone who has darker skin. I'm not very familiar with Canadian immigration. But if they are temporary foreign workers, they by definition shouldn't have a citizenship and instead just a (temporary) work visa. Also, I wouldn't call that immigration, hence it also isn't remigration. The challenge should just be, to no longer extend the visas and not fuck up the economy, right?
  - poncho_romero 2y ago
    Yes, that should've been "no one." I think I understand the disconnect. In Canada, anyone who is living here but is not a citizen is usually considered an immigrant (unless they are a refugee). Once they have their citizenship, they're just Canadian. We don't really make the migrant distinction, at least in my experience. So when I say that we need to reduce the number of immigrants living in Canada in 2025, I only mean we need to reduce the number of temporary foreign workers. Part of the problem is that many people who came on temporary work visas don't plan to leave, they intend to exploit loopholes in the system to turn what was a temporary visa into permanent residency. So yes, in theory we just need to not extend the visas. In practice things will be messy.
Amezarak 2y ago
I think a lot of these discussions get held up on what "racist" means to them. I don't think the native people of Hawai'i or the Maori in New Zealand wanting Americans (for the former) and Anglos (for the latter) to leave is "racist." Similarly, I don't see how Germans wanting non-Germans to leave is racist. To me, "racist" would imply the belief one is superior to the other, and that's clearly orthogonal to the remigration question.
- mainframed 2y ago
  Wow. Comparing colonization with 20/21st century labor migration is peak far right playing victims. I guess the people of Hawai'i and the Maori were also asked and decided in a democratic process if they want their colonizers to come in and help rebuild their economy and do the jobs no one else wants to do. > Similarly, I don't see how Germans wanting non-Germans to leave is racist. Wanting non-Germans to leave when they are not refugees and do not participate in society is not the problem. The problem is the definition of non-German. It would be inhuman to not give someone either citizenship or a permanent permit residency if they worked for a long time in a country. Do people really expect guest workers to come (alone?) into a foreign country, work the shittiest jobs for 15 years and then return to their home country to start a family with 35+ years? Also, it would not work. Germany still attracts foreign workers in some fields (e.g. nurses). If you tell them, they get to work for 15 years and then have to return, no one would come. If the indigenous people of Germania advocating for no labor migration are ok with dying in their own excrement, because there are no nurses, I guess that would be one way to solve the problem.
  - Amezarak 2y ago
    I don’t know any modern country where people got to vote on immigration. It seems like even if you vote for the anti immigration parties you get just as much immigration. At least in America, “less immigration” won out over “more immigration” by clear polling margins every year since 1965, except for a few years in the 2010s. Democratic processes gave them more. I’ve seen similar results in the UK. Parties mentioning immigration restriction consistently do well and then end up doing nothing or increasing it. Obviously colonization is only one kind of mass human migration and there are important differences between it and the migration now ongoing, but I don't think "the choice of the people already there" is really a factor in either. One could also argue that in most cases, a determined effort to repel colonizers would have prevented colonization. There was no such societal consensus, so it happened. > Also, it would not work. Germany still attracts foreign workers in some fields (e.g. nurses). If you tell them, they get to work for 15 years and then have to return, no one would come. If the indigenous people of Germania advocating for no labor migration are ok with dying in their own excrement, because there are no nurses, I guess that would be one way to solve the problem. Why wouldn't more young Germans just go into nursing? This seems like a rather exaggerated doomsday scenario. There would be shortages, wages would have to rise, and more Gerrmans would choose nursing over what they choose now. Further, since birth rates are dropping everywhere, aren't you just buying yourself a few years? Eventually everywhere the immigrants are coming from will have the same problem you describe - and their home countries will be in horrific shape because you've sucked away all their talent. What happens then? This is a shortsighted policy no matter how you look at it.

poncho_romero 2y ago

People want temporary foreign workers--who immigrated here in unprecedented numbers in recent years--to leave the country, not anyone who has darker skin. No no brought up remigration.

mainframed 2y ago
> No no brought up remigration. Not sure how "No no" is, if it is a language barrier or if you meant to write "No one". But the parent comment to mine brought it up. > People want temporary foreign workers--who immigrated here in unprecedented numbers in recent years--to leave the country, not anyone who has darker skin. I'm not very familiar with Canadian immigration. But if they are temporary foreign workers, they by definition shouldn't have a citizenship and instead just a (temporary) work visa. Also, I wouldn't call that immigration, hence it also isn't remigration. The challenge should just be, to no longer extend the visas and not fuck up the economy, right?
- poncho_romero 2y ago
  Yes, that should've been "no one." I think I understand the disconnect. In Canada, anyone who is living here but is not a citizen is usually considered an immigrant (unless they are a refugee). Once they have their citizenship, they're just Canadian. We don't really make the migrant distinction, at least in my experience. So when I say that we need to reduce the number of immigrants living in Canada in 2025, I only mean we need to reduce the number of temporary foreign workers. Part of the problem is that many people who came on temporary work visas don't plan to leave, they intend to exploit loopholes in the system to turn what was a temporary visa into permanent residency. So yes, in theory we just need to not extend the visas. In practice things will be messy.

Amezarak 2y ago

I think a lot of these discussions get held up on what "racist" means to them. I don't think the native people of Hawai'i or the Maori in New Zealand wanting Americans (for the former) and Anglos (for the latter) to leave is "racist." Similarly, I don't see how Germans wanting non-Germans to leave is racist. To me, "racist" would imply the belief one is superior to the other, and that's clearly orthogonal to the remigration question.

mainframed 2y ago
Wow. Comparing colonization with 20/21st century labor migration is peak far right playing victims. I guess the people of Hawai'i and the Maori were also asked and decided in a democratic process if they want their colonizers to come in and help rebuild their economy and do the jobs no one else wants to do. > Similarly, I don't see how Germans wanting non-Germans to leave is racist. Wanting non-Germans to leave when they are not refugees and do not participate in society is not the problem. The problem is the definition of non-German. It would be inhuman to not give someone either citizenship or a permanent permit residency if they worked for a long time in a country. Do people really expect guest workers to come (alone?) into a foreign country, work the shittiest jobs for 15 years and then return to their home country to start a family with 35+ years? Also, it would not work. Germany still attracts foreign workers in some fields (e.g. nurses). If you tell them, they get to work for 15 years and then have to return, no one would come. If the indigenous people of Germania advocating for no labor migration are ok with dying in their own excrement, because there are no nurses, I guess that would be one way to solve the problem.
- Amezarak 2y ago
  I don’t know any modern country where people got to vote on immigration. It seems like even if you vote for the anti immigration parties you get just as much immigration. At least in America, “less immigration” won out over “more immigration” by clear polling margins every year since 1965, except for a few years in the 2010s. Democratic processes gave them more. I’ve seen similar results in the UK. Parties mentioning immigration restriction consistently do well and then end up doing nothing or increasing it. Obviously colonization is only one kind of mass human migration and there are important differences between it and the migration now ongoing, but I don't think "the choice of the people already there" is really a factor in either. One could also argue that in most cases, a determined effort to repel colonizers would have prevented colonization. There was no such societal consensus, so it happened. > Also, it would not work. Germany still attracts foreign workers in some fields (e.g. nurses). If you tell them, they get to work for 15 years and then have to return, no one would come. If the indigenous people of Germania advocating for no labor migration are ok with dying in their own excrement, because there are no nurses, I guess that would be one way to solve the problem. Why wouldn't more young Germans just go into nursing? This seems like a rather exaggerated doomsday scenario. There would be shortages, wages would have to rise, and more Gerrmans would choose nursing over what they choose now. Further, since birth rates are dropping everywhere, aren't you just buying yourself a few years? Eventually everywhere the immigrants are coming from will have the same problem you describe - and their home countries will be in horrific shape because you've sucked away all their talent. What happens then? This is a shortsighted policy no matter how you look at it.