Remigration, remigration, remigration!

I’m not posting so much on Substack at the minute because I’ve devoted a lot of time to the Homeland Party lately. I’ve handed over my work on the ECHR, put the final touches on health policy, and I’ve just witten ten thousand words on defence, some of which I explored in my previous post. I’ve also been active over on X talking about remigration. It’s a lot of work, and there’s a lot of work still to do if we’re going to achieve anything.

Yesterday was a big day for the party with our remigration conference. The event was considerably larger than last year’s party conference, and it was a resounding success. The speakers were compelling and informative. It was also quite gratifying to see that recent missteps haven't dampened spirits at all, and the vibe was completely positive.

Certainly, whatever doubts I had about the party last September have completely evaporated. The message from up on stage was one of clarity, unity of purpose, and quiet competence. The party has crystallised its philosophy and its approach, and there is now a fully articulated idea of "sensible nationalism". I'm glad to be part of it.

The task now at hand is to get out and explain what remigration is and why it is necessary. Many are keen to misrepresent the party’s policy as one of deporting all brown people. Some activists haven’t exactly helped on that score - but remigration, as per our policy, involves systematically reversing laws and policies that permit and encourage mass immigration while implementing new laws and policies to facilitate and encourage mass emigration. It prioritises the removal of criminals who harm society, creates safe voluntary routes for others to emigrate, and is guided by clear criteria such as criminality, political extremism, and cultural alignment.

For some, this approach is not extreme enough, and they really do want to forcefully deport all brown people, but that’s not a message any serious party can adopt - not least because registered political parties have to remain within the law. More to the point, we seek to make it clear that remigration is not an extreme policy, and Homeland is not an extreme party. Remigration policies are the bare minimum we expect from any functioning country. It’s only because we’ve lost touch with any sense of what it means to be a nation that any of our measures sound remotely controversial to the chattering classes.

Some, meanwhile, want the Party to set targets and timetables for remigration, but Net Zero points to the folly of arbitrary political targets. If they're too tough, they looks extreme and they're unachievable, and if they're too soft, what even is the point? It's also besides the point.

Forcefully deporting 2m illegals will be a good start, but as we all know, that's only really scratching the surface. We can remove another couple of million legal migrants by cancelling ILR, taxing remittances and removing benefit entitlements. More if we pay them to leave (cheaper for us in the long run when you take benefit liabilities of extended family into account). But as some have rightly observed, that still doesn't get us where we need to be.

The point I make is that we will not achieve the demographic restoration we’re hoping for by remigration alone. It is as much a fertility crisis as it is an immigration crisis. In this, it should be noted that what was done to us was done over thirty years, and it's going to take as long, possibly longer, to undo the damage.

To do that we're going to have to address fertility. Fertility is affected by cost of living, cost of housing, and access to childcare and schools. As such, we're going to need a full manifesto of policies to promote marriage, support the family, and transform the housing market. We've already made some inroads into that and there's more to come, but it's going to require social engineering to achieve it.

In the interim, we have to focus on what we know will work, and what we know we can sell. The measures we propose have to be credible, sensible and, more importantly, humane. As party chairman, Kenny Smith, pointed out, Brits are kind-hearted people who won't stand for aggressive, inhumane deportation policies that will remove people they know and interact with.

Remigration is easier to sell then mass deportations in that it sidesteps the thorny question of what criteria we would use to deport people. Remigration is self-selecting, voluntary, and non-discriminatory.

I’m pleased to say that the remigration conference has put the party on the map this week. In a boneheaded move, Yvette Cooper banned our main speaker, Renaud Camus, from entering the country - which then saw coverage in Unherd, The Times and the Telegraph. Times Radio even sent a crew to cover the event. Naturally, I had my say.

I was asked the Times Radio "journalist" about the economic impact of remigration, but I immediately turned it around and asked the lady "What is the cost of not doing it?". What is the cost of losing a high trust country we can call home? The costs of carrying on as we are are incalculable.

I think most people now understand that mass, uncontrolled immigration is not in any way beneficial, and that most third world migrants are a net cost to society. The pre-Boriswave narrative simply do not withstand any serious scrutiny. The majority now agrees that immigration must be substantially halted. The Homeland Party, however, must press the case that dealing with illegal immigration alone is insufficient, and most who came in the last decade (at the very least) must be remigrated.

I don’t think this is beyond our capabilities. So long as we can explain our policies and maintain message discipline, there is no good reason why the party cannot become a new force in British politics. We’re already difficult to ignore on X, and the media can’t ignore us forever. Whether they like it or not, remigration is inevitable.