JEAN-CLAUDE PECKER

IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP IN FRANC

Immigration is a key issue of our times. Jean-Claude Pecker, Professor of Astrophysics, College de France is giving a lecture on the subject to the European Humanist Federation Congress in Berlin. Here is an edited and abridged version of his speech.

THE CLASSICAL SITUATION IN FRANCE

FRANCE, is, by very old tradition, going back to the Roman times and to the middle ages, a country of colonisation, of immigration, of integration of populations of very different origins. In recent times, it has been a regular policy of French authorities (since the French revolution and Napoleon Bonaparte) to consider that people born in France are by definition French. It is the "right of the soil" in opposition to the "right of blood", which is closer to the German tradition, for example. The American system is close to the French one in that respect. Once an immigrant has settled in the country, he "normally" becomes a French citizen; his children are French; his grandchildren have hardly kept the memory of their origin. But in contradistinction to the American tradition, there has been in my country constant attempts to avoid the "ghettoisation" of the immigrant groups, even in good living conditions, and to have them forget their origin.

The history of immigration in France shows that until 185I it was an immigration o[ proximity, of neighbourhood. Up to 1931 there had been a quiet progressive growth of immigration, followed by some decrease with the 1931 crisis and the Second World War. From 1956 to 1965 immigration went through a sort of boom, in particular linked with the Algerian war. At the same time many Africans from "black" Africa came after the decolonisation to seek employment. Then there was a steady increase of government control of immigration until the immigration policy was officially suspended in 1974 -- a black date in my opinion.

In the very recent years, the contradiction between the world demographic growth and the economical-political situation is increasingly obvious; and some political implosions (Liberia, Somalia, Albania...) are the seat of severe food-shortage, of misery, and of course, of an impulsive rush to exile. The boat-people are only a symptom of a much larger menace. There is little doubt, at the present time, that migrations, often massive, will be one of the challenges of international politics of the twenty-first century. The French situation has its characteristics; but other industrialised countries are, unavoidably, confronted with similar problems.

The problem of integration concerns of course only those immigrants who want to settle in France, and to develop a family. Some learning of the French language and of the local way of living is necessary for them. It is a long process for many. Life, school, working place, the media.., have indeed a teaching role, and teach a sort of "saveir vivre in France", to those who need it. The assimilation takes two to three generations. Of course this move is different in communities with strong traditions which they bring with them {chinatowns are an example). It means that the juridical frame must take into account in some reasonable way their traditions. But the metissage (L’integration a la francaise) of population stays the basis of the thinking in this problem: it is the goal which is sought.

A committee headed by a noted jurist has produced a fascinating report putting forward the principle o[ equality o£ chances for everyone. Without this there are social risks. The country may have to pay for this assimilation.

There are legal subtleties in this matter. The juridical problems of nationality, by which a State defines its nationals, is different from that of citizenship which groups all persons taking part, at any degree, to the exercise of power in this State. The two notions ware essentially the same in the old days. But now, one should perhaps introduce new statutes for foreigners permanently living in France, but wanting to keep their nationality of origin, and still wanting to take part in the administration of public affairs (right to vote in local elections may be an element of these legal dispositions). There is no doubt that this change is linked for a large part to the characteristics of the new European community, in particular within the Schengen frontiers. Actually a new category emerges, that of the "immigrant in Europe" -- not in France, Germany or elsewhere... This is one of the reasons for a changing attitude of lawyers with regard to naturalisation. Another one is of course the obvious psychological negative reaction to immigrants, various factors coming into the picture, many of them linked with the role, and the coherence of immigrant families and groups; or the high fecundity {4 children against less than 2) of immigrant women.

For reasons which seem to me coming more from the subjective image of the immigrants from North Africa than from any objective motivation, and because of the active xenophobic propaganda of the extreme right in this matter, the government decided to modify the laws concerning the conditions of immigration, and finally the conditions of acquisition of the French nationality and citizenship, under the strong hand of the Minister of the Interior, M. Charles Pasqua. This would produce a new "code of nationality". M. Pasqua recently stated that the objective of his policy was "immigration zero"; this was later accepted as being a slip of the tongue, and his own assistants claimed that what he wanted to say concerned only illegal immigration. This legal apparatus is accompanied by a series of measures of quick expulsion of offenders. And in order to apply the control, the rules of the "control of individual identity" have been made much more flexible, allowing, for example, to arrest any one, even if not in a state of suspicious behaviour or obvious culpability. The law is still that it is not compulsory for one to carry one's identity papers (ID's); but if you don't have them with you, be prepared to lose much time! ...

The Minister has been severely criticised by the Church, by the left, even by some of the centrist leaders, by the Ligue de Droits des Hornroes (Human Rights League), by the Trade Unions, even by some unions of police officers, by medical associations.., and of course by the opposition newspapers ... But the parliamentary majority is so strong that there is no way to hope these measures might finally not be decided and fully applied. As typical of what happened is the so-called "amendment Marsaud", voted by the Chamber of Representatives, with an overwhelming majority. It literally stated that "all police officers ... can decide (to arrest a person) on the basis of any element allowing to assume the quality of foreigner other than its racial character" (it can be, as noted by Ph. Bernard & A. Chemin, almost anything: a car licensed in Germany or Italy, a foreign book or newspaper in the hands, an exotic or only strange clothing, some words in a non-French language, etc [La Monde, 25 June 1993]). "The explicit reference to the notion of 'race' modifies the government text in making it politically and morally questionable and to be condemned." ...

At the same time, the request by the Minister of the Interior to use some carriages of several trains (what an idea indeed!) to be booked to expel foreigners in an irregular situation, has raised a huge protest from trade unions, notably from the railway employees. But at the end of the summer, the law will still be them, with its amendments, as they will appear. And will these timid reactions be remembered?

The first aspect of the new legislation concerns the foreigners and in particular those in an illegal situation. Its second aspect concerns the acquisition of French nationality and citizenship.

Not all proposals have been published. Some aspects of it are included in the new law, such as those concerning marriage of foreigners in an irregular situation. It is obvious that it will become much more difficult to become French. The clear, unambiguous, expression of the will to become French will be requested, perhaps also the adherence to the principles of the French Republic, as expressed in our Constitution, including the principle of laicity ...

I would like to quote, as a conclusion which I unfortunately share, the text from a paper by Ph. Bernard: "The question is to know to what extent the repression of fraudulent situations, and the maintenance of public freedoms already whether these measures aiming at foreigners are not, as it has been the case in history, the forerunners of a more general stiffening of society?" {La Monde, 3 June 1993).

In stronger terms, is France turning into a police-dominated state, abandoned to the many devils of self-defence and protectionism? One cannot accept easily this eventuality. I feel convinced that in the majority as well as the minority, there are a large number of conscious people ready to react against these harmful trends.