The Great Repatriation and Unwilling States

We are going to encounter resistence, we must have a plan.

The Great Repatriation: the return of non-Whites to their respective ethnic homelands, is the cornerstone of our policy agenda here at White-Papers. While we have no doubt that this can be accomplished, and have written extensively about states that could be our allies in this cause, other states are going to, at least in the beginning, be oppositional to any Great Repatriation project by White nations.

The United States classes countries unwilling to take back their citizens as recalcitrant states, while the European Union has termed them uncooperative countries of origin. Regardless of the terminology, pro-White policymakers will need a plan to force the numerous countries that refuse to take back their nationals and ethnic kin to do so.

In this piece, we will outline a list of actions that policymakers can and should take to force recalcitrant, uncooperative, and reluctant states to cooperate.

Visa Restrictions

Both the United States and the European Union already have “laws on the books” that enable immediate and unilateral suspension of the issuance of visas to foreign nationals of any state. The United States Immigration and Nationality Act (section 234(d) and the European Union’s unitary Visa Code make it possible for governments to cease issuing visas to foreign nationals of states who do not cooperate with Western nations.

Ambassador Michele Thoren Bond has testified before the US Congress that visa restrictions are an effective tool at convincing recalcitrant states to cooperate, but as is typical with the modern neoliberal government of the US, the State Department is not enforcing these rules. A 2020 Congressional Report also backs up these claims of visa restriction effectiveness. The report outlines how the nation of Guyana was subject to visa restrictions and relented after two months, finally issuing travel documents for 113 criminal Guyanese the United States sought to deport.

In another cited example in the report sanctions placed on Gambian government officials and their families in 2016 eventually caused the country to relent and begin cooperating with the United States in the deportation of Gambians.

Pro-White policymakers must take visa restriction from being an extremely rarely used tool to a tool of frequent use. Countries must know that any attempt to delay or disassemble a White country’s attempt to deport racial foreigners will be met with severe consequences. A foreign nation’s businessmen, politicians, wealthy, and influential will no long have access to the West so long as a nation refuses to cooperate.

Remittance Restrictions

If visa restrictions do not prove an effective tool, or for some reason are an inappropriate tool at the time, there is the possibility of restricting remittances to foreign nations.

Many countries ranging from Honduras to India, the Philippines, and Jamaica, are highly dependent on remittances to keep their local economies afloat. In some nations, such as the aforementioned Honduras, remittances make up a large share of GDP (nearly 30%) while in other states such as India receive very large remittance amounts in total dollar terms. In 2022 India became the first nation in the world to receive more than 100 billion dollars in remittances over a single year.

Of the 831 billion dollars of global remittances which were transferred to a home country in 2022, the vast bulk were from White countries to non-White nations.

The United States already has a history of limiting remittance payments to nations which it does not politically align with. Remittance restriction regimes have been applied, on and off, to Cuba for decades and the US government retains the right to apply such restrictive regimes to other states.

India is the perfect example of a remittance restriction candidate. If the Indian state does not want to cooperate with US deportations (and it currently is uncooperative) then a pro-White American state must withhold all remittance payments during any Great Repatriation schemes. The Indian government and Indian citizens will miss out on tens of billions of dollars in transfers which could be made while the 4.4 million Indians in the US continue to work until eventually being asked to leave.

Restrict Luxury Goods Exports

The export of food is necessary for American farmers and the hungry of the world. The export of fuel keeps the global economy moving, and the movement of steel or aggregates assures that industrial society keeps on moving.

But one thing that does not keep the world moving, but which is significant to any elite, is the ability to purchase luxury goods.

The largest producers of luxury goods in the world are located in Europe: France, Italy, Germany, and these state’s largest export markets are often nations that refuse to cooperate in deportations.

African elites and the Chinese ruling class are some of the largest purchasers of luxury goods on the planet, and so are liable to be ‘harmed’ by not having access to them.

The United States and European Union have already imposed sanctions regimes on Russia which prevent the export of luxury goods to that state. These regimes should be expanded to any state which is reluctant to cooperate in the return of its nationals.

By starving the elite of Africa, Asia, and the general developing world of the cars, watches, and luxury goods which give them domestic standards of living we can force said elites to cooperate in order to serve their personal greed. All while avoiding harming their populations through a more general sanctions regime. Such regimes rarely work and are generally more damaging to the most vulnerable sectors of society.

While policing a range of luxury goods companies is far simpler.

The West has tried the “carrot” approach for decades and it has only resulted in steadily worsening rates of return from Europe and the United States.

It is time to look at the stick and bring about the Great Repatriation.