Fall 2013

PIERRE-LOUIS

Introduction

he movement of people from one country to another is guided by immigration policies.

These policies vary from one country to the other depending on their history. Also, these

policies often vary from time to time depending on the dynamics of security, resources

availability, and the perceived threats immigration poses to national security. In France,

immigration brings together people from various cultural, religious and ethnic backgrounds

which complicates the balance between diversity and unity. In the United States, repeated

immigration policy reforms created particularly a diverse society, with significant groups coming

from all over the world. U.S presidents frequently remind Americans that they share the

experience of themselves or their forbears living another country to begin a new in the United

States (Martin, April, 2002). One from many “e pluribus unum” remains the national motto in

the face of debates on its feasibility intensity (Cornelius, 2010).

T

This paper focuses on a cross-cultural comparative analysis between the characteristics of

immigration policy in France and the United States. It shows how culture, religion and history

influence immigration policy in both countries. It looks at current major issues and shifts in

immigration policy in both countries and what measures governments in both countries are

taking to address them.

Immigration Policy Process

Immigration policy making in the United States is handled at the federal level.

Immigration policy development, implementation and enforcement fall under the responsibility

of the cabinet-level of Department of Justice, and its Immigration and Naturalization Services

(INS), but other federal agencies may also be involved. States and local governments can pass

laws to address immigration issues, but they are prohibited from passing laws that contradict

federal policies. Immigration policy in France are developed at the central level of government,

but are implemented at the lower level of government (Adolino & Blake, 2001). In France, the

policy process in what pertains to immigration is more diffracted, with different government

agencies and ministries performing different tasks. The Council of the State and the

Constitutional Council for instance play important roles in migration policy making; the Ministry

of Foreign Affairs is responsible for refugees and asylum policies; in 1994, the monitoring of

illegal immigration issues was transferred to the Central Agency for the Control of Immigration

and the Struggle against the Employment of Illegal Immigrants (Adolino & Blake, 2001).

And interestingly, in France the Minister of the Interior which oversees policing and

security matters is also in charge of immigration control and border patrol. That explicates why

in France the police has the authority to verify an individual’s legal papers, and even arrests an

individual if he or she cannot provide the required legal identification. In the United Sates, law

enforcement officers are forbidden from harassing individuals based on suspicion that they might

be illegally in the country. Most recently concerns that split allegiances of foreigners might slow

integration and weaken social cohesion have led the French government to create a new Ministry

of Immigration, Integration, National Identity and Co-Development with among other things was

tasked to promote national identity (Simon, 2012).

A Cross-Cultural Comparative Analysis

The comparison of attitudes toward immigration is intriguing because the United States

and France approach the problem of traditional immigration from different Angles. Immigration

forms a fundamental element of the U.S founding myth. The repeated proclamations by

politicians and presidents that the United States is a nation of immigrants’ elites generate no

rhetorical dissents. Americans pretty much acknowledge that all of their ancestors originated

from somewhere, in other term they recognize that they are the descendants of immigrants.

Therefore, immigrants are reflected as foreigner-founders and the adherence to values fostering

personal responsibility (Simmons, 2010). While legal immigration to the U.S was previously

difficult and based on ethnic prejudice, the country has become a land of identity where many

groups desire to be free.

Immigration does not factor in the formation of identities of most country states. In

France, the story is different, on the contrary, people define themselves based on bounded ethnic

terms. The demographic explanation is that France has a vast foreign-born population, but is

always mocked that France is not a country of immigrations. Unlike the U.S experience,

immigration came to France more recently and reactively. First, it emerged as a reaction to the

impacts of the Second World War and second as an outcome of political convulsions in France

and elsewhere (Kloosterman & Rath, 2013).

In France, early post-Second World War immigration appears to have been driven by

labor shortage and demand for men power. Residents of former colonies and guest workers were

recruited to fill the void and to meet the demand for labor. In the case of France; therefore,

immigration develop as a direct consequence of citizenship, as the other side of the republican

coin, so to speak (Noiriel, April 2011). This explains why unlike the U.S where immigration is

embedded in national identity, immigration in France has particularly no place in national

memory. After the 1970s oil shock and the international economic slowdown, France reversed

its course and enacted zero-immigration policies, while it also tried to minimize its foreign-born

populations through voluntary and forced return (Foner, 2009). Despite these measures, the

Muslim population continues to rise, thanks to higher birthrates, illegal entrants and “an

exception” allowing family reunification (Monet et al, 2006).

However, shortages in skilled labor created partly by competition have compelled the

French government to revise its stands on immigration. This situation forced France to shift from

curtailing immigration to an “immigration choisie” policy or policy of chosen immigration. The

policy strives to select immigrants according to their profile, talents and- though still indirectly-

origin (Berossie, 2008). In addition, in France, demographic considerations triggered a more

positive orientation towards immigration. Increased longevity and birthrates below replacement

levels imply that there is a potential deficiency in the resources needed to finance politically

entrenched entitlement policies (i.e., social security). Arguably, immigration could mitigate the

impacts of declining populations even though the more generous and inclusive benefits policies

in France appear to have obstructed the economic integration of these immigrants relative to the

United States.

In both France and the United States, the debate about immigration has two different

perspectives: a cultural and an economic one. From the economic angle, there is a highly

technical debate regarding the impacts of immigration on employment, public finance, and wage

levels. In the U.S, some emerging evidence suggest that there is a minimal micro-economic

benefit of immigration (Horowitz & Noiriel, 2012). However, this is intertwined with adverse

impacts on wage and employment levels of non-immigrant workers. Immigrants in France are

considered useful because it bolsters the country’s shortage of workforce. This often overrides

the need by the government to be keen on matters relating to public expenditure and wage levels.

How Culture and History Influence Immigration Policy in Both Countries

In the United States, concerns regarding the cultural impacts of immigration have a long

history. In the U.S, there were major laws passed to either limit or restrict immigration. Some of

these notable laws include: the Alien Sedition Acts, the Chinese Exclusions Acts and the

Immigration Act of 1917 just to mention a few. Todays’ resistance to immigration rests on the

claim that new immigrants, especially those differing from previous immigrants, could not

assimilate to the U.S republican- democratic values. The more recent ongoing and large influx of

illegal immigrants from Mexico is perceived by many as a threat to the cultural and linguistic

identity of the United States. Furthermore, in the aftermath of the terrorist attack on September

11, 2001 on U.S soil. Immigration processes and control once again has become a central topic

of concern. The public and new policy measures that followed initially conflicted anti-terrorist

measures with immigration control (Rosenblum, Aug 2011). Although these measures to control

entries seem to depart from previous anti-immigration policies, the effect is that they have led to

a tightening on immigration and sometimes profiling against some religious and ethnic groups.

In France, similar concerns regarding political and linguistic integration of immigrants

have grown and policy to restrict immigration has assumed a different tone. In fact, greater

cultural differences between natives and immigrants in France arguably makes the ideal national

solidarity grounded in shared values, which are hard to achieve. The majority of people who

immigrated to France have been Muslims whose values are believed to conflict with the norms

of a liberal, democratic country (Schain, 2012). This feeling of cultural threat, driven by

terrorism fears has swung the immigration policy pendulum from multiculturalism to

assimilation. Anti-immigrant sentiment has fueled support for knowledge of national history,

cultural norms, and the introduction of language tests as conditions for naturalization and

immigration.

The delicate balance between cultural threat and economic needs makes immigration

policy in both countries a highly sensitive political issue. In the U.S public opinion tends to favor

less immigration and restricted access to federal benefits. In France too, the public has shown its

opposition towards immigration. Therefore, it is necessary to explore the attitudes toward

immigration policies in France and the United States regardless of the contrasting cross-cultural

narratives depicted (Elliott & Mayadas, 2010).

France has a divided support and opposition of religious homogeneity. Nevertheless, the

country appears to support the idea of cultural homogeneity and considers it appropriate for

every citizen to share traditions and customs. France has reported the highest levels of support

for homogeneity. On the contrary, The United States seems to be distinct in its heightened

tolerance of religious and cultural diversity. Regarding religious homogeneity, the U.S is more

opposed to this concept than nearly all Western countries. In what concerns cultural

homogeneity, the United States appears to be more unsupportive of the idea compared to other

Western countries. The long history of religious and ethnic diversity in America has generated a

more favorable and distinctive orientation towards cultural heterogeneity.

The Presence of Formalism

The outbreak of the French Revolution in 1789 and the overthrow of the monarchy gave

rise to the new French Republic and the subsequent enactment of the Declaration des Droits de

L’homme et du Citoyen. One of the slogan set forth at the time of the creation of the new

republic was Liberte, Egalite, and Fraternite. Although the provisions of the Declaration of

Rights of Man and the Citizen are clear; “all French citizens deserve to be treated equally under

the law.” Xenophobia and discrimination continue to be a major issue in French society. What

was initially a simple question of economics in terms of a cheap and flexible workforce has,

since 1974, been transformed into an issue with social, political, cultural dimensions (Monnet et.

al, 2006). Since 1972, two parties “the National Front (FN) with Le Pen and the Movement for

France (MPF) with de Villiers” have arisen on the political scene with an agenda constructed on

hostility toward immigration. Immigrants especially Muslims do not often have access to the

same opportunities in employment, housing compare to native French or immigrants of

European descent. Muslims are marginalized in French society. Monnet et al (2006), paint a

vivid description of the lives and economic situation of immigrants residing the “banlieues” or

ghetto on the outskirts of Paris.

nce outside of the beautiful well-maintained French metropolis of Paris, one cannot help but notice that the

buildings are deteriorating; that the wealth that characterized the city does not spill over into these outskirts;

that young people are often just sitting on the sidewalk with nothing to do in what appears like a concrete jungle;

that apartments are crowded with multiple generation of family members; and other signs of immigrants groups

have not been assimilated into the French economy, much less into the society.

o

In addition, Muslim immigrants in France are facing financial hardships, unemployment

and economic disparities (Monnet et. al, 2006). The American experience is very different from

France. Here a lot of Immigrants have climbed up the latter to success. The size of the U.S

economy, greater tolerance of diversity and heterogeneity and the country ability to attract

educated immigrants may explain why immigrants in the U.S enjoy a higher living standard and

have access to better economic opportunities than their French counterparts. Although in the U.S

from time to time controversial immigration policies toward certain countries or nations raise

some questions. There are instances where some immigrants have been denied opportunities and

refugees have been denied asylum base on their country of origin and/or ethnicity. One example

of this fact would be the U.S federal government controversial policy that gives special

preferences to Cubans over Haitians refugees and asylum seekers.

Representational Issues

Immigrants face another issue which may be the contributing factor that makes it so hard

for them to assimilate to French society: “under-representation.” Ethnic origin and religious

dissimilarity have proven to be an important aspect in French politics (Jean Monnet et. al, 2006),

while the political structure in the United States, tends to encourage a melting pot. In America

immigrants are more financially stable, and many immigrants as well as their descents have

occupied prominent positions in government. Therefore they have more resources at their

disposition to lobby Congress and influence legislation that deal with immigration matters.

Unlike the U.S were organized businesses and ethnic interests have lobbied for expansive

immigration legislation, France does not have any interest advocacy group supporting

immigration (Brooking Inst, 2002). With 10 percent of the French population being Muslim, the

number of Muslim deputies in the French National Assembly is zero (Levine, 2004).

Moreover in the United States religious leaders are in a better position to raise concern

on immigration than in France. The French Republican system is entirely secular and is based on

Laicite which is characterized by a strict enforcement of separation of church and state. In 2010,

both the upper- house and lower- house of the French parliament overwhelmingly passed

government supported legislation that banned religious garments in public places (Belkin, April

2011: CRS Report).

A policy of political integration to encourage immigrants to get more involved in French

politics may be holding the solution that would facilitate immigrants especially Muslims to

assimilate. However, not until ethnic, economic and religious barriers are broken down, the

prospects for integration will never materialize. The United States as an Affirmative Action

policy and has passed many other legislation to discourage discrimination in employment against

minorities, which comprise blacks and immigrants. Similar policies can reduce many socio-

economic difficulties that the immigrant population in France face, and create the path for more

integration in the society.

Current Major Issues and Shift in Immigration Policy in France and the U.S

As previously mentioned, the French government has recently shift from a zero-

immigration policy to focus on talent immigration. This new focus on chosen immigration is

aimed at recruiting educated foreign- students and professional workers from all over the world.

This led to the emergence of visa, which ties foreign-born workers to their employers through

sponsorship. France is currently supporting the concept of issuing Green Cards to end the federal

queue; this makes sense. In the realm of sub-national immigration policies, the new shift will

favor French- leaning immigrants over others. Arguably, this shift has made immigration more

popular in France. It has eliminated the fears of language change and has the possibility to

provide France with employees, including skilled workers that the country will need as its

population ages (Van, 2008).

The main issue with sub-national immigration policy in France is that immigrants do not

have to fit the slots allotted to them. The gap between non-immigrant (native born) and

immigrant wages in France is even worse than in the United States. This is a bi-product of

various factors including the difficulties in social recognition and the non-recognition of

unskilled- workers. The second issue is mobility. In France, Muslims “particularly Maghrebian”

immigrants are not diffusing from their home in any significant numbers (Levine, 2004). French

immigration laws are implemented at the regional level this give municipalities control over the

movement of immigrants. This is one of the reasons why immigrants are having problems

assimilating to the larger French society. Immigrants must be mobile, socially and

geographically, and having the municipalities controlling their movement do not offer adequate

scope. Additionally, a vast majority of immigrants is concentrated in one area the “banlieues”

because immigrant communities have created dense social networks and neighborhoods.

Restrictions on mobility are problematic if immigrants have fixed residences it would complicate

efforts to boost declining or stagnant population. In this case, the waste of potential is more of a

moral issue as it is an economic problem.

The United States has been increasingly facing the issue of illegal immigrants. This issue

has forced residents to be concerned about how illegal immigration could interfere with the

economy and how much it could pose a threat to national security. Anti-illegal groups and

advocates have converged to create a distorted perception of the issue. Many legislative attempts

at comprehensive reform to mitigate the problem of immigration failed in 2006 and 2007. As a

result, many states and local governments are implementing or considering proposals to turn

police officers into de facto immigration agents to “crack down” on unauthorized immigrants

and those who provide them with jobs or shelters (Ewing, Jan 2012). For example, state

legislators in Arizona were eager to take the matter to control illegal- entries in their own hands

when they passed laws to discourage potential illegal- immigrants from settling in the state. In

the meanwhile, many illegal immigrants continue to queue across the U.S waiting to be picked

up by potential employers (Elliott & Mayadas, 2010). This problem has led to the evolution of

various policies such as the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 2007 that sanctions

employers from hiring immigrants.

However, it appears that this policy is not working as desired as the number of illegal

immigrants continue to surge. Another issue is that participants in the overall environment like

religious groups and politicians have stakes in the failure to enforce internal immigration laws.

These groups are subject to receive benefits from the vast immigrant population; potential

converts and votes. The implied powerlessness seems to be a strategic effort to soften the

consequence of an amnesty policy. Moreover, the U.S government has been raising various

debates on the need to end the Diversity Visa program. This has been the most effective method

used by the government to ensuring that professionals who would help in building the nation

enter the country. This current development if it succeeds will alter nature and the history of

immigration. Besides, the threat of terrorism is another issue that has influenced the nature of

immigration in the U.S and even in France. Government operatives have to be vigilant when

admitting immigrants from countries where terrorism or terrorist activities pose greater threats.

Such issues will eventually alter the immigration dynamics between the two countries.

Conclusion

This paper has shown the differences between France and the United States in term of the

characteristics of their immigration policies. Although the U.S seems more tolerant to diversity,

it is more concerned with the possible adverse consequences of increased illegal immigration and

terrorism. Looking at France, citizens are more worried about the lack integration of immigrants.

To solve the issues of mobility and illegal immigration in France and the U.S, a completely new

approach is mandatory. For instance, In France, various schemes must be invented to support

geographic mobility. Furthermore, the French government should encourage the creation of more

immigrant advocacy- groups to speed up the integration process. The new policy strategies of

chosen immigration adopted in both countries, has the potential to change the course of

immigration and reduce the labor shortage for professionals.

On the other hand, these governments should also pursue other alternative policies to

provide an opportunity for the determined hard working, un-skilled workers, from developing

countries “at least to a minimum” to come and work in these countries. All countries need to

control the number of immigrants they let in, but it should be based on fairness, not on

discrimination, prejudice and/or racism. Evidence has shown that when immigrants (professional

or un-skilled) are provided with the opportunities, they thrived.

In what concerns illegal immigration, the U.S must consider why illegal immigrants enter

the country. Even though the elimination of the temptation of employment might be the best

strategy to curb illegal immigration, it requires monumental resources to enforce essential labor

related policies. Perhaps the U.S needs a more progressive enforcement strategy that incorporates

an emphasis on criminal immigrants and tighter borders control.

References

Adolino J. R and Blake C. H (2001). “comparative public policies: issues and changes in Six industrialized countries.” Congressional Quarterly Inc. CQ Press

Belkin P (April 2011). France: Factors Shaping Foreign Policy and Issues in U.S,- French Relations. Congressional Research Service (CRS).

Bertossi C (2008). France: The State Strives to Shape “Chosen” Immigration. Centro Studi di Politica Internationale (CeSPI). Retrieved from www.ifri.org/downloads/cespi08.pdf

Cornelius, W. A. (2010). Controlling immigration: A global perspective. Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press.

Elliott, D., & Mayadas, N. S. (2010). Immigration worldwide: Policies, practices, and trends. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ewing W. A (2012). Opportunity and Exclusion: A Brief History of U.S Immigration Policy. Immigration Policy Center.

Foner, N. (2009). In a new land: A comparative view of immigration. New York [u.a.: New York Univ. Press.

Horowitz, D. L., & Noiriel, G. (2012). Immigrants in two democracies: French and American experience. New York: New York University Press.

Kloosterman, R., & Rath, J. (2013). Immigrant entrepreneurs: Venturing abroad in the age of globalization. Oxford [u.a.: Berg.

Lemel, Y., & Noll, H.-H. (2012). changing structures of inequality: A comparative perspective. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.

Levine A (July, 2004). Assimilating Immigrants: Why America Can and France Cannot. RAND Corporation. Retrieved from

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/occasional_papers/2005/RAND_OP132.pdf

Martin P. L (April 2002). Immigration in the United States. Institute of European Studies. Working Paper CIIP-2. Retrieved from

Monet J et al (2006). Assimilation of Immigrant Groups in France: Myth or Reality? University of Miami. Retrieved from

http://www6.miami.edu/eucenter/VladescuWP%20French%20Immigration.pdf

Nioriel G (April 2011). Immigration. Collective Memory and National Identity in France. Universite De Coimbra. Retrieved from

http://www.ces.uc.pt/projectos/tolerace/media/Noiriel%20%20Immigration%20identit%C3%A9%20nationale.pdf

Penninx, R. & Roosblad, J. (2010). Trade unions, immigration, and immigrants in Europe, 1960-1993: A comparative study of the attitudes and actions of trade unions in seven West European countries. New York: Berghahn Books.

Rosenblum R. M (Aug 2011). U.S Immigration Policy Since 9/11: Understand the Stalemate Toward Immigration Reform. Migration Policy Institute (mpi).

Schain, M. (2012). The politics of immigration in France, Britain, and the United States: A comparative study. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Simmons, A. (2010). Immigration and Canada: Global and transnational perspectives. Toronto: Canadian Scholars' Press.

Simon P. (2012). French National Identity and Integration: Who Belong to the National Community? Migration Policy Institute (mpi).

http://ies.berkeley.edu/pubs/workingpapers/CIIP-2-PLM_United_States.pdf

The Brookings Institution (Junuary 2002). Immigration Policy in France: US- France Analysis. www.brookings.edu

Togman, J. M. (2012). The ramparts of nations: Institutions and immigration policies in France and the United States. Westport, Conn. [u.a.: Praeger.

Van, P. P. (2008). Cultural diversity versus economic solidarity: Proceedings of the Seventh Francqui Colloquium. Brussels, 28 February - 1 March 2003. Bruxelles: De Boeck & Larcier.