Kenny Smith of the Homeland Party Explains Remigration

Editor’s Note: This interview is between Tore Rasmussen, editor of Rabulisten.no, and Kenny Smith, chairman of the Homeland Party.

Tore Rasmussen: What was the core message you brought to Milan, and how was it received by fellow nationalists, patriots and identitarians from across Europe?

Kenny Smith: I spoke about the direct and devastating consequences of mass immigration, particularly the scale of harm inflicted on our people, and the shocking lengths to which some within our own society will go to conceal it. In the UK, we have seen children subjected to brutal, prolonged abuse, and yet those in authority chose silence over action for fear of being called racist. Upholding the dogma of multiculturalism has been prioritised above the safety and dignity of our people.

The message was met with deep understanding and solidarity. Across Europe, there is growing recognition that this is not just a British problem, but a symptom of a wider moral failure among the ruling class.

Did the summit strengthen the foundation for a broader European remigration alliance?

Yes, this is being worked on now, and we will be part of that alliance.

Are there specific leaders or parties from the summit you see as long-term strategic partners?

We have many friends from across Europe. The summit allowed us to strengthen these relationships and also make new ones. We work closely with a variety of political parties as well as activists organisations.

How does the British situation differ from what you heard from your European counterparts?

We are the only country (other than Belarus) operating under a First Past the Post system, which creates severe distortions in our political system.

It leads to a striking mismatch between public opinion and the parties that gain elected representation. We see supermajorities for broadly unpopular parties and a system that makes it extraordinarily difficult for grassroots movements to build viable alternatives.

This is compounded by a deeply entrenched media bias against anything outside the liberal establishment. It creates a hostile environment for dissenting voices.

Worse still, there is a prevailing cowardice among the “right wing” commentariat. They are quick to discuss the problems, yet ignore or even undermine those who propose real solutions.

What role should the UK play in the continental pushback against demographic replacement?

Our role is similar to that played by our European counterparts. We advance the concept of remigration and attempt to gain political influence and control to make it happen.

The Homeland Party has been at the forefront in the anglosphere in popularising the concept and we are still the only English-speaking political entity to publish a fully developed remigration policy.

Which speakers or messages at the summit left the greatest impression on you?

There were many top speeches on the day. Cyan Quinn delivered an excellent, TED-style presentation on the economics and the practical implementation of remigration. It was both compelling and grounded in real-world feasibility and spoke to me because these are things we are attempting do deliver on as a political party.

Would you say the spirit of remigration is becoming a pan-European current?

Absolutely. There is a growing sense that we are part of a wider European struggle for self-determination and popular sovereignty. Across the continent, people are beginning to push back against an out-of-touch elite that shows no regard for the people of the land. The desire to reclaim our homelands is no longer isolated, it is becoming a shared cause.

What concrete ideas or strategies did you take away from Milan to implement at home?

The main takeaway for me was that the need to ensure we explain the concept of remigration clearly to the public. That we must demonstrate the benefits it will bring our people, the youth in particular, and to our homelands in general. We must be clear and unambiguous with our messaging, so that the opponents of remigration are easily exposed when they attempt to distort this liberating concept.

How has the UK media responded to your participation, honestly or predictably hostile?

They haven’t responded at all. As usual, anything we do that could be seen as positive, or simply newsworthy, is systematically ignored. Acknowledging our presence or successes would risk legitimising us, and they’re determined not to allow that. On the other hand, if there’s even the slightest opportunity to scandalise something, it will be exaggerated and over-reported, even if it amounts to nothing.

We can’t force them to report fairly or at all, so we continue despite them.

On the Homeland Party’s Remigration Conference (April 2025)

What motivated the Homeland Party to organize Britain’s first major remigration conference?

Our motivation was simply to raise awareness of the concept of remigration and bring together prominent advocates for remigration who could bring media attention to the conference.

Did the event meet your expectations in terms of turnout, energy, and message discipline?

I think in all honesty it exceeded the expectations of most folk. We made a conscious decision to announce the speakers in advance to build up public awareness, knowing full well that the tyrannical British State might prevent entry to one or more of our speakers. When the Home Secretary Yvette Cooper banned Mr Renaud Camus, it made headlines worldwide. More people were made aware of the Homeland Party and remigration. It was mission accomplished. The conference itself was a great success on the day and Mr Camus still managed to address the delegates via video.

What does the professionalism and order of the event say about the maturity of Britain’s nationalist movement?

It shows that we represent something new: bold, disciplined, and imaginative. We’re not here to repeat the failures of the past. We are focused on what works, and we’ve attracted a new generation of activists: young, intelligent, articulate, and committed to building something serious and lasting.

How have ordinary Britons, not just journalists or activists, responded to the message of remigration?

It’s still early days, so the response has been mixed. When you speak to people directly on the street, or in the pub, and explain remigration in sensible and humane terms, the reaction is often positive. Many understand the need for a fair and orderly reversal of the damage caused by mass immigration.

However, online the picture is more confused. There’s a vocal clique that deliberately misrepresents remigration as something brutal or unethical; exactly how the left wants it to be perceived. Our task is to cut through that noise with clarity, honesty, and seriousness.

Were there any defining moments or speeches at the conference that you think marked a turning point?

A turning point, no. The majority of attendees were already in favour of remigration; they simply wanted further clarity on the concept. There were certainly speakers that inspired the audience and speeches that influenced their thinking particularly in terms of activism and how they promote remigration going forward. That for me, as somebody attempting to get people politically engaged, was significant. In terms of the feedback I’ve received, Cllr Ant Burrows, Lena Kotré MP and Branko Roric inspired young activists significantly and I’d encourage folk to listened to those speeches on our Youtube channel.

In a time of institutional collapse, how important is local community support for national renewal?

Community safety begins in your neighbourhood. You must build an effective local community support group that has control and influence in order to effect national renewal. I strongly believe Nationalists should play an active and positive role in their local communities in order for us to gain sustained long-term success. We must seek to gain control of every lever of fiscal and administrative power that exists in our neighbourhoods. If we do that, we reduce the impact of institutional collapse in the areas we have authority over.

How would you assess the police conduct at the event, fair and neutral or influenced by political pressure.

At the time, their conduct seemed entirely reasonable. Cllr Andrew Piper made contact with the police earlier in the day to inform them of our location and plans, in line with Operation Ford, which is intended to provide heightened protection for elected politicians and candidates. Two officers attended to check in on the event, and they commended our team for their professionalism and the exemplary way the event was managed.

A small group of five unwashed Antifa activists appeared later in the afternoon, wearing Covid masks and sunglasses. They loitered in a cowardly manner at the other side of the car park, in a futile attempt to intimidate our stewarding team. They were roundly mocked by attendees, who remained in high spirits and were not intimidated in the slightest. They approached locals asking them to protest against us but they got short shrift from them and these local people encouraged them to leave with haste, as they did not appreciate masked agitators in their town, and they actually supported our right to be there.

We later learned that the leader of the local council, Ashley Baxter, showing a clear inability for critical thought or rational judgement, had attempted to shut down the event by pressuring council staff and calling the police. His efforts were unsuccessful, as the event was already underway and, crucially, he lacked any authority to interfere.

Not content with this failure, he later failed in an attempt to have council staff investigated for supposedly enabling “extremism”. These actions are not just petty, they reveal the insidious nature of how liberal authorities seek to suppress legitimate political opposition. When they cannot win the argument, they try to silence the voice.

Why was it important to include Renaud Camus, and how do you interpret the UK’s decision to ban him?

Including Mr Camus was both symbolic and substantial. He is one of the few public intellectuals in Europe willing to name and describe the demographic changes our nations are undergoing. His work has helped articulate what millions instinctively know: that our people are being displaced, our cultures eroded, and our futures put at risk, deliberately and systematically.

The UK’s decision to ban Mr Camus is shameful and revealing. It confirms that our political class would rather silence a 78-year-old writer than debate him. There is no record of him ever endorsing violence or law-breaking; his supposed “crime” is the expression of thought. The ban is a cowardly act by a regime terrified of words that resonate with the people and expose the truth of its policies.

It also shows how weak and fearful our authorities have become. Instead of confronting ideas with reason, they rely on censorship and suppression. They know their own arguments cannot stand up to scrutiny.

On Remigration as Policy

What does a serious, practical remigration policy look like in the British context?

A serious remigration policy begins with reclaiming our national sovereignty. That means withdrawing from international agreements, particularly the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), that prevent us from making and enforcing our own immigration laws.

Immediate return of all illegal boat arrivals to their point of origin or safe third countries.

The removal of all foreign criminals, whether currently in prison or free on the streets.

Cancellation of visas that serve no national interest.

Location and deportation of the estimated 1.5 to 2 million illegal immigrants residing in the country.

A full legal overhaul to restore genuine equality before the law. Ending the system of special privileges and legal carve-outs for favoured minority groups.

The removal of taxpayer-funded handouts for migrants.

Establishment of remigration centres in every major town and city to support processing, logistics, and coordination.

Ultimately, we are talking about the remigration of tens of millions over time, either through due process or voluntary return, once the push and pull factors have been corrected. This is not a fantasy. It is a moral and national imperative.

How do you respond to those who dismiss remigration as “radical,” when the status quo itself is unsustainable?

There’s nothing wrong with radical solutions when the problems we face are extraordinary. That’s what real politics is meant to do: respond to reality, not retreat into safe abstractions. Dismissing remigration as “too radical” is a tactic used by the containment right: those who want to sound concerned, but who will never take a real stand or risk their reputation.

I refuse to let the demographic transformation of our nation continue unchecked; that would be irresponsible and downright cowardly. Radical change is needed, because it is unsustainable to pretend we can manage decline forever. Remigration is not extreme, it’s necessary, and increasingly understood as common sense by ordinary people.

How do you distinguish between voluntary return and firm but fair repatriation policies?

It comes down to justice and using the right tool for the situation. If someone has broken the law then using the state’s monopoly on force is entirely justified. In such cases, removal to their country of origin is simply a natural extension of lawful authority.

But it would not be just to use force against someone who has done no wrong. In a civilised society, it is better to create the conditions where such individuals choose to leave of their own accord. That means correcting the push and pull factors: asserting our own culture unapologetically, ending multiculturalism, and removing the material incentives that encourage permanent settlement.

In short, voluntary return should be enabled by a strong cultural and policy shift, while force is reserved for those who have forfeited their place here through misconduct. Both serve the same goal, restoring national cohesion, but they must be applied with moral clarity.

Can Britain remain a self-governing, cohesive society without addressing demographic change head-on?

No, it cannot. We are already seeing the consequences: rising inter-ethnic conflict, parallel communities, and disproportionate levels of crime. These are not passing challenges—they are structural results of demographic transformation.

No amount of repeating “diversity is our strength” will change that. When the state has to aggressively enforce a mantra through censorship, propaganda, and repression, it’s no longer unity—it’s liberal authoritarianism. A cohesive and self-governing society must be rooted in shared identity, not managed division.

What moral principles underpin your advocacy for remigration as a national necessity?

At its core, the state has a moral duty to protect its people. This land is not just an economic zone, it is the homeland of our people, the indigenous population of these islands. It must be preserved as such, and understood in those terms.

To allow our homeland to be transformed beyond recognition is to break the covenant between nation and state. When the state, through policy or neglect, allows its own people to become a minority, it is denying them the fundamental right to self-determination.

Remigration is not motivated by hatred, but by loyalty, justice, and the solemn responsibility to safeguard the future of our people. To fulfil that duty, we must regain control of the state.

What legal challenges do you anticipate and how will you prepare to face them?

We also anticipate scrutiny around donations and compliance. To counter that, we are scrupulously clean and transparent.

As for politically motivated criminal investigations, we consider them unlikely at this stage, since such overreach would risk creating a victim narrative and boosting our support, which is precisely the opposite of what the state would want.

How do you explain remigration in a way that resonates with ordinary people struggling under mass immigration’s burdens?

This is something we’re actively working on, and the messaging is still developing. But at its core, we must relate remigration directly to the everyday needs and concerns of our people: safety, housing, healthcare, education, and the cost of living.

When people can’t get a council house, can’t see a GP, or don’t feel safe in their own communities, they know something is deeply wrong. Remigration offers a practical and moral solution to relieve that pressure. It’s not about the abstract, it’s about making life better for our people again, by putting them first in their own country.

Do you see signs, polling or grassroots feedback that the public is ahead of the politicians on this issue?

Absolutely. Polls have consistently shown that the public wants mass immigration to end. What’s lacking is the political class willing to act on it. There are very few institutions with both the courage and resources to commission polling that goes beyond controlled questions, such as asking directly about support for remigration because of the containment tactics I mentioned earlier.

On the ground, the picture is even clearer. Grassroots feedback is overwhelmingly in favour of immigration control and open to serious solutions. People are frustrated, but also willing to listen and engage. In that sense, the public is well ahead of the politicians morally, politically, and emotionally. They’re just waiting for someone to give voice to what they already know.

Are you working toward a formal policy platform or white paper that codifies your remigration plan?

We already have one. Our original remigration policy was written in late 2024 and, to our knowledge, remains the first of its kind produced in the English language. We are currently working on version two, which will be more detailed, more robust, and shaped by both political developments and public feedback.

How would you respond to economic objections, especially from those who reduce Britain to a labour market?

That argument no longer holds even on its own terms. Increasingly, even establishment institutions admit that mass migration is not a net economic benefit. Migrants, on average, consume more in public services than they contribute in tax, while also suppressing wages for native workers and straining housing, infrastructure, and the NHS. The UK is not just a labour market, it’s a homeland, and its people are not disposable units of economic utility.

What do you say to people who ask, “Who will do the jobs?”

When fewer people are living off the state, there is less need for the machinery and staffing required to support them. That alone reduces the workload. Beyond that, we can and must make essential jobs well-paid and worth doing, especially for our own people. Mass immigration has been used to justify low wages and poor conditions. Remigration creates the opportunity to reverse that trend and build an economy that serves our people first.

On Homeland Party Strategy and Growth

What are the Homeland Party’s strategic goals over the next 6–12 months?

We will continue to expand our regional infrastructure. As a small party of 1,300 members there is still room for substantial growth and development of our branch structure. We are focused on developing local community leads and training our activists into being effective leaders. We also hope to directly employ our first staff before the year is out.

Do you plan to contest elections more broadly, or focus on local strongholds?

Our aim is most certainly to expand on our electoral presence, but we won’t do that at the expense of our community politics approach. We encourage our community leads to play an active role in the life of their community before standing generally and that does take time. There is no quick fix. Long term support is earned from a track record of sustained positive activism in the community.

How has the party grown since its founding, and what are your growth targets?

In just over two years we have established ourselves as the premier Nationalist party in the UK. We have more councillors at town and parish level than all our longer establish counterparts combined. Our membership and activist base is younger and more active too. Our branding is fresh and modern and with our bold and confident approach to politics we have capture the imagination of people who feel they can confidently tell their friends and family they have joined something positive and wholesome.

Our simple aim is to continue to grow, become even more active and win more seats.

How critical is dissident media, both national and international in bypassing legacy media blackout?

Sadly in the UK, the majority of the dissident media has been far more timid than those on the continent. We have had very little support from that sphere, in fact, some have purposefully told their presenters not to mention us by name.

This has however allowed us to develop our own media strategy, which made us quite effective on social media in particular. Our media department is expanding all the time and we continue to develop our departmental teams in this direction. We have essentially stepped over these short-sighed and weak outlets.

Are you planning additional conferences or regional events to mobilise supporters?

We have an ongoing programme of regional events, with workshops and training at the heart of all that we do. There are weekly and monthly online meetings and training for party officers we expect them to replicate at regional and branch level. Our next major conference will take place on Saturday the 27^th of September. Maybe we will see some of your readers there?

What’s the best way for supporters abroad to collaborate with the Homeland Party?

We welcome support from around the world. Anyone, regardless of where they live, can become a member of the Homeland Party by signing up through our website.

We also accept donations from overseas supporters, provided they do not exceed £500 per person per calendar year, in line with UK electoral law. We’re proud to be the first political party in the UK to accept cryptocurrency donations as well.

Beyond that, one of the most valuable things supporters abroad can do is help amplify our message: share our content online, engage with our media, and keep the conversation going in your own countries. This is a shared struggle across the Western world, and international solidarity matters.

How do you differentiate the Homeland Party from groups that have lost momentum or public trust?

We are principled, disciplined, and serious about winning. We reject the empty promises of populism and the cults of personality that have led other movements into failure. No one is bigger than the party, and we ensure that those who think otherwise do not rise within our ranks.

We don’t waste time on theatrical street activism or grifting—getting arrested just to ask for donations in a self-serving cycle. We are not here to entertain or posture. We are here to take political power, because that is the only path to real and lasting change.

What standards of conduct and communication do you expect from your activists, especially online?

We issue a clear Code of Conduct and social media guidance to every new and renewing member. Our expectation is simple: be constructive, be disciplined, and always aim to win the public over. We ask our activists to avoid old stereotypes, unproductive behaviour, or anything that damages the credibility of the movement.

We are building something serious, and that requires maturity, restraint, and a focus on long-term success. Every interaction, online or offline, should reflect our principles and our ambition to lead.

How do you guide disillusioned youth, some angry, some naive into disciplined political engagement?

That’s a big question and frankly there is no one size fits all answer that works on everyone. I have a substantial track-record in helping young people toward community politics and away from the extremism that wrecks their relationships and career prospects.

I have the experience and examples that can show them which way is more productive for our cause. Nationalism is a wholesome natural force for good and we must demonstrate that to win power and control in our communities and to influence societal change. I take the time to get to know the person and then show them how they could make a positive impact and become a leader in their community rather than a pariah.

Can you elaborate on your “road to redemption” idea for those with a past in unconstructive circles?

In short, it means that I am not afraid to help those who have been led astray in the past or who have been involved with less optimal organisations, to turn their lives around and become productive members of the Nationalist community.

There are limits obviously, but if folk can demonstrate they have rejected their old ways and show a willingness to be positive in their efforts going forward they should be given that opportunity. There are several young men in our ranks who have flirted with such unconstructive circles in their youth but who have now become upstanding members of their local communities as well as the party.

We must offer our young men and women that road to redemption in such circumstances. Our youth are vilified and alienated all throughout their schooling, in the media, by the state etc. When they rebel, it is often before they find a constructive outlet like the Homeland Party. Hopefully that will change as we get bigger, but we must always be willing to help these folk on to the right path.

On Public Perception and Identity

How would you explain the Great Replacement to someone who senses something is wrong, but hasn’t yet found the language to name it?

The facts on migration and demographics are clear. In many of our cities, the indigenous population is already a minority, and we are on track to become an overall minority in our own homeland if nothing is done to change course.

Even the UN has referred to this process as “replacement migration”, a term used openly in policy documents. There are groups and individuals in politics and academia who actively advocate for it. On the opposing side, French author Renaud Camus coined the term “Great Replacement” to describe this phenomenon from the perspective of those who object to it.

The establishment routinely tries to dismiss this concern as a “conspiracy theory” and smear anyone who raises it by associating them with the actions of deranged individuals who have used the same term. But those individuals did not act based on Camus’ writings, nor do they reflect his views. The deliberate conflation is a tactic to silence legitimate political criticism and avoid uncomfortable truths.

Ultimately, it’s up to individuals which terminology they prefer. The Homeland Party simply deals in facts: that replacement migration is a real and documented policy, that it is actively happening, and that we oppose it firmly and peacefully on moral, cultural, and democratic grounds.

We care little about what the motive behind it is, it’s simply not wanted, and must be stopped.

How do you defend your agenda under hostile legal frameworks like the Equality Act, without compromising on principle?

The Electoral Commission has privately argued that a political party with policies that could be seen as “direct or indirect discrimination” may be ineligible for registration, citing their duty under section 149 of the Equality Act (the Public Sector Equality Duty) not to facilitate any action that could lead to unlawful discrimination.

We navigated this by avoiding such policies during the registration phase. Now that we are registered, the Commission has no authority to investigate our internal policies or platform. That responsibility would fall to the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC). However, since we do not act in an unlawfully discriminatory way toward anyone, we have no reason to fear such scrutiny.

That said, it would be a deeply revealing development if the EHRC (or any other state body) were to claim that merely proposing democratic reforms to equality law, or asserting that our people exist and should have a say over their homeland, is itself unlawful. That would be an open attack on freedom of expression and a betrayal of democratic norms.

From the very start, we asserted the rights of our people to a homeland. We have already published policy calling for the removal of “gender identity” from UK law and for effectively banning institutional promotion of gender ideology. While radical by current mainstream standards, these positions are simply a return to common sense, and were mainstream only a generation or two ago. If the state resists us on that basis, it only proves how far it has drifted from the values of the people, and from the values our ancestors would recognise as right.

We are ready to defend our principles calmly and lawfully, in court if necessary. Because we know what we stand for is not hateful, it is reasonable, fair, and supported by millions. If the state wishes to claim that defending your own people is illegal, it reveals far more about their corruption than our conviction.

We will not be intimidated. We will not compromise. We will work within the system where we can, and challenge it where we must.

You’ve spoken about schools with no English pupils, how do you respond to those who say acknowledging this reality is somehow “discriminatory”?

The truth is the truth. Denying it is a lie; suppressing it is authoritarian. Acknowledging that some schools in our country now have no indigenous English pupils is not an act of discrimination, it’s an honest statement of fact.

If stating observable reality is now considered offensive, then it’s not the speaker who is in the wrong, but the system that demands silence. We cannot begin to fix our problems if we are not even allowed to name them.

If the Homeland Party’s electoral success takes time, what are your fallback strategies for making remigration politically and culturally inevitable?

We are here for the long term. Our strategy is to lay the intellectual and moral groundwork, to make the case for remigration in plain English, and to ensure that the idea becomes widely understood—bigger than any one person or party.

If others wish to adopt or advance these policies, we welcome that. Our goal is not ownership, but victory: we want remigration to become a popular demand, a national conversation, and eventually, political common sense. The groundwork we build now will shape the future, regardless of who delivers it.

In a long-term vision, what would national renewal actually look like in Britain, once remigration and restoration policies are in place?

To borrow a phrase: “If only you knew how good things could be.” People wouldn’t just feel safe again, they would be safer. Communities would regain stability, and trust in politics could begin to return.

We envision a cultural revival rooted in our own heritage, emerging from the grassroots, but supported where appropriate by the state. The economy would serve the many, not just the global few. There would be pride in being part of something greater than yourself: a renewed sense of national belonging and a spirit of brotherhood with your neighbours.

In time, we would see the return of a high-trust society, peace in daily life, and a sense of contentment that no currency can buy. That is what we mean by national renewal.