EnMasse

[Change]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/story/0,,2182383,00.html


This is a really disturbing article about the crack down on “illegal” immigrants in France. It’s appalling that this is happening and the racism that goes on in that country under a right wing government. This reminds me a bit of Stephen Harper's government.

[Senor Magoo]

Why is illegal in scare quotes? Are they actually LEGAL immigrants?
_________________
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,

[TS.]

It depends on how you interpret legality. If an immoral law is not a law, the immoral restrictions on immigration in France mean that these people are not illegals.
_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson

[Senor Magoo]

I see. So sovereign states limiting immigration is immoral now?
_________________
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,

[Caissa]

I can't wait to see this thread unfold.

[TS.]

[Senor Magoo]

Ah. Can you tell me which particular limitations you believe are immoral?

The article mentions two: a language requirement and a requirement that immigrants sponsoring family members prove kinship. Neither of these sound particularly odious to me (in fact the language requirement is similar to language laws in Quebec — laws that I've never seen described as immoral).

Meanwhile, France (like Canada) continues to admit tens of thousands of these supposed "undesirables" every year. Is there any possibility, do you suppose, that the illegal immigrants aren't being regarded as illegal because they're brown, but in fact because (unlike tens of thousands of brown immigrants) they simply decided to skip the whole immigration system entirely and just move in?

And if not, could you explain why all kinds of "undesirable" immigrants in France are NOT labelled as "illegal", then?
_________________
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,

[Carter]

[Caissa]

Are you suggesting the free movement of people across frontiers without any limitations?

[bshmr]

I checked Le Monde Diplomatique (English), see below. The issues have been fleshed out and discussed for some time. I recall an issue on women (and children) imprisoned or deported, for instance. Then, there was the anti-EU or EU expansion tinged with fear of Eastern Europeans displacing everyone except Sarkozy <g>. Most of the articles appear to be 'public'.

http://mondediplo.com/search?s=france+immigration&submit.x=0&am...
Search: france immigration
Documents 1-10 among 910 matches.

French immigration policy on trial by Christian de Brie, November 1997

Unwelcome strangers of the past by Emmanuelle Fleury, November 2003

Making them legal by Emmanuel Vaillant, November 1997

Life without rights by Patrick Herman, April 2003

Do you eat couscous at home? How often? by Maurice T Maschino, June 2002

Good foreigners, bad illegals by Danièle Lochak, November 1997

European Union: do we want you?; by Claudio Bolzman and Manuel Boucher, June 2006

Back to politics by Serge Halimi, May 1998

No welcome for Serbia in the EU by Chris J Bickerton, October 2006

At war with France’s past by Claude Liauzu, June 2005

[Senor Magoo]

I'm aware, as should be most of the world, that Sarkozy is right wing, doesn't love immigrants, and doesn't mind saying so.

However, I'm asking which particular restrictions, written into law, are "immoral", and also asking how it is that if these "immoral" restrictions are preventing so-called "undesirables" from emigrating to France, so many of them seem to be able to do so, quite legally.

"The particular limitations are immoral." — which particular limitations?
_________________
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,

[Carter]

[JPG]

[Carter]

[elmateo]

[TS.]

I differ from Carter a bit here, in that I think that some limitations on free movement across borders are justified.

However, French law also makes it very difficult for people to legally immigrate to France. This is especially true of people who are poor or under-educated (or, more likely, both). And guess what: the majority of the poor and under-educated people interested in immigrating to France are black sub-Saharan Africans. It is easy to pretend that just because the law doesn't say "black people can't immigrate" there is full equality of opportunity, but that is bullshit. The modern global system is inherently racialized, and inherently classist. French immigration policy inscribes undesirability and subhumanity onto black and brown people because of the colour of their skin. Because French immigration policy is set up in a way that implicitly excludes black and brown people from legal entry, the only way they have a chance to make a better life for themselves and their families is to try to get in "sans papiers". Taken together, this makes French immigration law immoral.

Also, Carter makes a very good point about the use of round-ups and deportations of "illegals" as a way to get around that fact that a law deporting all non-whites wouldn't fly. An extremely high percentage of illegal immigrants to Europe generally, and European nations bordering on the Mediterranean in particular, have black or brown skin. Clearly getting rid of "illegal" immigrants is about getting rid of people of colour.
_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson

[Carter]

[JPG]

Indeed, drug laws in Canada and the US do have a traceable history of racist intent.

I see immigration as different though. Western countries that recieve immigrants want to screen potential immigrants on the basis of the benifits they can bring. You screen immigrants for investable assets and skills that would make tham employable. In short, immigrants that would be a net benifit to the economy. This may be classist, but not neccesarily racist (and neccessary, I would add).

The observation that most of the illegal immigrants affected are people of colour would lead me to guess (although I lack the statistics) that most non-EU immigrants to France are not white. Also, the non-white immigrants are more likely to be poor and unskilled. Still, classist, but it seems to may that the relationship between race and illegal status/deportation is a spurious one.
_________________
We are the youth, we'll take your fascism away...

[Senor Magoo]

[al-Qa'bong]

[ronb]

That's inaccurate. Apartheid is a historically specific term balh blah blah

[elmateo]

[voice of the damned]

[Senor Magoo]

[Caissa]

Al- Q and RONB, I was simply asking a question for clarification. Your cheap shots were hardly necessary.

[Hephaestion]

[Carter]

One problem with focusing too much on the "rights" of "sovereign states" is that it can lead to a somewhat cavalier attitude about the rights of the actual human beings who are being rounded up and persecuted by these states.

In contrast, take the people who are resisting these mass round-ups by sheltering "illegals," at great risk to themselves. I don't know whether these people support, in the abstract, the "right" of governments to prevent the free movement of people across borders. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. But it's clear from the article that on the real-life issue of these expulsions, what they consider to be important are the human rights of their friends, neighbors, and community members who are being rounded up, interned, and deported. And that if sheltering these immigrants infringes on the supposed "rights" of some sovereign state, well, cry me a river.

It's utterly heroic.

[voice of the damned]

[Senor Magoo]

[JPG]

[Carter]

[Carter]

[Senor Magoo]

[elmateo]

[elmateo]

I would also point out one reason why most of these countries would never actually deport all illegal immigrants: their economies would be badly damaged.

The arguments that attack illegal immigrants often parallel defenses for enslaving blacks, and I think this is why many people will call "rounding up illegal immigrants" as racist policies. Illegal immigrants are culturally/ethnically demonized as "the other" (I don't necessarily agree with post-colonialist theory but this concept can be useful for understanding how exploitation becomes justified in society) and therefore less valuable, and providing the ability to separate their rights as workers/humans from others. They become illegal immigrants, without rights, and we become "citizens". This relationship ignores the fact that illegal immigrants have a very important economic relationship with citizens through their exchange of labour.

I find the discussions about state's "rights" to deport illegal immigrants at their liking to be very naive to the reality of what is happening, and that is why I asked Magoo to attempt to put what he was saying into context because his argument ignored context. Yes in Rawls' behind the veil of ignorance states should have the right to expel people who aren't citizens (if we are to agree states are a political entity). But when we aren't blinded by a veil of ignorance we should be able to see a different picture of what is happening there is no perfect definition of "the state" and "the citizen" and in the face of the very real economic exchange that illegal immigrants are involved in, it is very difficult to say (and in my opinion very unfair and unjust) that these individuals have absolutely no reciprocated rights from the state. If we are willing to say that they are not entitled to reciprocated rights from the state, which is to say they can be freely deported, than we are clearly exploiting their labour. In the very least to be considered a progressive I think you should hold that an exchange of labour requires the protection of some significant rights.

Governments are complacent in large scale illegal immigration (yes small scale illegal immigration is going to occur and could be a product of different factors, we aren't talking about that in the case of France) and use deportation to ensure that ultimately illegal immigrants are active participants in the economy without rights.

[Change]

I put the quotation around the word illegal because I don’t think people should be called illegal. I don’t think labeling people as illegal or legal do any justice to a person’s worth.

I didn’t know this would cause such a huge debate, one which I see as unnecessary. But I am glad that most people feel sympathy for “illegal” immigrants. I think it is particularly sad when people have to commit suicide or live in constant fear because they are so scared of being caught and deported.
_________________
What we've got here is failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach, so you get what we had here last week which is the way he wants it. Well, he gets it. And I don't like it any more than you men.

[TS.]

[Senor Magoo]

[Hephaestion]

elmateo...

Thanks for your posts. They're some of the most sensible things I've read in this thread.
_________________
"The dignity of an animal is measured by his capacity to revolt in the face of oppression." -- Mikhail Bakunin

[Senor Magoo]

[TS.]

Seriously, I disagree with your interpretation. Seriously, tell me you understand this.

The language of the UDHR says that we have a right to change our nationality in that it says we cannot be denied that right.
_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson

[elmateo]

Magoo, your arrogance in your ignorance is astounding. I am a little shocked that someone involved in education is so loathed to the idea of doing a little bit of reading before forming an opinion.

I want to quote PICUM, a European based group supporting undocumented workers:

[elmateo]

[al-Qa'bong]

[Senor Magoo]

[elmateo]

The difference from your examples and what we are talking about is that you provide examples that society has no legitimate benefit from - drug dealing and drunken driving. In the case of undocumented workers, the economy is most certainly benefiting by cheap labour that employers argue they have difficulty finding workers to do from "legal" labour sources.

The action itself may not be legitimate in the eyes of state law, but the benefit society receives in the form of labour is legitimate as it benefits legitimate areas of the economy, notably in the Toronto area: construction.

I call your ideal citizenship regime (what we are talking about) perverse because it does follow the reality of the political economy of our states. The reason why it is perverse is because it defends the economic exploitation of a class of people and employs coercive and consensual power over this group of people. The whole while receiving economic benefit through an unfair exchange of labour.

Historic citizenship regimes have done this, I pointed out one in Latin America with the indigenous population. Another more recent example existed in South Africa, the apartheid state. A group of people were classed as less than citizens while the economy benefited from their labour. This is the same under the current way undocumented labourers are treated.

What has changed is how the criteria is employed but the fundamental principle of the citizenship regime remains comparable: where do you come from? In apartheid South Africa, it was do you come from a white womb or a black womb, Latin America did you come from White, mestizo or indigenous parents? Today it is do you come from foreign parents or not. Criteria may be "more just" than in the past, broader and with greater chance of overcoming the criteria, but it hasn't come that far as we still rely on the same mechanism to decide "citizen" from "non-citizen".

If governments were serious about providing a fair relationship with undocumented workers they would first be dealing with the circumstances that lead to economic migration, including global inequality across states. I don't know if you believe the rhetoric of states on this one Magoo, but it should be no surprise to you, I find it to be a lie. Our governments in the North are continually involved in economic exploitation that prevents proper development in source countries. This is a longer term solution.

In the more immediate, a government serious with getting rid of "illegal immigrants" would follow the only sensible and successful way of getting rid of "illegal immigrants" and grant amnesty. Once the shock and horror wears off, think about it: these people are working in our countries, participating in the economy. You worried they aren't paying taxes? One quick way to ensure they do is to make them documented worker, voila now you can make them pay income taxes for sure! I wouldn't be worried about them being unemployed, they wouldn't be in our countries if they weren't working (or at least they wouldn't be here in the large numbers we are seeing). The upside (or downside if you are running a business/economy on undocumented workers) is that they have access to proper labour rights and the government can better monitor the labour situation.

Over the medium length, of course, now that we have granted amnesty to these "illegal immigrants" and we are waiting for just global economics to take place we are still going to have the problem of new illegal immigrants coming you say. You probably will say "and they are going to come with even MORE hope because you just granted the previous batch amnesty!" I don't know if I believe this argument, migrating is a serious decision and I don't know if the situation could get any "sweeter" than it is desperate right now to encourage greater migration, but we will assume that this often stated argument against amnesty carries a little bit of weight.

The reason why illegal immigration occurs is because it is possible that undocumented workers will be employed in the global north, I have outlined the reasons why this labour market exists in our economy and I believe it has a lot to do with our own ends - the employers. There is apparently a "worker shortage" in our economy - 5% unemployment is pretty low, and Canadians (or Americans or French or Spaniards) don't want to do the work. We need this immigration to fill these jobs, but we don't have a legal mechanism to properly provide it. Create one. If we can ensure the flow of documented legal immigration to fill these jobs and ensure that other employers are not turning to illegal labour then I don't think you will find illegal immigration to be as a serious of a problem. Number one reason - there would be no jobs available for so-called "illegal labour". Requires a more significant penalties for illegal-employers (odd a phrase not mentioned once so far).

I doubt this three part approach would be followed though. And this is the reason why I believe the government is complacent in the problem - they do not seek these solutions. If they do impliment them in part they do so through things like "NAFTA" or "guest worker programs" - which appear to neoliberals as components of what I am advocating. But both continue the current system of labour exploitation. It is fairly clear the reason why we do not pursue the system I have outlined is because it simply is not to the economic benefit of those who hold sway on the issue.

We have a whole rhetoric built up around the issue as well to defend it. From they drain our welfare, steal our jobs, "illegal immigrants", state's rights and citizenship, all the way to racist remarks. The rhetoric employed changes depending upon the audience and the speaker, but it amounts to the similar avoidance of the issue at heart: that we have devised a system of economic exploitation that in the end leaves the labourer without significant rights because at the end of the day we can choose whether they stay or not. And our governments randomly choose when a few go every so often, and the only reason I can really see why is to remind people (both those who are vehemently against "illegal immigrants" and undocumented workers themselves) that they can, in full support of the legal framework of the society, deport people and are the ones in power.

No neoconservative (economic neoliberals with the social policies of a conservative) government is going to end illegal immigration, either in the manner you suggest Magoo through draconian proposals (which would be objected by me and others for other reasons than we are discussing) or the one in the manner I have proposed. The former because it would be unpopular and devastating to their economic and the latter because it would be against their economic model. The result is fairly random "crack downs" on "illegal immigrants" for political show.

[voice of the damned]

[voice of the damned]

[Senor Magoo]

[TS.]

Yes, they have that right. Having the right for one means having that right for everyone. The UDHR says we have a right to change our nationality, and I will hold to that.
_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson