Dan Haley | @cymroofbarri89 on X

2025 was the year of voicing cultural taboos around immigration, migrant hotels, and a resurgent national identity. It was also a dark and frankly dismal year in many respects. Across the Anglosphere, the public endured an annus horribilis of tragedy after tragedy. The murder of Iryna Zarutska, the assassination of Charlie Kirk, and now near-weekly reports of rape and murder by foreigners here in the motherland. The Cambridgeshire stabbing and the Manchester attack serve as just two examples.

Yet 2025 was also the year our people began to wake up to the situation they face with courage, determination, and most importantly a renewed sense of nationalism and pride in their country.

What began at The Bell Hotel in Epping during the summer became the epicentre of a movement that soon rippled across the entire country. Local campaigners such as Callum Barker took to the streets demanding the hotel be closed after an Ethiopian asylum seeker staying there assaulted a 14 year old girl and a woman.

This local action drew the attention of high-profile figures and politicians, who shone a light on this corner of Essex. Protests soon followed at other asylum hotels across England and even in parts of Wales.

Grass roots movements also formed. Groups such as The Pink Ladies emerged as all-female activists dedicated to preventing risks to girls and women’s safety at the hands of migrants. Sporting noticeable pink attire, mothers and grandmothers branded themselves the “Voices of our Children”.

Some even brought their younger daughters along, marking a radical shift in the atmosphere of these protests. For the first time, all sections of our people were visibly coming together. Shortly after, Operation Raise the Colours saw Union Jacks flown from lampposts across the country in a defiant display of national pride.

These developments were born of collective frustration, anger, and a newly awakened patriotism. They signalled a stark shift in public consciousness around immigration, asylum, and identity.

Identity Returns to the Foreground

Early in the year, Keir Starmer made his now-famous “Island of Strangers” speech. For once, its broad strokes echoed what many British people were already feeling, though predictably he later sought to retreat from it. He described recent migration figures under the Conservatives as a “one-nation experiment in open borders conducted on a country that voted for control”.

As that control was reclaimed in rhetoric if not yet in policy, flags came to represent more than surface-level pride. Historically, flags have always marked demarcation, ownership, and territorial intent. Political parties scrambled to capitalise on and criticise this groundswell, with national flags suddenly very visible at party conferences.

Following Tommy Robinson’s Unite the Kingdom rally in September, which saw upwards of 70,000 march through London waving the same flags, many establishment figures rushed to frame this moment as a resurgence of the “far right”.

One such figure was Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood. She declared, “we are in truth a tolerant country and a diverse one too. You can be English with roots here that stretch back a 1,000 years. But you can also be English and look like me.”

This ignores the fact that English is an ethnic identity tied to parentage and familial ancestry. Pakistan, her ancestral homeland, was not formally recognised until 1947, while the English people have existed for over a millennium. The name England itself derives from the Old English Engleland, meaning “the land of the Angles”, a Germanic people who settled Britain after the Roman withdrawal.

Identity became a hot topic again, contested by many from all sides of the spectrum. Britishness began to return to its older meaning, no longer reduced solely to paperwork and passports. Alongside this shift, one word began to dominate the national conversation around mass immigration and demographic decline. That word was remigration.

What Is Remigration?

Remigration returned to centre stage after Andrew Gold hosted prominent advocate Steve Laws on his popular Heretics show. The now-viral exchange reignited fierce debate, but the question remains simple. What is remigration, and what does it mean for Britain?

Merriam-Webster defines remigration as “the act of returning to one’s original or previous home after a migration”. It derives from the Latin remigrāre, meaning to return home. The concept was first popularised by Identitarian movements in Europe and thinkers such as Renard Camus and Martin Sellner of the Identitarian Movement of Austria.

The removal of peoples from a particular place is not without historical precedent. In 1290, King Edward I signed the Edict of Expulsion, forcing approximately 3,000 Jews to leave England. Facing severe financial pressure, Edward sought parliamentary support, which was granted on the condition he enact the decree.

Jews were permitted to take movable belongings but were forced to leave behind homes, property, and places of worship, all of which became crown property. England became the first European nation to permanently ban Jews, a ban that remained until Oliver Cromwell overturned it more than 360 years later.

This was a very different era. Attempts at removing populations within the last two centuries have often ended catastrophically, including ethnic cleansing and genocide. Remigration has been unfairly characterised as an echo of those atrocities by its detractors.

In the modern context, however, it refers to reversing decades-old policies that promoted mass immigration and instead instituting policies that encourage mass emigration.

From Fringe to Policy Debate

In the UK, remigration has been advocated by organisations such as Generation Identity UK, the Homeland Party, Britain First, UKIP, and Remigration Now, led by Steve Laws.

The political class avoids the term, even Independent MP and Restore Britain founder Rupert Lowe, who has openly advocated “mass deportations” of illegal migrants and foreign criminals. Alongside Harrison Pitt, he authored the policy document Mass Deportations: Legitimacy, Legality.

The foreword states it would “effectively involve abolishing the asylum system” and removing every illegal migrant from Britain through a combination of hostile environment measures, voluntary returns, and forced deportations. While the term remigration is avoided, the substance aligns closely with its core principles.

Polling reflects growing support. Find Out Now revealed overwhelming support for the mass deportation of illegal migrants. Nigel Farage’s Reform party has since pledged to deport 600,000 people if elected, adopting a position he dismissed earlier in 2025.

Even the Conservatives have begun echoing similar language after more than a decade of inaction. Labour now scrambles to appear firmer, sensing rising public impatience.

Mainstreaming and Momentum

Remigration has gained its greatest momentum online, particularly on X since Elon Musk’s acquisition. Musk himself quote-posted a Swedish journalist stating, “Remigration isn’t ‘far right’. It’s actually completely normal.” The official US Homeland Security account echoed similar language in a widely shared post:

The Financial Times named remigration its Word of 2025. A Danish poll found that seven in ten Danes support remigration policies, including deporting welfare dependents and criminal migrants. The Remigration Summit of 2025 in Italy drew over 400 activists despite bans and opposition, with future summits planned. “Save our nation, remigration!” was chanted throughout.

In Germany, the AfD has surged, securing 20.8 percent of the vote and 152 Bundestag seats. In Britain, Reform has broken the two-party consensus, reportedly surpassing 268,000 members and topping opinion polls. While Reform may lack a deeper nationalist vision, it reflects widespread hostility to the uniparty system.

The Overton window has shifted dramatically. Remigration is now openly discussed on GB News and TalkTV, with mainstream broadcast exposure increasingly likely.

At the Unite the Kingdom rally, Dutch activist Eva Vlaardingerbroek wore a Generation Remigration shirt and declared, “change is possible, remigration is possible. And it is up to us to make it happen.”

The Steve Laws Case Study

Few figures have done more to mainstream remigration in Britain than Steve Laws. He had two viral podcast appearances this year, being hosted by Liam Tuffs and Andrew Gold. Laws has documented illegal crossings at Dover for years and commands one of the largest nationalist followings online. He founded Remigration Now, described as a “dynamic activist and pressure group dedicated to promoting remigration policies”.

Audience reaction to his appearance with Tuffs was overwhelmingly positive, even among viewers not considered hard-line. His direct, uncompromising style shifted the discourse and made further prominence inevitable.

Gold disgraced their interview through the use of fact-checking note boxes, placing Laws at an immediate disadvantage. Nevertheless, Laws challenged Gold’s understanding of ethnic identity and exposed clear double standards, particularly regarding collective punishment.

Gold, who describes himself as English while rejecting its ethnic basis, responded flippantly to England’s demographic future. When Laws stated England should belong to the English, Gold replied, “you’re living in the past man. That’s gone.” Later, Gold admitted that Europeans would likely become a minority and possibly go extinct. Laws countered that Europeans are already a global minority, which underpins his position.

Gold attempted to undermine English identity by referencing the Norman Conquest while simultaneously insisting Jews were English. Yet only around 8,000 Jews settled in England after 1066, compared to a native population of roughly two million. The Normans themselves largely remained an elite ruling class with limited admixture.

The most viral exchange occurred when Laws challenged Gold’s rejection of remigration as collective punishment by citing Gold’s support for Israel’s response to October 7th. Laws argued that bombing civilians constituted genuine collective punishment. Gold justified it as unavoidable, yet rejected remigration as immoral.

Looking to 2026

Regardless of whether full remigration is politically imminent, Steve Laws occupies a position others can’t help but be drawn to. He refuses compromise, stating that “the future of my people is non-negotiable” and “it isn’t personal, it’s necessary”. Even critics acknowledge his determination.

As 2025 ended, The Guardian noted rising support for the idea that Britons must be born British. One third of respondents now hold this view, up from one in five two years earlier, according to IPPR data.

The British people are waking up to recognise themselves as natives within a society imposed upon them. Remigration has already become the dominant topic of discussion. The question now is whether 2026 will be the year it becomes a cause of action.