Europe’s migration debate is no longer just about borders

On the southern shores of Europe, familiar scenes still recur with overcrowded dinghies drifting across the Mediterranean, border guards intercepting them, asylum seekers waiting behind razor wire fences and political leaders promising to “take back control”.

Migration has been a constant political underpinning in Europe. But the story this summer is much more than a border crisis — it signals the emergence of a new political vocabulary, remigration. What once dominated the European far-right has now entered the political mainstream, indicating a structural and systemic transformation in how Europe understands ideas of migration, citizenship and belonging.

On June 12, the European Union’s Migration and Asylum Pact came into force, introducing stricter returns procedures. Its more significant change is political rather than legal. Across Europe, remigration, once confined to fringe politics, is now debated in parliaments, on television and in election campaigns.

Traditionally, remigration referred to migrants voluntarily returning to their countries of origin. In recent years, however, the term has acquired a very different meaning. It has been adopted by far right to advocate the removal of migrants and, in some cases, even naturalised citizens considered culturally incompatible with the nation. Much of this thinking draws on the “Great Replacement” theory advanced by Renaud Camus and later promoted by Austrian activist Martin Sellner. Critics argue that it shifts the basis of belonging from legal citizenship to ethnicity and cultural identity.

Why is remigration politically significant? Not merely for what it proposes, but because of its growing acceptance within European politics.

Political language shapes what societies consider legitimate by making certain ideas acceptable while pushing others beyond the public debate. The appeal of remigration lies in its ambiguity. Unlike terms like “mass deportation”, which carry immediate legal and moral implications, remigration can refer to anything from stricter enforcement of immigration laws to the removal of migrants and even naturalised citizens deemed insufficiently integrated. That ambiguity has helped move the term from the political fringe into the mainstream.

More broadly, Europe’s migration debate has changed significantly over the past decade. The language of multiculturalism and integration has increasingly given way to one centred on border control, returns and security. The 2015 refugee crisis, followed by terrorist attacks, economic uncertainty, the pandemic, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and continuing instability in parts of Africa and the Middle East, has deepened anxieties over security, state capacity and national identity. Migration is now debated less in terms of numbers than in terms of control, belonging and political trust.

Such shifts have often been captured by the concept of the Overton window — the range of ideas considered politically acceptable at any given time. Europe’s migration debate is undergoing precisely such a transformation.

Interestingly, irregular border crossings into the European Union and asylum applications both declined in 2025, yet calls for tougher migration policies only intensified. The new Migration and Asylum Pact reflects this changing political mood by placing greater focus on border management and returns. Supporters argue that it will restore confidence in the asylum system, while critics see it as re-entrenching a securitised approach to migration.

For India, this debate is not a distant concern. Europe is home to a growing Indian diaspora of students, professionals and entrepreneurs, and India and the EU have steadily expanded cooperation on legal migration and mobility. Yet Europe today faces a contradiction. Even as ageing populations and labour shortages increase the demand for skilled workers, political discourse has become more cautious about immigration, framed increasingly around security and cultural identity.

Indian migrants may not be the immediate targets, but a more restrictive political climate could shape future visa policies, labour mobility and the everyday experiences of immigrant communities.

Europe’s remigration debate also reflects a broader transformation across Western democracies — immigration has become increasingly intertwined with questions of national identity, sovereignty and cultural cohesion. The trajectory is perhaps most visible in the US under Donald Trump.

Borders determine who may enter a country. Citizenship defines who enjoys legal rights. Political language, however, shapes who is imagined to belong. That is why the rise of remigration deserves attention. Governments and migration policies will change, but the political imaginary they cultivate often endures.

The significance of Europe’s remigration debate lies not only in the reforms it produces today, but in the changing ideas of identity, citizenship and belonging that it leaves behind.

Srivastava is a guest professor, Department of Civics and Politics, University of Mumbai. Buttan is a PhD Scholar at TISS, Mumbai