“Migration flows are not so affected, whatever the legislation”

After the Senate’s turn of the screw, it is the turn of the National Assembly to examine, from Monday, November 27, the government’s immigration bill. Examination of the text promises to be agitated, between a left which is resolutely opposed to it, a torn presidential camp and a right demanding even more firmness. The opportunity for franceinfo to speak with political scientist Catherine Wihtol de Wenden, emeritus research director at the Center for International Studies and Research, teacher at Sciences Po and author of Figures of the Other. Perceptions of migrants in France 1870-2022. In this interview, she returns to the relationship that the French have with immigration, and explains how the subject has imposed itself in the political debate – not without tension.

Franceinfo: Who are the immigrants in France today?

Catherine Wihtol de Wenden: Two things must be distinguished. On the one hand, there is what we call the “stock”, that is to say the immigrant people who are already present in the territory. They represent around 10% of the French population. On the other hand, there is what we call “flow”, that is to say the entries and exits from the territory. The multiplication of crises around the world – in Syria, sub-Saharan Africa and Ukraine – has led to a recent increase in this flow, linked to the increase in asylum requests. Even if France is far from being the European country which has welcomed the most refugees, and even if the protection rate has generally fallen since the 1970s.

Asylum seekers are now, along with foreign students, the primary sources of entry into the country. Next comes family reunification, work and then health immigration. This is new since, in the past, labor immigration was the most important. Obviously, what I am telling you here does not take into account the arrivals of undocumented people, which are difficult to estimate.

How do the French view this immigration?

The French view is different depending on the type of migration. Recently, we have observed that there was a form of “double standards” with the arrival of Ukrainian refugees. Compared to those from countries in the South, they benefited from a special protection regime, which gave them access to numerous rights – including the right to work and train. And they benefited from an overall positive outlook, since they are Europeans, white, Christians. Their country was also invaded by Russia, which reactivated the polarization of the world as we knew it until 1990.

Other immigrants, who come more from sub-Saharan Africa and the Near and Middle East, are the subject of a very negative view, hence the success of the anti-immigrant proposals of the hard right and the far right. Some French people believe that this type of immigration risks posing security problems – even if, during the latest attacks, we often have the case of perpetrators of French nationality, or who have arrived in France for a very long time and who have become radicalized on the territory. More than immigration, studies also show that delinquency is mainly linked to poverty.

There is also a fear of demographic invasion, used by Eric Zemmour (Reconquest), Jordan Bardella (National Rally) or Valérie Pécresse (Les Républicains) during the presidential campaign with the expression “great replacement”. However, the figures show that there is no “major replacement”: even if the share of immigrants in the French population has increased in recent years, it remains a very small minority. And, globally, most migration of people from developing countries is to other developing countries.

Finally, there are other fears, linked to competition in the job market. In reality, we are rather witnessing a stratification of the labor market: people who have recently arrived in France are more likely to accept jobs considered less interesting. (PDF) by those who are already on the territory.

Has this look always been the same?

These fears are very old. The way we look at Italians or Poles in the 1930s has nothing to envy of the way we look at migrants today.

“The stereotypes are always the same, only the nationality to which they apply changes.”

Catherine Wihtol de Wenden, political scientist

at franceinfo

The idea of ​​violence and the risk of terrorism – in the anarchist era – with Italian immigration was present from the end of the 19th century. The theme of the “great replacement” appeared in the Action Française speeches between the wars. The fear of competition in the labor market was raised at the turn of the 1980s by the general secretary of the French Communist Party, George Marchais.

In an Ifop poll published this summer, more than 8 out of 10 French people felt that immigration was a subject that we cannot talk about calmly. The government’s bill is also criticized, for different reasons, by all oppositions. Why is immigration such a divisive subject?

Immigration emerged as a divisive subject from the 1980s, when Jean-Marie Le Pen [le fondateur du Front national, ancêtre du RN] made it an essential content of the municipal election campaign of 1983. Between the Second World War and the 1980s, the question of immigration had been very depoliticized because of the need for labor, it was a theme which had little political significance. No law on immigration was passed between 1946 and 1980. The debates between the parties, and the political positioning of voters, focused more on economic and social issues than on social issues such as immigration. .

“By putting the fight against immigration, particularly from the Maghreb, at the heart of his program, Jean-Marie Le Pen has placed this issue at the center of the political game.”

Catherine Wihtol de Wenden, political scientist

at franceinfo

Since then, the parties have mobilized around this theme, believing that this would allow them to win back voters. Conversely, other themes became ineffective: the National Rally, which was against the European Union, for example saw that this subject was not very promising.

Electorally speaking, were these parties right to focus on immigration?

Yes and no. Yes, because the scores of the National Front, then the National Rally, have progressed – even if part of their success is due to putting the question of purchasing power on the agenda, as was the case during the last presidential election. At the same time, we see that tolerance towards immigration has progressed: more and more French people are in favor of granting the right to vote to non-EU foreigners, for example. “Mixed” marriages, between a person of French nationality and a person of foreign nationality, have also increased.

“The French are not as racist as political speeches might suggest.”

Catherine Wihtol de Wenden, political scientist

at franceinfo

Is there any specificity to the measures that appear in the immigration bill, compared to those that have been taken in recent years?

The current proposals take many measures that already exist, but go further. They are based on what has already been expressed in the public debate on the restriction of social benefits or land rights, for example by the former Minister of the Interior Charles Pasqua in the 1990s, or in the program of the RN. What is new, however, is the tightening of the application of the right to asylum, in particular the idea of ​​having a single judge [et non trois] in the National Court of Asylum, or to decentralize asylum policy in the prefectures for faster processing.

What we see, however, is that whatever the political leanings of the government and the laws put in place, migratory flows are not really affected. For what ? Because there are legislative and constitutional principles which limit what it is possible to do regarding the right to asylum, family reunification, etc. We also see that there is no link between the quantity of social benefits offered and the level of immigration. What is essential in the decision to emigrate is the existence, or not, of family or national ties. [l’existence d’une diaspora] in the host country.

“Immigration laws therefore respond to a demand from public opinion and a desire of those in power to give themselves a reason to exist. But they have little influence on migration.”

Catherine Wihtol de Wenden, political scientist

at franceinfo

Is it possible to succeed in calming the debate, and if so how?

To have a peaceful debate, political parties should not make it a hyperpoliticized ideological issue, and return to a debate on the realities of immigration, based on data, and the objective of a policy rational on the subject. This has been the case in Germany over the past two years, with the theme of immigration having been absent from the campaign of the coalition which won the elections – even if the country now seems to be turning a corner on this subject.

The official figures on immigration are known, as they are published annually by the National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies (Insee), the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) or the United Nations High Commission for refugees (UNHCR), and accessible via the internet. Some people divert them, but simply consult them to thwart cheaters.

The reality principle can also help alleviate very hostile feelings. If all people who are subject to an obligation to leave the territory (OQTF) because they do not have a residence permit are actually returned to the border, the French will perhaps say to themselves that this is not the case. is not necessarily ideal because there is a shortage of labor in certain sectors.

What do we think of measures such as ethnic statistics, or the organization of a referendum on immigration, which would allow us to better understand the migratory phenomenon and what the French think about it?

Organize a referendum on immigration [réclamé par le RN, mais pas à l’ordre du jour, selon l’exécutif] seems quite dangerous to me, because it is a mode of action that can be manipulated depending on the question asked, and the result of which may go against the economic interests of the country.