WENDEN 1984 International Migration

8/18/2019 WENDEN 1984 International Migration

1/15

The Evolution

of

French Immigration Policy

after M a y 1981

BY CATHERINE WIHTOL DE WENDEN *

Both before and after 1981, some American political scientists (l), in their analysis of

French immigrant policy insisted on the institutional and political uncertainties of French

policy making 2) and on its internal contradictions

3).

While I agree that the French

immigrant policy is a day-to-day response to national and international political, philo-

sophical and economic demands, as well as a compromise between profound conflicts, the

questions

I

will try to answer here are the following:

Have there been important changes in French immigrant policy since 198 1 and is it

possible that they are turning points in the history of French post-war immigration policy?

Can we talk of continuity or discontinuity relative to past immigration policies and

practices? Has there been a fundamental change or only a perception

of

change? Are we

witnessing the emergence of a new immigration policy of control and selection of immi-

grant flows?

What can the evolution of French immigrant policy, since the Socialist Government

took power, reveal about the kind of society France wants to be? Who are the actors who

influence decision-making processes and choices? What are the challenges to the nation-

state regarding citizenship, different forms of immigrant membership in society, and

preferences given to a political and nationalistic approach or to an economic one given

that the right to control the entry of foreigners constitutes one of the prime attributes of

sovereignty

?

Indeed, one may observe that:

There was no change in 1981 in the two main objectives of French immigrant policy:

stopping immigration and absorbing the immigrants who are settled in France. But, the

means used to implement this policy and also the final aims themselves have perhaps

changed, even if there remain gaps between means and ends and between the ‘main gate’

and the ‘back door’.

*

Chargee de Recherche, Cornit6 national de recherche scientifique, CNRS), Paris.

199


2/15

The tendency of immigrant phenomena to become political has been strongly con-

firmed with all its implications: imm igratio n has become a m ajor political issue (4); the

imm igrants ar e assuming new roles in th e political sph ere in Fran ce; t he decision-making

process on immigration is becoming politicized; the international context has become

involved

5 ) .

Th e search for legitimacy for the nation-state in crisis

and

the role of symbolic legis-

lation passed to satisfy public opinion hav e become m ajor factors (6 ) .

-

Radicalization of positions and the amalgamation of themes have been accelerated in

the ma jor conflicts surrounding im migration in the last three years: the second-generation

immigrants in the suburbs of large cities (7); the conflicts in the automobile industry

(Rena uit, Peugeot, Talbot, Citroen),

he m unicipal elections of March 1983, which some-

times ap peared a s political laboratories, as was the case in Dreux for the ex treme right; the

problems caused by the control of illegal immigration ; mmigration being linked with

violence, insecurity, and border control in the minds of the public.

Some problems remain unsolved or have only been partially solved: political rights,

dual citizenship (8), the structural role of clandestine immigration in so me sectors, an d the

fluctuations of co-operation with countries of origin. Th e French G ove rnm ent seems not

to have dar ed to make unilateral decisions on such controversial qu estion s which engage

the future of the French society.

Therefore, will try to review the French immigration policy since May 198

1

in three parts

as follows:

1 to draw u p a balance sheet of the m ain political decisions taken o r debated, an d of the

trends they reveal.

2.

to focus on the limits of an institutional and declarative policy and on its possible

negative effects.

3. to discuss the new challenge and pressure arising from immigration in the French

political decision-making process.

For a long time, pu blic decision-makers in France were only concerned with m onitoring

immigration m ovements. Before 1914, the mo vem ents of populations were largely free.

There was often police control of foreigners, but labou r in itself was not subject to legal

regulation. In 19 31, increasing unemployment provoked or was con com mitta nt with a

reaction against the settlemen t offoreign workers in France, and measu res were ado pte d to

protect French labour. After the Second World War, and especially during the sixties,

France permitted undocumented immigration in order to promote economic growth.

Un til the crisis of 1973 an d the interruption ofi m m igra tion tha t occurred in 1974, most of

the im migrant workers were clandestine, but they were referred to merely a s being irreg-

ular. Th e Portuguese represented 26 of all clandestine imm igran ts in 1948 and 80 in

1964. Th e conti nu ou s increase ofirregular situations, w hich generated a certain am ou nt of

opposition between employers and tra de unions, w as the cause of th e ‘Fontanet Decree’ of

27 February 1972, which tende d to re turn t o strict implementation of the law. Following

ministerial decisions in 1973, amne sty was suspended on 3

1

Octob er 1973. Th e crisis that

followed seemed to signal the dominance of administrative control measures.

Reasons relating to the need to ma intain law and order, and to the economic situation

were the foundation of the new policies, which were meant t o curtail clandestine im m i-

200


3/15

gration. Such me asures as the Law of 10July I976 a nd the ‘decrees’ of 3 January 1977 and

1

1 July 1977 were ad op ted to reinforce existing regulations. T hey reflected what appe ared

to

be

a clear-cut decision to distinguish th e legitimate imm igrant wo rkers from th e others.

The Law of 10 January 1980 (the ‘Bonnet Law’) is a good illustration of the conflicts

between the deman d for

a

labou r force in relation to the fluctuations of the econom y w ith

the facility for expulsion and demographic considerations. Thus, in May 1980, Lionel

Stofem, he sta te secretary in charge of manual labour, began to consider amnesty on a n

individual basis for workers who had lived in France since

1

March 1980 an d who were

heads of families. However, the Council of Ministers on

5

September 1980 seemed to

signal a trend toward the reinforcement of restrictive measures.

Between

30

May 1977 when a policy of granting financial assistance to workers to

return to their hom e country (aidfor

return)

was established an d 198 1, on e of the main

objectives of French immigration policy was to encourage the im mig rants to leave. But in

view of the failures in the implem entation of this policy, an evolution occurred. Signif-

icant changes ha d already taken place in Sep tember 1980 with t he Franco-Algerian

agreement :

Th e idea that nationals would replace imm igran t workers when they returned t o their

hom e countries w as abandoned;

The necessity of bilateral co-operation with the countries of origin was stressed;

Qu alitative considerations concerning jo b training an d reintegration were given priority

over qu antitativ e considerations.

Th e Franco-Algerian negotiations on the return and reintegration of Algerians living in

France illustrate the diplomatic dynamics generated by international labour flows. If

Algeria continued to demand the application

of

the 1980 agreement o n reintegration,

France would ‘permit itself to control Algerian entry and residence in France more

strictly. Inversely, if Algeria proved less demand ing and France less desirous of financing

the reintegration (repatriation w ith vocational training), the French authorities w ould find

it difficult to be more severe in the con trol

of

the entry and residence of Algerians.

A NEW POLICY: SOME CHANGES

Such an analysis cannot be made, apart from a comprehensive political view of French

imm igrant policy in recent years and especially since the left took power in May 1981.

Discontinuity in Principles

With the failure o ft he depoliticization strategy of the form er political elite, one is struck by

the ideological dimension of the new immigration policy. Even if the objectives have

remained roughly the sam e to stop imm igration an d to integrate those already settled in

France the issues have changed. Now they are cast in terms of hu m an rights, the fight

against arbitrary administrative measures, and giving voice to the immigrants them-

selves.

The policy was announced and presented as having two elements, the first being the

condition of the second: to sto p new imm igration by taking measures against the future

‘illegals’ and to improve the living conditions of the others. This was the programme

announ ced by

Franqois A utain ,

the state secretary in charge ofim m igr ant w orkers,

in

June

1981 His intention was to offer amnesty t o illegal imm igrants, to penalize em ployers, to

reinforce border controls, and to favour the integration of legal immigrants. Later on,

20 1


4/15

Georgina Du foix,

the new state secretary for immigration, stated

at

the Council of Min-

isters meeting of August 1983 that ‘illegals impede the integration of immigrants’.

Thepolicy of improvingthesituationof imm igra nts already settled in France is expressed in

three laws:

The Law

of

9 October 1981, concerning associations;

The Law of 17 October 198 1, concerning employment of illegal immigrant workers;

The

L a w

of 29 October 1981 on the entry and stay of foreigners in France.

foreigners.

The Law of 9 October 1981 replaced the law-decree of 1939 on foreign associations, which

required that they

be

authorized by the Ministry of the Interior. Now they are subject to

the same conditions as French associations, i.e., declaration to the Ministry of the Inter-

ior.

Some problems were not dealt with, for example, the problem of the political rights of

The Law of 17 October 198 1 is intended to raise the status of illegally employed foreigners

to that of the legally employed foreigners, particularly with regard to their social benefits.

However,’ it also stiffens the penalties against

firms

that employ clandestine aliens and

firms that contract clandestine aliens as temporary workers to other firms. Unions were

granted the right to take legal action against recalcitrant employers if the foreign worker in

question did not explicitly oppose it. Parallel to this law, the Circular of 11 August 1981

stipulated that illegal alien workers who were capable of proving that they were in France

prior to

1

January 1981, and that they held steady employment, could have their status

regularized. Those with proof of residency prior to the cut-off date and with an employ-

ment contract for one year, could receive their papers immediately. Those who had

difficulty in proving their eligibility could request a hearing before a commission com-

posed of elected officials, judges, civil servants, and representatives of the immigrant

reception associations. The commission, which is set up in each

dkpartement

(adminis-

trative district), would recommend whether an immigrant should be granted regulariza-

tion or not by the Commissioner of the Republic (the representative of the central gov-

ernment and chief administrative and police official in each dkpartement, formerly called

the Prefect). At the same time, employers were granted a period of grace from legal

sanctions if they agreed to put their affairs in order before

1

January 1982.

So me other measures completed the imp lem enta tion

of

thispolicy, which was thought to be

a global one:

the improvement of the conditions for entry of family members; the establishment of

priority educational areas in sectors with a high concentration of immigrants, and the

creation of

contrats d’agglomkration

with a view to better housing.

The subsidies granted for returning to the home country, which had been widely criticized,

were suppressed in November 1981 . French officials then began to use the termformation

reinsertion instead of ormation-retour (9).

Continuity of Control Measures

In France, the theme of control and security associated with the idea

of

preventing

202


5/15

‘automatic’ imm igration th at would endanger the cohesion of French society was widely

used for political ends, both prior t o an d after 10 May 198

1

when

FranGois Mitterand

was

installed. T he municipal elections of 1983 became th e ideal grounds for the am algamation

of term s like ‘imm igration insecurity’ and ‘na tional cohesion’. Nonetheless, i t would be t o

no purpose to seek the explanation ofw hat was a t stake for the various political actors and

mechanisms in the regularization programme in terms of the political marketplace, as

there was no national d ebate on legalization and only timid efforts to sensitize and inform

public opinion.

Th e major immigration question in F rance remains the control of the border a nd of

illegal em ploym ent.

As

noted by

DenisMoreau,

he head o fth e inter-ministry taskforce

on

the suppression of traffic in labou r, ‘if labour flows are not controlled, th e attra ctio n o ft h e

underground economy will remain very strong. If, inversely, illegal employment is not

severely sanctioned, the incitemen t to illegal entry an d employ ment will be such th at even

reinforced b order co ntro ls will be imperative’.

Above and beyond th e question of means, there remains the question

of

the determi-

nation an d effective co-operation o f the various public authorities to ensure tha t the laws

are respected. M ajor efforts are being mad e to sensitize and inform public opinion about

illegal alien employment, and to develop a non-falsifiable identity card.

The Law of 29 October 1981 reinforced some elements of the ‘Bonnet Law’ of

10

January 1980, but some guarantees were provided for aliens in the form of stronger

judicial controls to prevent arbitrary action on the part of administrators. In addition,

some categories of aliens, such as second-generation immigrants, long-term residents,

parents of French children, and persons m arried t o French citizens now have the right to

stay in France (10).

TH E LIMITS O F AN INSTITUTION AL POLICY

Som e of the policy limits are linked to the incompleteness of some of the reforms. Others

derive from internal co ntradictions and unexpected effects o ft he implem entation of some

of th e measures. The latter are rooted in the nation-state crisis, coupled with the rise

of

the

politicization of the imm igrants a s actors an d issues in French politics.

These points raise the question o f the limits of an institutional a nd declarative policy,

and of the responses to it by public opinion, political parties, imm igrants, employers, an d

the o ther countries.

During the last ten years, the permanent settlement of immigrant workers with their

families as a structural phenom enon appeared as

a

challenge in a France being confronted

by an economic crisis.

But

it also generated a new concern about the definition of the

nation-state an d abo ut th e role of minority political participation. Recently, measures

were taken to reinforce the rights of foreigners (in labour and administrative levels of

representation since 197 5) an d to establish structures tha t w ould be able to represent them

on the local consultative level. In the meantime, new forms of political involvement of

immigrant workers appeared: wildcat strikes of ‘illegals’ about housing (1 977- 198 1);

conflicts in the a uto m ob ile industry (1 982- 1983); the rise of associations, an d the march

for equal rights (October-Decemb er 1983) reveal no t only a politicization process of

previously non-political matters

(politisation du non politique)

but also a

passage

au

politique of immigrants both as receivers and as participants in the French political

system. Even without full civil rights, immigrants are now involved in French policy-

making, not merely as objects but also as subjects.

Th e political imp act of such changes an d the political response of the French Co ver n-

men t raise impo rtan t questions in both the m acro- and the micro-political co ntexts, even

203


6/15

though the strategy of the State is still uncertain. For example, before May 1981, the

Socialists were com mitted to granting immig rant workers the right to vote in municipal

elections, but th e hostile reaction fro m the general public, an d from so m e political parties,

caused them to d rop th e idea.

Th e Incompleteness o f some Reforms

Th e most striking illustrations of the incompleteness o f some reform s is the question of

political rights for immigrants. In 1981, the right to form associations was granted t o

foreigners on the s am e term s as those of French citizens (Law of 1901).

Th e question of political rights for im mig ran t workers in France is an old debate, an d

som e would say that little progress ha s been m ade in the last two centuries. T his article is

contained in the French Constitution of 24 June 1793:

Each foreigner of more than 21 years of age and established in France for more than one year, who

earns his

living

by working or acquires property rmames a French wife

r

adopts a child or cares for

an elderly person, each who had contributed to the cause of humanity, is admitted to exercise the

rights of the French citizen.

Th e problem w as raised again at the end o f the 19th century an d between 1919 an d 1939,

an d recently it has been reintroduced in to the de bate between th e French political parties.

In the presidential election s of 1974, a non-eligible candida te, Djelali Kamal, stressed the

question. M oreover, this right, considered a s the first step toward participation of immi-

grants in French political life, was included i n th e electoral pr ogr am me of the Socialist

Party. Tho se wh o resided i n France for at least four or five years would be granted t he right

to participate in m unicipal elections. After th e Socialist victory in M ay 1981, it was

expected that imm igrants would participate in the 1983 elections, bu t the G overn men t

was forced to declare that participation in 1983 was impossible. Durin g the su m m er of

198 1, statements by Mr.

Cheysson,

the M inist er of Foreign Affairs, favouring imm igrant

voting in local elections relaunched the debate.

In fact, the prob lem is linked to th e problem of long-term - but not necessarily definitive

- residence of imm igrants who want t o preserve their freedom to settle in France or to

return to their home country. Immigration, which has become a structural problem,

dem ands ano ther approach for the participation in the nation-state in which the imm i-

grants are residing.

To day , it is no longer possible to identify th e imm igra nt merely with his econo mic role.

Imm igrants progressively seek mea ns of expression th at are more a uto nom ous relative to

those of the classic policy in ord er to defend the ir interests. But, because of thei r juridical

status, which lim its their local participation

to

m ore or less fictive consultation, they are

forced to act by means of ‘politicization of non-political problems’, which is a very

ambiguous method.

Indeed, the status of foreign workers is no longer adapted to the new form s of imm i-

gration, just as their strong aspirations to participate in public life is not necessarily

associated with a desire to acquire French nationality. B ut first, we mu st ad m it that there

i s a ‘desacralization’ of the French conception of nationality a nd citizenship.

Unexp ected Effects of Institutional Mechan isms

A

good example of the negative effects of institutional measures is the legalization pro-

grame. Many unexpected effects occurred. First, there was the problem of arbitrary

adm inist rativ e rulings refusing legalization t hat led to increasing dem an ds on th e dkparte-

menf level, where positive rulings prevailed. Then there was the p rob lem of illegal alien

2 4


7/15

inflows from neighbouring countries (particularly West Germany) that were apparently

precipitated by the announcement of the legalization programme. Members of the family

of recently legalized foreignersbegan to come in because the one-year work and residency

permit prevented their expulsion. Some of those legalized quickly applied for unemploy-

ment benefits, while other unemployed foreigners who had returned home came back to

France to benefit from the legalization programme.

This exceptional, one-time only legalization programme which was started in August

1981 and survived until 15 April 1982 for clandestine aliens and until

26

February 1982

for seasonal workers was based on legal criteria that evolved as unanticipated cases were

encountered. While the prolongation of the programme facilitated a proliferation of false

documents and the creation of clandestine alien smuggling networks, the legalization

procedure revealed the diversity of the forms of clandestine alien residency and employ-

ment. Aside from Algerians, who have a unique legal status, the population that came

forward to be legalized was young (80 were less than 32 years old) and recently settled in

France (88

Oo

having arrived after 1975 and

40

after 1980). The major groups represented

were Tunisians, Moroccans, Portuguese, and then Black Africans and Turks (80 of the

total). There was a non-negligible percentage of women among those legalized (some

18

),

and strong concentrations were present in areas with large foreign worker popula-

tions (Paris, Lyon, Provence-C6te d’Azur and Corsica). As for the employment charac-

teristics of those legalized, 30

Oo

worked in construction, 15 as domestics or in cleaning

services, 12 in restaurants and hotels, 11Oh in agriculture, 10 in commerce and 8 in

the textile industry.

A NEW

POLITICAL

FORCE

The increasing politicization of immigrants by means of direct or indirect pressure groups

poses a challenge

to

the sovereignty of the State.

Immigrants as a Political Issue in French Politics

The impasse in the debate on the political rights of immigrants along with the use of

immigration as a symbol in local political dialogue, and as a bargaining chip in relations

with the countries of origin, reveals the political importance

of

immigrants in France

today.

The extent of what was as stake appeared in the municipal elections of March 1983,

which was a privileged theatre for a political class. In addition, there was the long lasting

immigration a situation that is not necessarily considered definitive in French society

along with the large-scale entry ofimmigrants in labour and urban conflicts, and a crisis in

the ideologies of citizenship and the nation-state as defined in the 19th century.

This situation is not without paradox, for the immigrants are being refused the right to

vote, which seems to run counter to the evolution of the role of immigrants in French

society. The theme of foreign presence is played upon especially with regard to the

Maghrebi and the Algerians for political reasons. Immigrants, therefore, form an ille-

gitimate group in the French political system. Long relegated to the periphery

of

the

political sphere and confined to the margins of society, they are now classified as ‘poli-

tical’.

The paradox should be evident. Because immigrants are denied political rights and are

therefore absent as actors from the political debate, they became fundamental issues in the

municipal elections and also, though less obviously, in the agreements with the countries

of origin. Can the use

of

immigration

as

a political issue in electoral rhetoric or interna-

tional negotiations be considered a real consequence of the lack of political rights of the

205


8/15

immigrants? Too often, what is at stake exceeds the object of the polemic and remains

largely outside of the experience of the immigrants, although they themselves form the

target. Moreover, if these issues were to disappear, would the immigrants be able to

acquire a legitimate political identity in the French political debate? The immigrants,

therefore, form a kind of pressure group without wanting to, and often without being

aware of it (the Portuguese, for example, were not included in the xenophobic rhetoric of

March

1983).

Sometimes, they become a political force by proxy or by virtue ofthe actions

of political parties or leaders.

Some consider this situation explosive, although it is hardly new. In December

1980,

the ‘Vitry Affair’ saw the use of immigration as a pretext used in municipal dialogue for the

conversion of ‘social demands’ and ‘requests for support’ and by certain political parties in

their attempt to gain legitimacy. The immigrants were, for the most part, left out of the

March

1983

municipal elections, except when violent demonstrations in suburbs caused

immigration to become an issue. But the parties, politicians, and militants of the left as

well as the right who were concerned about immigration, exacerbated racism by iden-

tifying immigration as a social menace and linking it to national insecurity. It is difficult to

measure the consequences in immigrant communities of their having become political

pawns, and especially to determine their perception of French policies and their desire or

refusal to integrate politically into France. More obvious, perhaps, is what is revealed

about the mentality and political life of French society as a whole by the immigrants

becoming referees in games of municipal political alliances, having the means to sway

French voters on the national level, and possessing diplomatic and economic bargaining

chips with the countries of origin, with the full knowledge that these countries would have

difficulty reintegrating them economically.

It is interesting

to

know if social resistance to immigrants

-

a recent object of political

debate is an indication of a movement on the wane in the judicial sphere

or

in the

assimilationist ideology of the nation-state, or if it is something that is ripening via a

transformation of cultural symbols of citizenship, the state, and the political communi-

ty.

The rules of the political game are being refined and expanded on the periphery of the

political system. Among the new elements are the acquisition of voting rights and a trend

toward universilization of political rights, each of which constitutes an important step in

the formation or redefinition of the notion ofthe ‘state’. In the same way, the introduction

of the immigrant ‘position’ into the French political debate may loosen up the French

political scene, freeing it from a certain asphyxiation that seems to prevail, since the

immigration theme crosses the traditional barriers between the left and the right. The

young, second-generation immigrants, who have the right to vote (though they currently

take little advantage of it), threaten to alter the rules of the political game by questioning

the process of immigrant integration, by contesting the nation-state model, and by pro-

fessing allegiance to more than one national sub-group.

Throughout this crisis in the transition of the nation-state, what is at stake is the

‘desacralization’of the main symbols in French society. The institutionalization of a new

form of consensus will redefine the fundamental social contract, which will use a new

definition of citizenship.

A new Phenomenon and its Importance

During the 1983 municipal elections, immigrants entered the political stage by the front

door, having been promoted to the position of second degree actors by the political class.

Before then, and after the pivotal years of 1968-1972, there was a rapid politicization of

immigrants in such non-political issues as housing and regularization, and immigrants

206


9/15

became autonomous actors indirectly. Several political uses of immigration can be iden-

tified. One is the return to immigration as a symbol on the national level; another is the

attempt to capture a political market by using the theme to attract voters, especially on a

local level; and a third is the organization of marketing purely and simply, with immi-

gration being an element on the international market of major political and economic

importance.

Immigration as a

symbolic

Issue.

France is not the only country to experience such a

phenomenon. During times of crises, nations will attempt to reinforce their legitimacy by

using the control of immigration as an example of their dominance and their capacity to

deal with the challenge of a large, clandestine immigration population capable of entering

their territory illegally the control of territory being a primary quality of sovereignty. An

American immigration law proposed in 1982 and voted on in 1983 is an example of such

an effort. Several analyses of American immigration policy, however, indicate that such a

law would be of little use except politically. Furthermore, symbolic legislation in this area,

which is designed to alter public opinion by means of a re-legitimation ofthe image of state

control and dominance, could hardly result in the dismantling of the vicious structural

cycle created by clandestine immigration. But immigration control as a political theme

during a time of crisis is, despite its inefficiency, a viable rallying point for the image of the

state only when the public is convinced that such policies are indeed successful. Some

consider that such laws are passed only to reassure a clientele that they have access to a

political market. Thus, the public authorities can easily accept the illusion of a policy of

regularization, as well as a certain degree of failure in implementation, provided that the

image of the government and the current administration that makes such laws is bene-

fited. Public opinion seems to be more sensitive to the idea of control than to control itself,

which reveals the power of persuasion held by a political ideology over administrative

efficiency.

In France, the symbolic dimension of recent agreements on immigration, and partic-

ularly border control and internal security, did not escape political notice. On 18 July

1983, Max

Gallo

representing the Government, warned of the risk of using the immi-

gration problems as a political weapon. The political rhetoric about immigration, which is

merely an administrative problem in growth years, has assumed a new, ideological tone

reminiscent ofthe period between the two world wars. Could this be an indication that an

obsolete notion of the nation-state is being fostered; that a ‘key period’ is being used in an

attempt to redefine nationality and the state? Or does French society find it necessary, in

its fragility, to return to grandiose symbols such as the ‘restoration of the State’ to protect it

from a foreign menace and other feelings of insecurity? The 1983 municipal campaign

slogans, for example, compared the ‘wild‘ immigration programmes of former adminis-

trations with today’s controlled immigration, as was the case in Marseille. Nevertheless, it

is difficult to distinguish a search for symbolism from a less noble need, being the conquest

of political markets at the expense of the immigrants by passionate displays

of

national-

istic fervor and political and moral stances, by appeals for mobilization, and by references

to great republican and democratic principles. The strategy of using immigration for

Political gains is obvious.

Immigration:

a political

Commodity.

In this case, immigrants become second degree

Political objects to be used as a rallying theme. The goal appears for the most part to sway

voters by stirring up xenophobic sentiment, rather than to avoid the future lossof second

generation voters by promoting a more conciliatory dialogue. The victory of the right in

the municipal elections in Dreux is an extreme example, and the campaign methods are

207


10/15

not new, having been used widely between the two world wars. The game is initially played

at the local level, with immigration being the pretext for municipal political rhetoric, and

the ‘foreign menace’ theme serving to fill the gaps in an ideological debate. On the national

level, immigration becomes a showcase for political party generosity except for the far

right). In March 1983, two mayoral candidates in Paris, Paul Quiles a Socialist repre-

sentative from Paris) and

Jacques Chirac

RPR

Mayor of Pans) held similar positions on

the necessity of finding large-scale answers to quell the fear of the ‘other’. The left proposed

to do it by intervention, educational and cultural programmes, and protection and respect

for those who are different; the right proposed protection, integration, information and

understanding.

In the municipalities, the situation took on a different tone during the 1983 electoral

campaign. The attitude toward immigrants was often just the reverse side of municipal

policies toward electors. Despite the existence of a few extra-municipal committees

which had become more numerous since the 1977 municipal elections in cities such as

ChamMry, Saint-Etienne and Chiitenay-Malabry, the immigrants were generally viewed

by local officials as a problem population; the difference between this group and other

voters being the lack ofthe right to vote. Insecurity, too, became an exploitable theme with

immigrants here the Maghrebi) serving as the example of the evolution of the situation in

some neighbourhoods and communities. Candidates of all political persuasions became

entangled in the manipulation and amalgamation of problems concerning and affecting

immigrants.

In Toulon as well, the UDF Mayor, Maurice Arrecku, took on the role of the clarifier of

past wrongs:

As

an elected official, it is my duty to say out loud what everyone is thinking

to himselfbut is afraid to say. France must continue its great tradition ofwelcoming those

who come from afar, but it has never been its role to harbour the unemployed of Europe

and Africa. Our country has become a dust bin containing revolutionaries, delinquents,

and anarchists ofall kinds. We must get rid ofthem. I approve ofthe long-awaited decision

to appoint a Secretary of State Security to act against the presence in France of those who

do not belong here. Be it the right of yesterday or the left of today, everyone has a complex

about facing the immigrant problem’. In Dreux, immigration is a political weapon, and

the far right has not hesitated to use it to score in municipal elections. The general secretary

of the National Front Party, Jean-Pierre Stirbois tated that ‘foreign commandos trained

by communists and the CGT make the rules and use intimidation and violent tactics when

dealing with workers’. Such catch-all strategies attract attention since, by their violence

and force, they break with previous municipal election campaigns. Furthermore, in a

political context in which anti-racism is ‘an official moral position demanding respect of

the consensus in the interest of not appearing in bad taste’, these strategies represent, for

some voters, a new political dialogue considered to be too conventional and dull, or too

favourable and hypocritical.

These questions on the use of immigrants as a political weapon merit reflection since the

immigrants alone cannot express themselves in the political arena as they do not have the

necessary clout to counteract the weight of overtly xenophobic practices and anti-immi-

grant rhetoric.

The Political Strategies of the Immigrants

Since 1972- 1973, immigrant workers have begun to express themselves in French political

life with aims rather different from those of nationals. These efforts are characterized

mostly by the rise of political autonomy with respect to French pressure groups and parties

hunger strikes, rent strikes in the SONACOTRA, in 1977, participation in local associa-

tion movements, strong interventions in conflicts

n

cities such as Marseille and Grenoble

208


11/15

in 1978- 1981). Most of these forms of expression first apsared as means to improve their

social and economic conditions in France such as the strikes by the workers of the Paris

Metro in 1980), with some elements of the political sub-culture ofthe immigrants the role

of agents and mediators of socialization).Different strategies were used by the immigrant

workers, individually or collectively. Some efforts were aimed at assuring existence in the

city; others strove to gain influence on political and administrative authorites against

expulsions or administrative decisions); others operated

on

sectoral levels.

Such movements raise the question of the relationshipbetween the institutionalization

of relationships to politics and the originality and specificity of ‘infra-’ or ‘sub-political’

levels of expression,which risked rapid disappearance. We could then ask if the emergence

of institutionalized forms of representation would not risk depriving immigrant worker

movements of their political specificity and of the originality of their forms of politici-

zation with respect to the political system of the host country cf the debate on political

In

the later years, the strikes of ‘illegals’ 1980-1982) again raised the question of the

dynamics of association and conflict among immigrants. The essence of the political fight

on the local level resided in the dynamism of

local

associations and the struggles of the

illegal foreign workers themselves. Hunger strikes by immigrants awaiting legalization in

Nimes and Avignon in February 1982, and in Nice in November 1982, enabled them to

have their cases re-opened after they had been denied legalization on the prefectorial level.

These conflicts underscored the inadequacy of the criteria for legalization, which ranged

from proof of steady employment to the nature of clandestine labour seasonal, tempo-

rary, part-time, etc.). They were supported by pressuregroups, which included the Roman

Catholic Church, immigrant aid associations, and the extreme left-wing political parties.

The support of the main-stream labour unions was very nuanced.

In their forms of expression, which were said to be uncontrollable, and in the nature of

their backers

on

the local level, the conflicts that occurred

in

France in

I98

I 1982 with

regard to the legalization programme, were more similar to the types of conflicts spawned

by the Marcellin-Fontanet decrees in 1972 which made easy legalization virtually

impossible than to the conflicts involving legal foreign labour in the automobile industry

of 1982-1983. The latter conflicts benefited from more union support, especially from the

CGT, perhaps because they were of a more orthodox form. If clandestine immigration is

now occurring on such a scale that it prefigures a new form of immigration, it also

constitutes a challenge to the institutionalized ocal political forces as to their capacity to

adapt to the demands of clandestine aliens.

More recently, and especially since the marches for equal rights organized by second-

generation immigrants in the suburbs of Lyon from

15

October to 3 December 1983, the

challenge to the nation-state seems to be all the more forceful in that it avoids the usual

reprisals by workers and/or unions) and focuses on the role of pressure groups.

rights).

CONCLUSION

: A

POLITICAL COMMODITY

Because the immigrants in France lack the right to vote, the theme of immigration has

become a commodity in France. Presently, in the face of the use of immigration as a

political theme by the extreme right, immigrant associations and churches are demanding

a national debate on immigration.

209


12/15

L’EVOLUTION DE LA POLITIQUE DE L‘EMIGRATION

EN FRANCE DEPUIS MAI 1981

L‘auteur de l’article,

Catherine Wihtol de Wenden

retrace l’Cvolution de la politique de

I’immigration en France depuis mai 1981. Elle dkcrit d‘abord les principales decisions

politiques prises en ce domaine et en indique l’orientation. Elle analyse ensuite les limites

d‘une politique institutionnelleet declarative et ses effets nkgatifs possibles. Elle formule,

en conclusion, quelques observations sur les dkfis nouveaux et les pressions nouvelles

venant de l’immigration

dans

le processus de decision politique de la France d‘au-

jourd‘hui.

LA EVOLUCION DE LA POLiTICA DE INMIGRACIbN

DE FRANCIA A PARTIR DE MAY0 DE 1981

La autora, Catherine Wihtol de Wenden examina en este articulo la evolucion de la

politica de Francia en materia de inmigracion desde mayo de 1981. Describe en primer

tkrmino las principales decisiones politicas adoptadas a1 respecto, y las tendencias que

estas revelan. Luego de haber analizado 10s limites de una politica institucional

y

decla-

rativa, y

sus

posibles efectos negativos, concluye con algunas observaciones sobre 10s

nuevos problemas e influencias que presenta actualmente la inmigracion en el proceso de

adopcion de decisiones politicas por parte del Estado francts.

NOTES

(1) Cf. Douglas

E.

Ashford,

Policy and Po litics in France: Living with Uncertainty.

Temple Uni-

versity Press, 1982, Philadelphia.

Gary

Freeman,

Imm igrant Labor and Racial C onflict

in

Industrial

Societies. The French and British Experience 1945-

1975. Princeton University Press, 1979, Prince-

ton. Martin A. Schain, ‘Immigrants and Politics in France: Local Politics, Socialism and Race’, in:

John

S

Ambler, ed.,

France ’under Socialist Leadersh ip.

Phila Institute for the Study of Human

Issues, 1983. Aristide

R.

Zolberg, ‘International Migration in Political Perspective’, in: Mary M.

Kritz Charles

B.

Keely and Silvano M. Tomasi (eds.)

Global Tren ds in Migration:

A

Theory and

Research on International Population Movements. Center for Migration Studies, 1981, pp. 3-27.

Aristide

R.

Zolberg, ‘Dilemmas at the Gate: The Politics of Immigration in Advanced Industrial

Societies’, Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Denver, 2 September

1982.

(2) Cf. D. Ashford,

op. cif .

‘A more accurate version of French immigration policy from a political

perspective might well be that France never knew what policy to follow’.

G. Freeman describes for the 1945-1975 period the tendency to depoliticize and technicize the

problem and its failures, and observes a movement ofthe question from the periphery to the centre of

the political system.

3) M.

Schain,

op. cit.,

sees a contradiction between reassessment of Arabs’ identity and their

defacto

integration into French society.

A. Zolberg

p. cit.,

notes a contradiction between moral and political aims and economic interests:

the ‘main gate’ and the ‘back door’.

210


13/15

(4) Cf Catherine Wihtol de Wenden,

‘Les

immigrks, enjeu politique’,

Les

temps modernes Nrs.

452-453-454), March, April, May 1984,

on

‘L‘immigration maghrebine en France’ pp. 1858-

1876.

(5) Catherine Wihtol de Wenden, ‘L‘6change de lettres franco-algkriens du 18 septembre 1980:

reflexions sur une politique de concertation bilaterale’. GRECO 13,Actes du colloque de Grenoble,

sur

L’immigration algkrienne (in press).

(6) Jacqueline Costa-Lascoux and Catherine Wihtol de Wenden, ‘French policy towards illegals: an

institutional and political comparative analysis with the American decision-making process’

(to

be

published in the

International M igration Review,

special issue on illegals, end of 1984).

(7) Cf. Catherine Wihtol de Wenden,

‘La

seconde genkration’,

Project, Nr.

171-172, special issue

on

‘Ces immigres qui sont aussi la France’, pp. 100-1 12.

(8) Cf. Catherine Wihtol de Wenden, ‘Droits politiques des immigrks’, tudes, January 1982, pp.

33-44.

(9) The French Government has announce& the creation of subsidies for the reintegration of

unemployed foreign workers willing to return to their countries. The funding of this subsidywill

be

shared by the State, the employer, and the unemployment insurance fund. Council of Ministers, 4

April 1984.

(10) Georgina Dufoix, State Secretary in charge of immigration, has recently announced the adop-

tion of a unique residence and work card for foreign workers. This card was strongly supported by

most ofthe immigrant associations. Ifthis is adopted by Parliament, the new lawwill replace some of

the measures taken in October 1981 or announced in August 1983 (Council of Ministers, 3 1 August

1983). Cf Jacqueline Costa-Lascoux, ‘L‘espace migratoire institutionnel n espace clos et contr6lC

?’

Espace, Populations, Sociktks,

Nr. 2, January-February 1984, pp. 69-88.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

French Immigration Policy before May 198

1

Francoise BRIOT, Gilles VERBUNT, lmmigrks duns la crise, Paris, Ed. Ouvrieres, 1981, 188 I:

Jacqueline COSTA-LASCOUX, ‘Une legislation pour une nouvelle politique de I’immigration?,

Pluriel, No.22, 1980, Paris, pp. 9-32.

La

politique francaise de l’irnmigration depuis 1978: logiques et contradictions.

In

Journees

Jacqueline COSTA-LASCOUX, Catherine WIHTOL de WENDEN,

Les

travailleurs irnrnigres

d‘etudes sur I’imrnigration, Lille, CRESGE, 1981, 12 p.

clandestins en France: deux approches, Studi Emigrazione, No.63, septembre 198 Rome.

Jacqueline COSTA-LASCOUX, ‘Les oublies de la politique franeaise de I’imrnigration les

femrnes imrnigrees et les enfants d’immigres’ in:

Migrations internes et externes

en

Europe Occi-

dentale. Ho mm es et Terres du Nord,

Actes du colloque international de Lille (octobre 1980), tome 2,

1981, No.57 1-591.

Jacqueline COSTA-LASCOUX, Catherine WIHTOL de WENDEN, ‘Immigres: le travail clan-

destin’,

Encyclopedia Universalis,

1982, pp. 283-287.

Jacqueline COSTA-LASCOUX, ‘La politique francaise de remigration et la condition de la

deuxitme generation’, 1974- 98

I

L

‘emigration maghrkbine

en

Europe,

Alger, CREA (Actes du

colloque d’Alger: Crises en Europe et emigration maghrebine, de mars 1981), 1982, pp. 331-367.

21 1


14/15

Mark MILLER, Foreign workers in western Europe: A n

emerging political force.

New York,

Eric-Jean THOMAS,

Les

travailleurs immigrks en Europe: quel statut? Paris,

Les

Presses de

Gilles VERBUNT, Qui

rkgit

la politiquedel’immigration?

Projet,

No. 147,juillet-aoat 1980, Paris,

Catherine WIHTOLde WENDEN, es

immigrksdans la citP

Pans,

a

Documentation Franpise,

Praeger, 1981, 228 p.

I’UNESCO, 1981,249 p.

pp. 817-822.

1978, 135 p.

____

‘Immigres’,

Encyclopedia Universalis,

1979, pp. 765-767.

‘Face

a

la lo?,

Informations Sociales,

Immigration : la metamorphose, No.9- 10/79.

‘La

participation des immigres

a

la vie locale’,

Correspondance municipale. Les i m m ig rh duns la

_ _ _ _

_

commune. ADELS, No.204, janvier 1980, pp. 6-11.

------

‘Une immigration durable en Europe’,

Projet,

juillet-aoiit 1980, Paris, pp. 823-838.

‘Le etour des travailleurs immigres en France dans leurs pays d‘origine’,

Die Dritte Welt,

No.3-4,

.

1980, pp. 291-305.

‘L‘espace politique des immigrks en France’, in :

Migrations internes et externes en Europe Occi-

dentale, Hom mes et Terres du Nord,

Actes du colloque international de Lille (octobre 1980),Tome 2,

1981, pp. 605-622.

__ __

‘Lesorientations recentes de la politique franCaise de retour 1980- 1981,L’Pmigration maghrtbine

en Europe,

Alger, CREA, (Actes du colloque d‘Alger: Crises en

Europe

et emigration maghrkbine de

mars 1981), 1982, pp, 315-330.

‘Les

immigrks et

Ic

discours politique municipal’, GRECO 13

Recherches sur les m igrations

internationales, 1982, No.4-5, pps 68-79, CNRS.

French Immigration Policy after May 1981

Douglas ASHFORD,

Policy and Politics

in

France:

Living

with Uncertainty.

1982, Temple Uni-

Association de junstes pour le respect des droits fondamentaux des immigris. Le droit et les

Jacqueline COSTA-LASCOUX,

‘Le

projet de traitement automatist. des titres de sejour d‘etran-

versity Press, Philadelphia.

immigrts,

(Actes du colloque de Marseille, janvier 1982), Edisud, 1983.

gers’, GRECO 13

Recherches sur les migrations internationales,

1982, No.2, CNRS.

___

‘La politique migratoire franCais depuis mai 1981’. (Actes du colloque d’Arniens, organise

par

Pluriel, decembre 1982),

Pluriel

‘La

France au pluriel’, 1984, Ed. L‘Harmettan, pp. 221-249.

‘L‘espace migratoire institutionnel’: un espace clos et contr61e?’

Espace, Populations, SociPrts,

No.9, janvier-fevrier 1984, pp. 69-88.

212


15/15

Jacqueline COS TA-LA SCOU X, Catherine WIH TO L d e W END EN, ‘French policy towards ille-

gals: an institutional a nd com parativ e analysis with the Am erican decision-making process’, (to be

published in

International Migration Review,

special issue, end of

1984).

Jean-Pieme GARSON, Y ann M OULIER,

‘Les

clandestins et la regularisation de

1981-1982

en

France’, Ge ntv e, BIT ,

Migration internationale pour 1‘Emploi,

Docum ent de travail, mai

1982, 104

p.

‘Les obstacles majeurs

a

un contrble des m igrants en situation imkgu litre, Ge ntv e, CIM Sixikme

seminuire sur I’adaptationet I’intkgrationdes immigrants (avril

1983),

Doc. d‘inform ation, No.3

1,22

p.

Jean-Pieme GOM ANE , ‘Flux migratoires et impacts possibles sur la population Franqaise, Futu-

ribles, juin

1983,

pp.

91-104.

Jean LECA, ‘Questions sur la citoyennete, Projet, janvier

1983,

Ces rangers gui

sont

aussi la

France,

No. sgc ial ,

171-172,

pp.

113-125.

James MARANGE, Andre LEBON,

L’insertion des jeunes d’origine Ptrangkre duns la sociktk

fiancaise. Paris, La D ocum entation FranCaise,

1982, 270

p.

Martin SCHA IN, ‘Immigrants and politics in France: local politics, Socialism and race’ (to be

published as a Chapter in Joh n Am bler, ed. France under Socialist leadership,Phila Institute for the

Study of Hum an Issues,

1983).

Roxane SILBERMAN,‘L‘kvolution des migrations internationales et I’enjeu d es politiques migra-

toires en France’, Ecole Normale Su kr ieu re, GRA MI, Doc. de travail No.2 fkvrier

1983, 25

p.

Gilles VERBUN T, ‘ a ouvelle politique migratoire en France’ CIEM, Dossier Migrations, Nov-

Dec.

1981,

No.5,

4

p.

Catherine WIHTO L de W END EN, ‘Droits politiques des immigres’, Etudes, janvier

1982,

pp.

33-44.

_

_

‘La

seconde generation’,

Projet,

janvier

1983, Ces Ptrangers qui

sont

aussi

la

France,

No. spkial,

171-172,

pp.

100-112.

_

‘L‘echange de lettres franco-algerien du

18

septembre

1980

et son evolution en

1981

et

1982:

reflexions sur une politique de concertation bilaterale.

Actes du colloque du GRECO ‘Migrations

internationales’ sur (’immigration algbrienne. Grenoble, janvier

1983 a

paraitre fin

1984),

CNRS.

---__-

‘Les

mm igres enjeu p olitique’,

Les

Temps

Modernes, Nos

452,453

and

454

mars, avril, mai

1984,

pp.

1858-1876

in: ‘L‘immigration maghrebine en France’.

213

WENDEN 1984 International Migration

Documents

Transcript of WENDEN 1984 International Migration