In a great many countries, the rejection of foreigners has reached such levels that it has become one of the main electoral issues.
Everywhere, foreigners are criticized for doing nothing to integrate, for not learning the language of the host country, for wanting to continue living according to the laws and customs of their country of origin; and even in extreme cases, for wanting to impose their customs and laws on the citizens of the host country, and first and foremost on the women and those of these citizens who are of the same origin as themselves. Those in an irregular situation are also accused of engaging in illegal or criminal activities, or receiving illegal remuneration. In many countries, some even go so far as to assert that a foreigner of a different skin color or religion is, by nature, unintegratable. First of all, it’s hypocritical in France, as elsewhere, to claim to oppose their presence on economic grounds: in fact, they fill jobs that French people wouldn’t want to do (cleaning or heavy-duty jobs, for example), unless there was a massive increase in remuneration; or they fill jobs for which there aren’t enough French graduates (nurses, doctors, for example). Secondly, it’s equally hypocritical to claim that skin color or religion prohibits integration. Talking about skin color is absurd and intolerable. And a religion, whatever it may be, if it is practiced privately, without proselytizing and without seeking to impose its norms and values against the laws and values of the host country, cannot be considered contrary to the requirements of integration, the national culture, values and way of life. In fact, in France, unlike other countries that can serve as a reference, we don’t do everything we can to integrate foreigners. Neither when they are legally resident, nor when they have become citizens, if they manage to do so; and even less when they are illegally resident. In theory, however, France’s integration policy is apparently very solid: foreigners must follow a complete civic and linguistic pathway, with, for naturalization, considerable requirements: a certificate of language practice (B1 CECR, oral and written), the signature of a commitment to respect the laws, values of the Republic, secularism and equality between men and women. In particular, the French model has, in theory, one great virtue: it rejects multiculturalism, which can become the enemy of secularism, anti-racism and women’s rights. However, this policy is only formal: there are not enough FLE (French as a foreign language) courses available; knowledge of the French language is generally only tested when applying for naturalization; access to the job market is limited by the non-recognition of many foreign diplomas and by discrimination in hiring, which often affects even the best candidates. What’s more, the integration process is exceptionally complex due to the multiplicity of players involved. Finally, when there is individual follow-up, it generally only concerns the administrative situation, not professional, cultural or social integration. What’s more, little is done in France to enable foreigners to participate as citizens: they have no right to take part in local elections if they are not European, unlike several other EU countries. And access to French nationality takes a relatively long time. There are two other major shortcomings: On the one hand, absolutely nothing is being done to integrate illegal immigrants. And here again, this is hypocrisy. Either we can send them home immediately, and we should. Or we can quickly identify those we want to regularize, and that’s even better; or, lacking the means to do either, we do nothing, which is the worst. In France, illegal aliens have no rights whatsoever, apart from the right to medical care, because this is in the interests of the country’s other inhabitants; unlike in Germany, in France they have almost no right to work: so how are they supposed to earn a living, if not through illegal or even criminal employment? Nor do they have the right, means or obligation to take French classes, or to study French institutions and values. How can we expect them to abide by our rules and laws, and in particular those of secularism, tolerance of minorities, refusal of radicalization, anti-racism and the fight against anti-Semitism?
On the other hand, once a foreigner has become French, there is no longer any follow-up to his or her integration; whereas we have seen many aberrations appear in the second, and even third generation, particularly among young adult males, rejected by their fellow citizens, and offered few other models of success than footballer or influencer. Radicalization is a constant threat. It affects everyone, whatever their age, sex or status. You can’t fight it by rejecting it. Integration with the values of the Republic must never be taken for granted. Not for anyone.
Here again, there are some foreign examples worth following: Sweden, Finland and Norway for access to employment, public services and civic rights; Canada for skilled immigration facilities, civic rights and protection against discrimination; Portugal, for all its integration policies.
In the interests of the host country, all foreigners, even those in an illegal situation, must be offered language and civic integration courses, and have the right to work. If they are subsequently regularized, they must have the same means as others to become good citizens one day, and to remain so for several generations. And if they are deported, perhaps they won’t have too bad a memory of their stay in our country.
Image :
Hospitality to Strangers