A single word has sparked a fierce debate across the German-speaking world. In Austria, the dispute has now reached Parliament. Herbert Kickl, leader of the Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ), the country’s largest opposition party, spoke of “remigration” and received an official reprimand, as though he had said something outrageous. He then defended the expression publicly, telling journalists that he would not allow “self-appointed language police” to deny him freedom of speech. He said he wanted to show that remigration was something positive.
In his parliamentary speech, Kickl applied the demand for remigration to illegal migrants and those convicted of crimes. The “remigration of illegal and criminal mass migrants” could not be achieved overnight, he said. But the process had to begin immediately.
The FPÖ promptly turned the controversy into a campaign. It released a “remigration song” on YouTube in which “Airbert One” takes off with the “problem cases” on board. “Airbert” is a play on Herbert Kickl’s first name and the deportation flights the FPÖ leader promises on a large scale if he becomes chancellor.
Interior Minister Gerhard Karner of the Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP) sharply criticized the term. Remigration was a political slogan used by the Identitarian Movement and the New Right, he said. The FPÖ had previously clearly distanced itself from both movements.
Why the Word Is Loaded
In German, remigration is not a standard administrative term. It became widely known primarily through the Identitarian Movement and its political environment. Austrian activist Martin Sellner made it a central concept in his campaigns. From there, it spread into right-wing media and later into party politics.
That origin still clings to the word. “Deportation”, which effectively describes the same thing, is a legal term. Authorities also use “return”, which appears in official documents. Even “repatriation” can be found as an official legal term in German regulations and simply describes the return of people to their homeland.
Remigration is therefore politically charged and burdened by its associations. The term also signals a political position. It comes from a milieu beyond Germany’s much-cited “firewall”, which established parties use to keep right-wing organizations outside mainstream political life.
In Germany, the term became a political flashpoint during the controversy over the notorious Potsdam meeting of conservative and right-wing circles, which Martin Sellner also attended. It has since come to symbolize the question of whether language originating on the right-wing fringe should be allowed to enter mainstream political discourse.
The Issue Behind the Dispute
The term would carry less force if there were no perceived political problem behind it. In many European countries, people ordered to leave are able to remain. Proceedings drag on. Countries of origin refuse to take back even serious criminals or delay their return. The FPÖ has chosen a word that sounds harsher than the language used by the authorities.
The European Union is also moving in that direction, although it uses different terms. Brussels is working on tougher return rules. Procedures are to be accelerated. Detention pending deportation is to remain possible for longer. The plans also include so-called return hubs in third countries.
The EU speaks of return policy and more efficient procedures. In substance, the debate concerns people without the right to remain and the question of how obligations to leave can be enforced. The Austrian dispute is therefore part of the same broader European development, expressed in different language.
That poses a problem for parties such as the ÖVP and its German sister parties, the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and Christian Social Union (CSU). They want to demonstrate toughness on migration while keeping their distance from language associated with forces beyond the firewall. At the same time, they must show how their position differs from the same demands made by right-wing parties.
Kickl and his German counterparts in the Alternative for Germany, by contrast, can exploit precisely that tension. They do not even need to discuss readmission agreements or administrative procedures, areas in which their movements may no longer stand apart within the EU. A single provocative word does the work for them.