While the recent comments by France’s new Interior Minister Claude Guéant are steering controversy, the debate is reopen once again on the need for a better regulation on immigration in France and in Europe.
Claude Guéant recently declared that the number of legal immigrants coming to France for work, asylum or family reasons should be reduced. He is sending a clear message to French voters who are actually dangerously falling in love again with the far-right Front National political party (and the “Marine Blue Wave”), according to recent polls.
In the Presidential elections of 2002, the Front National leader Jean-Marie Le Pen passed the first round to the surprise of many, prompting the resignation of the Socialist contender Lionel Jospin and propelling Jacques Chirac to a near-hero status, as the nation united behind him.
But for next year’s Presidential elections the situation could be different, as the slow economic recovery, the need to adapt to globalization and the role of the State might play a crucial role. In this context, immigration is always a political scapegoat and controversial issue, as it is hard to argue against the populist idea that workers coming from other countries are “stealing” jobs and creating social dumping.
Actually, immigration is regulated in such a way that there are only 20.000 work-related immigrants in France. That is too little for a country of 63 million inhabitants. This figure is criticized and yes, immigration could as well be taken as whole with family-related movements, but even if the official figure would reach 200.000 that would be too little.
What counts in nowadays’ globalized world is the degree of economic openness. This makes sense for France as it is a major trade partner and exporter. Moreover, immigration should be seen on both inward and outward scales, because we should not forget that more and more well-qualified French people are moving abroad to find better-paid jobs.
France cannot have it all and should have a more open interior economy; commensurate with modern systems to measure the efficiency of immigration (therefore tackling illegal immigration), and the ability to obtain and renew permits on a short notice.
William Spac
Membre des Cabris de l’Europe
[...] 27etc has a positive take on immigration in France. Cecilia Malmström has a professional take on immigration and refugees from Northern [...]
Immigration is neither good nor bad by nature – it is a social phenomenon, no less ligitimate a subject of discussion that occupies the mind of any “social thinker” with an opinion.
As an immigrant myself, moving permanently to another nation and living there without going through the formalities of legally applying for it is a disgrace. It isn’t even immigration by definition. Immigration is the act of relocating in pursuit of citizenship, not just work.
Why don’t we go over a bit of vocabulary before the repetition or the revisionism and oversimplification become this year’s stale bit of social operant conditioning:
A foreign worker
An Immigrant
An illegal alien
These three descriptions, while they might overlap in some small way, are not all the same. Two of them can be accomplished without violating the laws of the society that hosts someone. To merge all of them is an insult to those of us who abide by laws, and tell the truth about why we immigrate. It’s also true that the audience for this “debat” is not the immigrant, but the naive among the host-nation’s citizenry as a political instrument that no immigrant in their right mind would want to be caught up in.