Do you use the geneva convention definition of genocide or another?People immigrating to historically white regions for work being allowed in because they provide an actual economic incentive to be hired isn't genocide.
Geneva convention defines it as:
any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
— Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article 2
Replacement migration is a form of genocide and that is explicitly a UN goal which was supported by the European Union. It's one of the things that is non-negotiable to the European Union and also why they want to punish eastern European countries for putting up fences and such (whereas countries like Turkey and Morocco receive money for keeping emigrants there, even when they break the conditions of those agreements frequently).
Here were some of the ideas in a brainstorm in the 70s how to limit births in countries and better control the people. This discussion was ostensibly had in the context of better controlling mineral retrieval in third world countries, but it's not hard to look at that list and see how many of those changes were implemented in the western world.
This was a rockeffeler group called the population council, with the founding members coming from the american eugenics society.
So it's not just a Europe thing either.
You also note this in the same people and organisations championing migration and having generally antibirth attitudes.