On May 17th 2025, nearly four hundred activists, scholars and elected officials converged on Milan for the first pan-European Remigration Summit. The choice of the location was symbolic: Milan, historically a center of trade, finance, and manufacturing, suddenly became the flashpoint of a continent-wide debate over demographic change.
The Summit’s declared aim was to move the idea of Remigration - the voluntary or incentivized return of non-European immigrants to their countries of origin - from the fringes of online discussion into the realm of practical policy-making.
Although Europe has hosted countless conferences on immigration, this was the first specifically on Remigration. Whether one applauds or rejects the premise, the mere fact that such a gathering took place - despite vigorous institutional and media push‑back - marks a crucial milestone in the debate on Europe’s demographic future.
We’ve had the opportunity to attend the Remigration Summit 2025, and in this article we aim to provide a review, as well as some constructive criticism, in the hope that this Summit will be the inaugural entry in a long series of open, data‑driven colloquia on a subject that will shape the continent for decades.
The Context: Organisation Under Siege
Two weeks before the event, Milan’s mayor publicly condemned the Summit, and several mainstream outlets branded it a "hate assembly." These attacks triggered a cascade of logistical hurdles: the original venue cancelled at short notice, insurance underwriters balked, and the city attempted to impose eleventh‑hour security fees.
Yet the organisers - led by Andrea Ballarati - managed an impressive recovery, securing an alternative hall in Gallarate within forty‑eight hours; on the morning of the 17th, the event was moved from the early afternoon to the morning.
The programme itself began an hour later than planned, a concession to police cordons outside, but otherwise ran with crisp punctuality.
Paradoxically, it was precisely these public hostilities that have helped to increase public attention around the initiative, making it public knowledge rather than known to restricted political circles.
On this front the summit succeeded - and exposed the tension between Europe’s official celebration of "diversity" and its apparent allergy to intellectual pluralism.
The Public: Young, Pan‑European, and Purposeful
Once inside, we immediately noticed that the public was made up of delegations and groups from all over Europe: Germany, the Netherlands, Flanders, Portugal, Ireland, and France. Some even all the way from the United States and Australia, further proof of the relevance of the Summit’s topic in the wider Western world.
Most of the attendees were young - under thirty - proving that Remigration is a concern for future generations rather than just a reactionary impulse of the old, as is described by mainstream media.
Also counter to the mainstream portrayal of the event as a “conclave of violent extremists”, we found the public to be well-mannered, and focused on listening intently to the speeches of the speakers.
The Event
The plenary sequence ran for five hours, interspersed with a coffee break and a late lunch. Below is a distilled overview:
Andrea Ballarati (Lombardy)
The main organizer of the event, he opened with a brisk overview of the Summit’s last‑minute difficulties and thanked the media and Milanese authorities for the free publicity that followed their attempts at suppression.
Lena Kotrè (AfD, Germany)
In a brief speech, she stated that remigration policies reflect the aspirations of a large segment of the German population, and that preserving Germany's national identity through such measures should be considered a standard political position.
She also argued that Remigration should not only become politically mainstream, but also integrated into cultural narratives and popular consciousness. She also proposed the idea of a private-sector "remigration industry", framing the policy as an economic growth niche.
Eva Vlaardingerbroek (Netherlands)
Perhaps the most known speaker, she delivered a rousing - if familiar - alarm on European demographic projections, citing data that suggests ethnic Europeans may become minorities in some countries by 2050. She emphasized low fertility rates, the proliferation of no-go zones, and increasing instances of violence against native Europeans.
She argued that the future is easy to predict by observing places where Europeans are already a minority, warning that this trajectory could spread across vast areas of the continent if no corrective measures are taken. Vlaardingerbroek also underscored the value of what is at stake: the cultural and civilizational legacy of Europe, exemplified in its cities, which she described as artistic masterpieces.
Furthermore, she urged Europeans to shed the lingering guilt complex stemming from the Second World War and unapologetically affirm that just as Africans have Africa and Asians have Asia, Europe must remain for Europeans.
Her intervention framed mass non-European immigration not simply as a natural demographic trend, but as a deliberate, genocidal policy aimed at displacing native populations - a position that elicited strong reactions from the audience.
Cyan Quinn (White Papers Policy Institute, USA)
The most data-driven intervention of the day came from the White Papers Policy Institute (WPPI), represented by Cyan Quinn. Their presentation, a comprehensive analysis of immigration’s economic consequences, offered comparative GDP metrics, welfare expenditure figures, employment and productivity metrics, and a cost-benefit analysis suggesting that a structured remigration policy could be up to ten times more cost-effective than maintaining current immigration models.
Rather than reiterate the cultural and civilizational arguments presented by others, WPPI deliberately centered its analysis on economic concerns - appealing even to pragmatists and centrists. Their data showed that while mass immigration may benefit a small elite, it imposes significant burdens on the broader population: lowering wages, overloading public services, and distorting labor markets.
Quinn emphasized that non-working immigrants reliant on state support are an ongoing fiscal liability: even across generations, immigrants tend to remain a net cost to welfare systems, particularly when integration fails. WPPI highlighted the high proportion of non-European youth classified as NEETs - not in education, employment, or training - as evidence of this systemic failure.
Quinn emphasized that the West faces a common demographic and economic challenge, requiring transnational coordination. Citing examples from the U.S., she praised former President Donald Trump’s immigration policies as an effective model for controlling inflows and protecting native workers.
Notably, WPPI argues that Remigration is not inherently coercive; surveys and anecdotal evidence suggest a growing number of non-Europeans, including African-Americans in the U.S., express interest in returning to their ancestral homelands, something that could indicate a path toward alignment between remigration and the preferences of some immigrant communities.
WPPI emphasized that remigration should not be seen as a partisan project, but rather a pragmatic and bipartisan solution to an unsustainable socio-economic trend. Their presentation stood out as the only one grounded in comprehensive, data-driven policy analysis. You can read the presentation notes in their latest Substack article.
Dries Van Langenhove (Belgium)
One of the organizers and persecuted by authorities for his political views, Van Langenhove dissected EU asylum law with clarity and urgency, framing mass immigration as a planned policy rather than a spontaneous phenomenon. He emphasized that since mass immigration is the result of deliberate political choices, Remigration too must become a concrete and strategic policy objective, pursued within existing legal systems - or, if necessary, by reforming them. His intervention outlined a detailed three-phase plan.
First, the deportation of illegal immigrants, particularly those with criminal records, should be prioritized, as well as comprehensive policy changes such as border closures, the end of family reunification programs, and financial incentives for voluntary return.
Secondly, the deportation of immigrants who are in Europe legally but who commit crimes, and a stop to the renewal of residence permits.
Finally, he proposed addressing the presence of naturalised citizens openly hostile to European values by offering similar incentives for repatriation to their ancestral countries.
Van Langenhove stressed that remigration must remain lawful, peaceful, and dignified. He also called for strict penalties against welfare fraud, especially for those who exploit the system through deceitful asylum claims. He advocated more restrictive residency laws, welfare policies that support native European families, and development programs in origin countries to facilitate reintegration.
Citing historical precedents such as the remigration of the Indian diaspora from Fiji since 1917, he argued that demographic reversals are not only possible but necessary. His was one of the few interventions to offer a full-spectrum approach, combining legal, economic, and social levers into a cohesive policy framework.
John McLoughlin (National Party, Ireland)
The Irish speaker gave a sobering account of his country's demographic trajectory, warning that native Irish could become a minority by 2060. He described the transformation of rural villages where hotels have been converted into state-funded hostels for asylum seekers, instantly turning locals into minorities.
Yet, he ended with an inspiring tone, affirming his generation's duty to lay the foundations for a future rebirth - even if they may not live to see it. He warned that although peaceful solutions are still possible today, more extreme problems will inevitably warrant more extreme measures.
Jacky Eubanks (USA)
Affiliated with Turning Point USA, she presented a constitutionalist critique of mass immigration in the American context. She argued that the U.S. was never intended to be a multicultural state and highlighted cases like Dearborn, Michigan, as examples of cultural displacement.
She condemned the H-1B visa system and estimated that up to 20 million illegal immigrants could be living in the U.S., calling for a complete halt to immigration and mass deportations.
Kenny Smith (Homeland Party, UK)
The party’s founder gave a somber but necessary account about a disturbing issue that is denied, misconstrued and minimised by mainstream media and authorities: the systematic sexual exploitation of British girls by immigrant “grooming gangs”.
He framed the phenomenon as racially motivated and intentionally covered up by complicit authorities, who deny the racial aspect, scale and organization of such criminal epidemic. while guaranteeing the widespread impunity of the perpetrators.
Smith framed the problem as systemic, requiring a takeover of political power to implement real justice.
Frederik Jansen (FvD, Netherlands)
In a concise speech, he affirmed the necessity to make it more inviting for migrants to return to their countries of origin, noting how the many military interventions by western countries have wrecked the fragile societies from which Muslims have fled.
He ended by calling for peace with the Muslim world, so that the migrants can have stable countries to return to.
Jean‑Yves Le Gallou (Reconquête, France)
Founder of the Institut Iliade and long time active in the far-right landscape, he delivered a sweeping historical‑anthropological lecture on the ancient roots of European identity, making it clear to all present of the stakes that we will have to take into account in our action in the near future.
He stated that Europeans have been the indigenous people of the continent for 40000 years, with a cultural continuity spanning over 5000 years, and a religious one of 2000.
Le Gallou criticized the selective application of the 2007 UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples, noting that Europe is the only continent where these protections are ignored.
He presented a tiered framework for remigration: illegal immigrants, criminals, and welfare dependents should be expelled immediately; long-term residents who remain unassimilated yet respectful of European values should be encouraged to return voluntarily; only those fully assimilated and loyal should retain citizenship.
He rejected the idea that the EU alone is responsible for the crisis, reminding the audience that mass immigration began in the 1970s across European nation-states - long before EU policies took effect. Countries outside the EU like Switzerland, Norway, and Iceland face the same issues, and Brexit has not spared Britain.
His conclusion was unequivocal: only a pan-European response can reclaim and preserve the continent’s identity.
Martin Sellner (Austria)
Widely credited with popularising the concept of remigration, he was welcomed with a standing ovation, but was forced to keep his contribution brief due to time constraints.
He noted that the press had mockingly referred to the Summit as a 'conclave' and embraced the comparison, referencing the Latin phrase used during papal elections - Extra omnes, or 'everyone out' - as a fitting slogan for the movement. He reflected on the dynamic of standing ovations, where a few rise first, followed by the rest, until it becomes embarrassing not to join in.
This, he said, is how remigration must enter the political mainstream: adopted by enough parties and movements to make resistance awkward and outdated. Sellner celebrated the rapid growth in awareness, claiming that in just two years, remigration had gone from taboo to widely discussed.
His message was optimistic and forward-looking, promising that the real reward of their efforts would be "the laughter of our children."
Alfonso Gonçalves (Reconquista, Portugal)
One of the summit’s organisers and founder of the Reconquista movement, he closed the day with a passionate address.
He positioned the struggle for Remigration as the defining cause of this generation, declaring that the political conflict of our time is no longer between Left and Right, but between nations and globalism. He asserted that the movement would not stop until it prevailed, framing it as a renewed European reconquista.
Gonçalves described the current crisis as the gravest in European history and called for total commitment, stating that failure to act would amount to civilisational suicide. His final call to action underscored the need for national pride, unity, and relentless determination.
After quick final greetings, we left the theatre in a hurry to have a late lunch of tasty Neapolitan pizza.
Just kidding, we went to Burger King.
Our Critique
Too much rhetoric, not enough planning
While the organizers demonstrated remarkable efficiency in dealing with unforeseen events, the speeches were largely rhetorical in nature: rather than focusing on operational analysis or implementation strategies for Remigration, many participants preferred to make denunciations and symbolic calls, appealing to people to “do their part”.
The only exception is the presentation by the White Papers Policy Institute, which we appreciated both for its contents and its approach: methodical, neutral in tone and practical in its focus on economics (leaving the cultural and racial arguments to be covered by other speakers).
Granted, by this we don’t mean to criticize any single speaker, but instead we think that the Summit would have been far more productive if they coordinated in advance and prepared complementary contributions, instead of repeating redundant concepts.
Rather than treating it as a popularising occasion, many likely perceived the event as an opportunity to reaffirm their presence in the identitarian European landscape by taking a stand on the issue.
The political dimension
Notably absent were the italian parties traditionally associated with the far-right, with the exception of Lega (itself more of a conservative party at this point), which had a significant presence: three representatives attended, delivering video messages that dusted off the same-old conservative rhetoric of “we can integrate them as long as they work and pay taxes”, in contrast to the main theses put forward during the Summit: integration does not work and work does not pay the price of multiculturalism.
We can’t say whether these contributions were aimed at riding on the growing popularity of the topic, or were more of an assertion of earlier Lega Nord’s more ethnically-focused slogans, seeking to court the Lombard and Venetian voters lost to FDI after Lega’s “national” phase.
In conclusion, the real message of Remigration has not yet gotten through to mainstream politics. Let us hope that it won't be just another political battle that establishment parties will appropriate in order to ride on it's popularity while diluting its meaning.
An example of transnational coordination
One interesting fact that emerged from the summit is the level of transnational coordination it fostered.
While the event's detractors - from progressive or extreme left-wing circles - contested the initiative without proposing concrete alternatives, the Remigration promoters seem, paradoxically, to be among the most advanced in the European integration process. The direct confrontation between leaders of different countries and their acronyms shows a political horizon that already moved beyond state borders and considers actual peoples and their ethnic affinities.
Therefore, it is legitimate to ask who really cares about a united Europe today: those who insist on outdated nation-state models, or those who attempt to build pan-European networks based on shared ethnic identities?
Proposals for a next Summit
In conclusion, the Milan Summit was a logistical and symbolic success, offering a platform to a movement that intends to present itself as an alternative to the current order, a necessary first step in reclaiming our Homelands.
However, for the Summit to evolve from a symbolic gathering into a lasting institution capable of shaping real policy and strategy, and address the complexity of the phenomenon of mass migration, certain structural enhancements should be considered for future editions.
We already mentioned the need to focus more on hard data and strategic planning than on rhetoric, but here’s some ideas that can enhance the experience for all involved:
While we understand the time pressure on the day of the Summit and the need to keep a tight schedule (we know that some sections of the schedule were skipped because of it), we would have liked dedicated Q&A segments after each speech, in which we would have certainly provided some of our insights on the subject of Remigration. These sessions should be moderated to ensure relevance and quality, with an option for attendees to submit written questions in advance, allowing speakers to clarify and defend their positions, adding a layer of interaction and intellectual rigor.
Instead of a sequence of isolated speeches, future Summits should incorporate thematic panels, with multiple speakers addressing a shared topic, each giving short remarks followed by a moderated discussion. This would allow for a comparison of perspectives, more dynamic exchanges, and clearer contrasts between tactical or ideological approaches;
Parallel to main stage events, smaller workshop sessions should be introduced, allowing participants to engage hands-on with specific real-life issues such as media communication, legal defense strategies, fertility initiatives, or parallel institutions;
To avoid the repetition of concepts and develop new ideas, each edition of the Summit should be organized around a unifying annual theme (e.g., European fertility, parallel institutions, the economics of Remigration);
Such a Summit is bound to gather competent, motivated individuals, interested in making a difference and likely already involved in projects that resonate with the themes of the event. Thus, a post-event environment designed specifically for networking between the attendees and the organizers and speakers, as well as among the attendees themselves is bound to produce incredible opportunities for pan-European cooperation.
Remigration in the case of Venetia
We believe that the arguments of Remigration, which focus on welfare, security, identity and redistribution, are also applicable within nation-states, and especially to the case of Northern and Southern Italy.
Our followers are well aware of the situation in Italy, where numerous peoples with distinct cultures, languages, histories and genetic heritages make up the indigenous population. In fact, there is more ethnic diversity within the territory of the italian state than in Central Europe as a whole.
Since its unification - achieved not by popular will but through wars of conquest and political manipulation, yet still mythologized as a revolution of the people - the ruling class of the newly formed italian state has struggled to erase the identities of the Italian peoples in an attempt to merge them into a single, artificial nation whose masses could be exploited in factories and as cannon fodder in wars.
Movement of people was extremely limited until the First World War, as moving from one part of Italy to another was akin to going to a foreign land for the Italian peoples themselves: an unknown language, a different culture and often hostile authorities and inhabitants. Indeed, the main feature of the first decades of the Kingdom of Italy was the emigration of millions of citizens seeking their fortune outside a state that was becoming increasingly despotic and heavy-handed.
Reasoning in these terms, the main ethnic group of foreigners in Venetia - and in Lombardy, where the event took place - are precisely immigrants from Southern Italy. Their economic, cultural and social impact on Venetian and Lombard society is comparable to their non-European counterparts, burdening public spending not only as individuals, but also as entire administrative regions that benefit from northern tribute.
Moreover, migration from Southern Italy has changed over the decades: initially, it was labour for the factories in large industrial districts, which led to the formation of ghettos with their own internal dynamics. Now, the main reason for migration is to benefit from scholarships and public competitions to join the police, civil service and other public services. More recently still, a new migratory trend is southerners abusing the health services of the northern regions, further straining the latter’s availability for the locals.
This evolution of migration within the italian state mirrors international and intercontinental migration patterns. Therefore, as part of the Summit’s proposals, we must note that providing mere economic aid to the countries of origin is not enough; in fact, it is completely useless. Decades of development plans in Southern Italy have only resulted in further indebtedness for the entire country.
In this respect, we advocate the idea of encouraging migrant populations to return to their homeland. In the case of Italy, we often have to dispel the notion of italian nationalism, which views the peninsula's ethnic diversity as a flaw to be corrected rather than a reality to be accepted.
Therefore, it seems even more absurd to us that the greatest advocates of mass immigration and multiculturalism (mostly left-wingers) come from the same circles that deny and deride this diversity, an outlook shared by many right-wing proponents of italian nationalism, who tend to push for a kind of “civic nationalism” that seeks to create an italian identity based on the active negation of real ethnic identities.
Remigration of Europeans to the European Homelands
The current focus of the Remigration debate is on the return of non-Europeans to their homelands. However, we must also consider the reverse scenario: people of European descent who wish to return to their ancestors' continent of origins.
There is a suspect hostility on the part of more progressive groups towards such repatriations - even in cases of overt persecution, such as that experienced by the Afrikaners in South Africa, who are abused by African populations with government approval. Furthermore, since these populations usually contribute to the development of countries in which they are settled (or even founded them, in the case of South Africa), no economic justification can be applied to refusing their application.
It would be much simpler for these populations to obtain citizenship in the European countries of arrival, as integration would be easier for them and their contribution to the economy would be greater.
A striking example of this is the Venetian communities in Southern Brazil. Having emigrated there en masse in the 19th century, Venetians have preserved their heritage, language and traditions almost unchanged.
In the case of the repatriation of Europeans to their homelands, we observe an interesting phenomenon that shows the anti-European and anti-Venetian attitude common to all italian political parties, from left to right: while the far-left calls for a referendum to extend citizenship by "right of soil" (years of residence as a requirement for obtaining citizenship) to millions of non-Europeans present on italian soil, the conservative government is limiting the concession of citizenship to the Venetians of Brazil by "right of blood", adding the clause that at least one grandparent must have been born on italian soil, effectively preventing millions of ethnically European people in Brazil from being able to return to Italy (or rather, to Venetia, since they feel more Venetian than Italian) with full citizenship rights.