REMIGRATION: European Union Agrees To New Immigration Policies That Will See Failed ‘Asylum Seekers’ Sent to ‘Return Hubs’ in Outside Countries – Liberal Establishment Is Outraged
June 2, 2026
U.S. Naval Forces Europe-Africa/U.S. 6th Fleet, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
‘Human rights groups’ only care for migrants, damned be the native populations.
For over a decade, the European countries seemed hell-bent on fraying their social fabrics by allowing millions of military-age men from mostly Muslim countries to invade their countries, collect welfare checks, and basically destroy the security and quality of life of these countries.
The ‘rape of Europe’ is not an allegory or a hyperbole, but a very real crisis that is still unfolding.
The lack of reaction from the Euro-Globalist leaders led to the surge of populist/right-wing/conservative parties, and within a few years, it became clear that opposing changes in migration policies was political suicide.
The European Union on Monday agreed to a deal allowing countries to send migrants ordered to leave the bloc to third-country “return hubs”. The legislation, which still requires formal approval by EU governments and the European Parliament, has drawn criticism from human rights groups.
Today’s agreement on new return rules marks an important step in the reform of the European migration management system. With the new rules, we have more control over who can come to the EU, who can stay, and who needs to leave.https://t.co/jsnhN8L9vA
“European Union lawmakers and governments agreed on Monday on new rules allowing countries to deport migrants ordered to leave the bloc to centers in third countries, a move that has drawn sharp criticism from rights groups that warn it could enable abuses.
The deal is part of a broader tightening of EU migration policy amid pressure from right-wing parties, even as irregular arrivals fell 26 percent last year to their lowest level since 2021.”
“The era of deportations has just begun.”
MEP @weimers reacts on #EuropeToday to the controversial migration law agreed yesterday by the EU.
The legislation, deemed xenophobic by civil society groups, will allow migrant return hubs to be established outside the EU. pic.twitter.com/L3Q7oW6H5n
Unsurprisingly, Fance 24’s reporting throws a strawman into the discussion by saying that the number of illegal arrivals dropped last year.
But at this point, we are not talking solely about border control, we are talking about REMIGRATION.
“The legislation, which still requires formal approval by EU governments and the European Parliament, was proposed by the European Commission last year. The commission says it would streamline procedures and give governments more tools to deport people while respecting fundamental rights.
[…] EU countries say they struggle to ensure that rejected asylum seekers and people who overstay their visas leave their territory. The commission says only about 20 percent of people ordered to leave currently depart.”
The EU has agreed a deal to deport migrants to third-country “return hubs” outside the bloc, including in countries they have no connection to.
Member states have not disclosed which countries will host the hubs.
Watch Live: The WAR Zone Podcast With Wayne Allyn Root Presented by The Gateway Pundit- Secretary of State Marco Rubio Blasts Dems During Testimony on FY2027 Budget
June 2, 2026
CLICK HERE TO WATCH RIGHT NOW!
The Most Exciting, Intense, High-Energy MAGA/America First Podcast in the USA!
2 Hours Daily, Monday-Friday, 6 to 8 PM Eastern, 3 to 5 PM Pacific
Federalist Co-Founder Sean Davis Blasts NYT Columnist Paul Krugman’s “De-MAGAfication” Call as Genocidal, Dehumanizing Rhetoric Against Trump Supporters
June 2, 2026
Via Bannon’s War Room
Former New York Times columnist Paul Krugman is facing fierce backlash after calling for a “de-MAGAfication” of America, language many regard as equating millions of Trump supporters with Nazis and helps create the moral permission structure for political violence.
Krugman, an economist, professor, former columnist at the NYT, and longtime critic of President Donald Trump, made the remarks in a YouTube video posted Sunday. Rather than limiting his criticism to Trump or specific policies, Krugman invoked the language of post-World War II Germany and suggested the United States needs a political “purging.”
“We really need to do a thorough purging of the United States,” Krugman said. “We need a de-MAGAfication, and I am not going over the top by using a word that is very similar to the Denazification that we pursued successfully after World War II in Germany.”
The implication is difficult to miss. Denazification, of course, was the Allied campaign to remove actual Nazis from German public institutions after the defeat of Adolf Hitler’s regime, which, as everyone knows, launched a world war, and presided over mass murder of innocents.
By comparing MAGA to Nazism Krugman is going far beyond engaging in political analysis. He was placing ordinary American voters—well over half of the country—in the moral category of history’s most infamous totalitarian movement.
Krugman continued by saying Trump supporters must be kept away from power after Trump leaves office. “We need to de-fang Trump as much as possible,” he said.
He described Trump’s America as a “nightmare beyond even the worst fantasies” and warned that the movement could return unless Americans do more than simply remove Trump from office. “If we don’t do something beyond just getting rid of Trump, it’s going to happen again,” Krugman said.
That kind of language has alarmed conservatives, who argue that the left’s anti-Trump rhetoric has veered into the category of demonization and dehumanization—precisely the kind of language that resulted in the death of Charlie Kirk.
Calls for a “purging” of American life, they say, are especially dangerous when paired with Nazi comparisons.
Federalist co-founder Sean Davis responded sharply, accusing Krugman and other liberal voices of using rhetoric that makes violence against Trump supporters seem acceptable. Davis argued that labeling political enemies as Nazis is a way of stripping them of legitimacy and humanity.
“Democrats want us all dead,” Davis wrote. He accused Krugman of using “GENOCIDAL LANGUAGE,” saying that calling opponents Nazis makes “TERRORISM and MURDER seem justified against them.”
SEAN DAVIS: Democrats want us all dead.
Paul Krugman is out here using GENOCIDAL LANGUAGE, calling everyone he doesn’t like Nazis so that TERRORISM and MURDER seem justified against them.
We have to identify, dismantle, and destroy these terrorist networks, or these people are… pic.twitter.com/W19gCZLLOp
— Bannon’s WarRoom (@Bannons_WarRoom) June 1, 2026
Davis warned that Americans must “identify, dismantle, and destroy” networks that promote or excuse political violence. “These people are going to come and kill us just like they did Charlie,” he wrote.
His comments reflected a broader fear on the right: that years of calling MAGA voters fascists, Nazis, extremists, and threats to democracy have created a climate in which harassment, censorship, blacklisting, and even deadly violence can be framed as righteous resistance.
That is the central danger of Krugman’s remarks. Once tens of millions of Americans are rhetorically transformed from political opponents into Nazis, normal democratic debate becomes almost impossible.
That is why the comparison carries such destructive power. It does not merely criticize MAGA; it places MAGA outside the bounds of legitimate civic life.
People like Davis rightly argue that political language this nasty can—and have had—severe consequences, especially when it comes from influential establishment figures with large audiences and institutional credibility.
Krugman spent nearly a quarter century writing for The New York Times, one of the most powerful media platforms in the country. His words are not the ravings of an anonymous internet user, but the rhetoric of a credentialed member of the liberal elite.
That, of course, makes the “de-MAGAfication” remark more serious. It reflects how comfortable parts of the establishment have become using historically extreme language against ordinary Americans whose primary offense is voting for Trump.
Millions of MAGA voters support Trump because of immigration enforcement, trade protection, lower crime, clean streets, opposition to endless wars, distrust of institutions dominated by left-liberal globalists, and a belief that the American government should serve American citizens first. To describe such voters through the lens of Nazi Germany is not only inflammatory; it is morally grotesque.
It also cheapens the crimes of actual Nazism. The Holocaust, concentration camps, aggressive war, racial extermination, and totalitarian terror were real historical horrors.
Krugman’s language collapses that distinction. In doing so, he diminishes the meaning of Nazism while escalating hatred toward his domestic political opponents.
The controversy, further, exposes a contradiction at the heart of establishment liberal rhetoric. Democrats and their media allies frequently warn about threats to democracy, yet some of their most prominent voices speak openly about purging, de-fanging, and excluding their political rivals from power. That sounds like ideological cleansing.
Krugman’s remarks fit a long pattern of elite hostility toward Trump and his supporters.
Trump has repeatedly fired back at Krugman over the years, accusing him of being wrong about the economy and blinded by anti-Trump animus. In one post, Trump called him a “deranged BUM” who had been “predicting Doom and Gloom” since Trump first entered office.
“In other words, he has been wrong for YEARS, as ALL markets have been hitting new HIGHS, and are now higher than ever before,” Trump wrote. “People stayed out of the ‘BEST MARKET IN HISTOY’ because of this Trump Deranged BUM. Sue them!”
But the latest controversy clearly goes beyond economic disagreement. It is about whether one of America’s major political movements can be treated as a legitimate participant in national life, or whether establishment figures will continue portraying it as something to be eradicated.
That distinction matters deeply. Political movements can be defeated at the ballot box, argued with in public, and opposed through normal democratic means.
But when a movement is compared to Nazism and described as requiring “purging,” the language moves into a far darker category.
This is precisely the kind of rhetoric that can inspire unstable individuals to believe they are acting heroically by targeting Trump supporters. If MAGA is Nazi, then violence against MAGA can be rationalized as anti-Nazism
That is why Krugman’s defenders cannot dismiss the backlash as mere outrage politics. The words he chose have a specific historical meaning and a specific moral force.
He did not call for better messaging, electoral strategy, policy opposition, or civic persuasion. He called for “de-MAGAfication” and a “thorough purging.”
This latest episode, for many right-thinking Americans, only confirms what they have long suspected and argued, namely that the liberal establishment does not merely want to beat Trump. It wants to stigmatize, blacklist, and morally disqualify the Americans who support him.
The danger is not only to Trump or MAGA. The danger is to the idea that Americans can disagree politically without treating one another as enemies to be cleansed from public life.
Could This Stock Be “Trump’s Next Big Buy”?
June 2, 2026
Note: The information provided here or in any related communications is for informational purposes only and should not be considered as financial advice. We do not provide personalized investment, financial, or legal advice. Gateway Pundit benefits from purchases made through our sponsors.
by Matt Insley
There’s a tiny $2 stock that holds the exclusive rights to the largest gold reserve in the country.
BREAKING: Blanche Confirms Trump’s $1.78 Billion Weaponization Fund Has Been Scrapped (VIDEO)
June 2, 2026
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche on Tuesday confirmed that Trump’s $1.78 billion weaponization fund has been scrapped.
On Monday, it was reported that President Trump is going to drop the $1.77 billion weaponization fund created to pay people targeted by the Biden Regime.
The DOJ later Monday released a statement on the weaponization fund:
The Department of Justice disagrees strongly with the decision on the Anti-Weaponization Fund put forth by the United States District Court Judge in the Eastern District of Virginia, wherein the Court stated that, under no circumstances, may the Department of Justice proceed with the Anti-Weaponization Fund recently established in order to make up for the tremendous abuse, harm, and hate unfairly shown to so many people. This Fund was open to anybody who was so weaponized, targeted, or persecuted, whether they were Democrat, Republican, Conservative, Independent, or otherwise. The Department will abide by the Court’s ruling.
Republican Senators were not satisfied with the Justice Department’s statement on the $1.77 billion weaponization fund and demanded a clear statement from Trump.
The Senators threatened to hold up funding for ICE and border patrol.
On Tuesday, Blanche said the weaponization fund has been scrapped.
“We are not moving forward with the weaponization fund. Period,” Blanche said during his testimony to a House Appropriations Subcommittee on oversight of the Justice Department.
“Could we get that in writing?” Democrat Rep. Grace Meng asked Blanche.
“I’m telling you, it’s not progressing,” Blanche said.
“We hope to see this is writing,” Meng said.
“I think there will be a transcript of what I saw here,” Blanche said.
WATCH:
BLANCHE: We are not moving forward with the weaponization fund. Period.
We use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. We do this to improve browsing experience and to show (non-) personalized ads. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
The EU has agreed a deal to deport migrants to third-country “return hubs” outside the bloc, including in countries they have no connection to.
