Residents, native and foreign, in countries around the world may be surprised to learn that they are living in a legislative district of the French parliament. Of course, these political boundaries are really only relevant to French citizens. (Or are they?) The rest of us (citizens and migrants of other countries alike) need pay no attention to them - unless they are as curious as I am about what they mean and how they work.
There are a total of 11 French overseas voting districts around the world. Here is what the world looks like during a French election:
From http://www.politiquemania.com/forum/2012-legislatives-f31/les-circonscriptions-des-francais-etablis-hors-france-t469.html
In each district the French abroad elect a representative (député) for the National Assembly (577 total seats for all districts at home or abroad) for a 5 year term. The French abroad did have had senators for some time but it was only in 2012 that the first representatives of the French abroad were elected and installed in the lower house of the French parliament.
The 1st district is the US and Canada and they are represented at this time by FrédéricLefebvre. The 11th district includes Eastern Europe, Asia, and Oceania - from the Kara, Barents and Laptev seas all the way south to the Indian Ocean and the Tasman Sea. The current representative for this district is Thierry Mariani. Follow the links to find out what they have done and what they are working on. Full disclosure: I have voters in my family in both districts. There is no rule that candidates must live in or have connections to the overseas district they will represent. And neither Mariani and Lefebvre appear to have lived abroad, though Mariani has a Russian (naturalized French) wife and both candidates have travelled widely. Is that an issue? Well, Mariani is running for a second term but it just so happens that there are two candidate challenging him for this seat who are a long-term residents of Asia: Francis Nizet and Anne Genetet. Both are making overseas experience a campaign issue. Francis Nizet has been a French abroad for nearly 30 years. He has lived and worked in Africa, Southeast Asia and now lives in Beijing, China with his family. An engineer by training and profession, he now a professor of science at a Chinese university. His running-mate (the person who would replace him if he were incapacitated) is Françoise Nédélec a lawyer by training who moved to China in 1994, first to Shanghai and then to Beijing where she is now the director of the Latin Languages program at the International School of Beijing. Anne Genetet has lived in Singapore for over 10 years. A doctor by training and profession in France, she was "deskilled" in Singapore because she could not get her professional credentials recognized. (Yes, folks, that is part of the "real world of many expat/migrants.) So she became a consultant and journalist. Both of these candidates are playing up their experience living abroad saying essentially, "We know the concerns of our fellow French expatriates because we are you." "Je connais vos preoccupations, je saurai faire avancer ces dossiers avec tenacite." (I know your concerns and I will know how to tenaciously make progress on those issues.") said Francis Nizet. In an interview Genetet talked about the positive reactions of her compatriots abroad to her candidacy saying, "What I've heard from the people I've met is that they are so happy to have a candidate who knows what it's like to be a French national living abroad."
And that raises an interesting question, doesn't it? If you voted from abroad and had direct representation would you rather have a representative who has also lived abroad (perhaps in your region)? Or would you prefer to elect someone well connected to the political world in the home country?
This Canal+ March 22 interview with Fatou Diome is a beautiful response to the proposed policies of the French presidential candidate Marine Le Pen of the Front National. It is making the rounds of francophones on social media. I post it today on the Flophouse because it is so eloquent and because she's right and not only about France: Le Pen and her supporters are afraid, just as some Japanese are afraid of Koreans, some Americans are afraid of Mexicans and so on. Fear of the Other (and espcially the Other that moves around the world) is everywhere. Watch the entire interview. It's brilliant.
Today is election day for the French abroad and at home. Tim Smyth in the US has been driving by one of the polling sites and he took a picture which he posted on Facebook. Tim very kindly gave me his permission to post his photo on the Flophouse.
Tim writes, "Below is a picture of the line to vote at the Lycee Francais in Somerville, MA [State of Massachusetts] outside of Boston at around 4:00PM. It was actually slightly longer when I first drove by."
Photo by Tim Smyth, April 23, 2017
And here is a video of the French voting in Washington, D.C.
Update: The Union des Français de l'Etranger (UFE) sent a questionnaire to all the candidates. Fillon, Cheminade, Melenchon and Macron all submitted replies to the questions. The responses received are here. Bonne lecture!
I am very interested in the French elections even though I am not a French citizen and I cannot vote. However, the candidates' programs will directly affect me. I will be taxed more (or less) depending on who wins. I have the same concerns about the economy, pensions, and security as any French national. And I want France's future to be bright because I want my children to be able to return if they wish.
One of the things I most envy the French abroad is that they not only have the vote but they have representation in the nation's parliament (senators and representatives). Thus, the French candidates pay attention (at least during the election season) to their citizens abroad. I wouldn't claim that it's perfect. The French government decided not to allow on-line voting this election cycle so the French in Japan must vote by mail or travel to the nearest consulate in Kyoto or Tokyo to cast their vote in person. Still, it is better than what many countries offer their communities abroad.
Since I have two French voters in my household, I am aware of just how close that attention is. The younger Frenchling and my spouse have received emails from many of the candidates outlining what they have in mind for les Français de l'Etranger should they be elected. A large enveloppe arrived the other day with pretty flyers and other election information.
So today I thought I would give you some idea of the promises the candidates are making to their compatriots in distant lands. Though "Les promesses n'engagent que ceux qui y croient"I think we can reasonably assume that these politicians are trying to respond to needs that have been expressed by the French abroad. As such it is an interesting, if indirect, view of the French diaspora's lives abroad - what the candidates think will entice them to go to the polls and vote for them. This is recognition that the world of the French at home and the world of the French expatriates are different. The candidates had to give this some thought in order to come up with an offer that would interest the French living in Berlin, Toronto, San Francisco, Hong Kong, and Casablanca alike while still linking the French abroad to France and emphasizing their ties to the nation. But the offer can't be too good lest they ruffle the feathers of voters back in France who are still the majority.
Whenever possible I will try give you a link or a video so you can read or listen to what they have to say yourself. In one case (Melenchon) I wasn't able to find anything specific - a message expressly for the Français établis hors de France nor did the French voters in my house get an email from his campaign. If he has sent something out and I have simply missed it, please send me the link or the contents of the mail and I will add it. The website with Melenchon's program is here. And see above for his answers to the UFE questionnaire.
Benoît Hamon: In this not terribly inspiring video he talks first about education and helping the French abroad to educate their children in French schools. And then he goes on to talk about consular services and how he sees the French abroad as performing a service as ambassadors and how their influence should be part of an overall strategy for France in the world.
Emmanuel Macron: In his email Une France tournée vers l'Europe et le monde Macron has a bright pink link inviting you to "consulte les mesures pour les français à l'étranger." Note that he invokes the idea of the French abroad as representatives of France at the top of the webpage. He has three goals for the French expatriés. The first is education. Macron wants to make a French education abroad accessible to everyone. The second is about equitable taxation and better social protections abroad. The third is to bring the French abroad closer to their elected representatives and to make sure that their voices are heard back in France.
Marine Le Pen: In her email Mon programme présidentiel pour les Français de l'Etranger Le Pen also put education at the top of the list. She wants to assure free education and distance learning for all French students. Next is security abroad especially in dangerous areas. Third is taxation: Le Pen affirms a tax system based on territory, not nationality and she wants to lift the requirement to pay the CSG/CRDS for the French living outside the EU - something that is apparently already the case but perhaps she is referring to the reimbursement of the CSG/CRDS already paid which is still an issue. She also promises better social protection with something called the Protection Universelle Maladie. And finally she also proposes that the French abroad have more say in national issues. You can read the long version here.
François Fillon: And yet another who talks about how the French abroad are representatives participating in the "rayonnement de la France" in the world. In this video Fillon begins with taxes and confirms that the territorial taxation system will continue under his leadership. He then discusses security and, yes, education. He proposes more scholarships and other financing for a French education outside of France. As for social protection he would allow expatriates to have access to all social protections in France the moment they return home. And he promises that the voice of the French abroad will be heard at home and he fully supports the on-line vote to make it easier for the French abroad to participate in French elections.
Clearly, there are some recurring themes here with all candidates promising better access to French education abroad. Another is the idea that the French abroad are unofficial French ambassadors in their host country - a sentiment that Americans abroad also hear in conversations with the homeland (when we or they want something.) It is one of those feel-good expressions that is so ambiguous that we can read whatever we want to into it. Yes, I have come to have a certain cynicism when I hear it used. All the candidates promise to ensure that expat voices will be heard and their influence recognized back in the home country.
Taxation is also mentioned by three candidates who seem to have a very different idea of "fair" than Melenchon. Territorial taxation all the way. Oh, and they all agree that it isn't reasonable to expect the French abroad to pay the CSG/CRDS ( special French income taxes that the US IRS does not recognize as "real" taxes that can be used to offset US taxes.)
And finally both Fillon, Macron and Le Pen are in favor of either extending social protections to the French abroad or making them immediately eligible for coverage the moment they hit French soil.
Of all these promises the one that I would hold them to (if I were a French citizen abroad) is the one about education. It's telling that all the candidates here have ideas about how to help the French expatriate pay for a French education in the host country. This is one that would not only be a huge help to French families (see some of the school fees in Hong Kong, Tokyo, San Francisco, London) and a way of reducing the inequalities between the French abroad on company packages and those who aren't, but it is a very good investment for France.
A French child abroad who is inserted into the French school system as early as possible and who follows it all the way through high school is more likely to return to France for university. This would mean young French returning to France with a good education, good health, knowledge about the world, and an extra language or two. What France lost with the departure of their parents, comes back with interest. That is one hell of a deal. And I think France would be all the better for it.
There is something so perverse about a British immigrant to America weighing in on the election in France. But, I enjoy John Oliver so much that I did watch his latest show. The obligatory joke about the French eating snails didn't do much for me. Hello, stereotype! (For the record I eat tasty snails with butter and garlic but we all know better than to eat the disease-carrying ones in the garden.) It got funnier as he poked fun at the various candidates. It became deadly serious for me when he profiled Marine Le Pen of the Front National. Nothing funny at all about Le Pen's program and you can read on-line her 144 Engagements Presidentiels. Number 27 would eliminate dual-nationality for those who do not come from another EU state. Her target, of course, is the North Africans but it would also apply to Americans, Canadians, Brazilians, Chinese and anyone else who doesn't come from a European member state. I don't know if it would apply to people who are already dual citizens, but I think she'll go as far as she can if she's elected.
Oliver ends with an appeal in French which is indeed very funny because he has the most amazing. accent. (He should have included subtitles in French as well as English.) Can't argue with his take on the UK, US, and Le Pen though.
For your viewing pleasure today, here is the video from Youtube. Once you've watched it, please head over to Arun with a View for some serious, well-written, informed posts on the candidates.
Yesterday was the first round of the 2012 legislative elections here in France. Turnout was low but the Socialist Party seems to have done well. For a quick analysis see Arun's take on the first results here. I was personally quite pleased by this headline in Le Monde this morning, Claude Guéant est en difficulté à Boulogne-Billancourt (Claude Guéant is in trouble in Boulogne-Billancourt).
But the results I really wanted to see were the votes cast by the Overseas French. 2012 is the first year that French expatriates can vote for legislative representatives in addition to the Senators that they've had for years. For this, the world outside France was split into 11 districts (geographical regions) and each French expatriate population in that district voted for the candidates of their choice the previous weekend. You read that correctly - the overseas French voted one week ahead of the regular legislative elections in France. In addition to that there were different dates for the vote in America versus "the rest of the world". I had no idea and apparently some of the French abroad didn't either. Turnout was abysmally low. There were other problems as well. The e-voting system was a disaster. Some folks didn't get their access credentials in time (or they didn't work) and others struggled with software incompatibilitiesand just gave up in frustration.
And finally according to Le Monde not all the French abroad were convinced of the interest or usefulness of voting in a country that they don't live in. Noémie G in Montreal said, "J'ai décidé de ne pas voter, car je trouve étrange de participer à une élection pour un pays où je ne vis pas. Il me semble beaucoup plus normal qu'un étranger puisse voter pour des élections locales les concernant." ("I decided to not vote because I find it strange to participate in an election in a country I don't live in. It seems to me that it would be much more appropriate if foreigners could vote in the local elections that concern them.")
I see her point and this is one I struggle with every time I fill out my absentee ballot for the U.S. My answer (which is based on hard experience) is simply this: you may be living in a foreign country but you are still French and France has an interest in you which ranges from genuine concern for your welfare to an interest in the contents of your bank accounts. The American system of citizenship-based taxation has its fans in France. Various political parties in the Hexagone seem intrigued by the idea that there is untapped expatriate wealth just sitting out there to be farmed for the benefit of the home country. Perhaps it will never come to that but I'd say it's better to take all the representation you can get now lest your home country politicians decide one day that you are the perfect pigeons to be plucked and your host country decides to help them out.
I'll end this post with the first-round results as reported by Le Monde for the 11 new overseas districts. The second round for the French abroad will take place Saturday June 16 2012 for the American continent and Sunday June 17 for the rest of the world.
US/Canada (District 1) - Corinne Narassiguin of the Socialist party with nearly 40% of the vote. UMP candidate, Frédéric Lefebvre, is a distant second.
Central and South America/Caribbean (District 2) - Sergio Coronado (EELV-PS) with almost 36%. Pascal Drouhaud of the UMP is in second place.
UK/Ireland/Scandinavia (District 3) - Axelle Lemaire, Socialist Party, with 30%. Emmanuelle Savarit, UMP, is in second place.
Benelux (District 4) - Philip Cordery, Socialist Party, ahead of Marie-Anne Montchamp, UMP.
Iberian Peninsula/Monaco (District 5) - Close vote between Laurence Sailliet (UMP) and Arnaud Leroy (Socialist Party).
Another really splendid post over at Arun with a View about how French expatriates and dual nationals voted in the French presidential election. This information comes from exit polls at the French consulates abroad. Fascinating. I won't spoil the read for you but here are just a few results that I thought were particularly interesting:
The race was close in Mexico: 47% for Hollande and 52% for Sarkozy. The UK was another close one with Hollande squeaking by with a little over 50% of the vote. Germany, however, was a solid win for Hollande with 56%.
In the U.S. Sarkozy beat Hollande 61% to 39% but looking at the major cities you see a lot of variation. New York and Chicago were solidly Sarko. New Orleans was a Hollande win.
And in my hometown of Seattle? 255 votes for Hollande and 343 votes for Sarkozy.
Yesterday François Hollande became the 7th president of the 5th French Republic. His victory over the incumbent, Nicolas Sarkozy, was predicted by many but the vote was still close: 51.6% to 48.44%.
In spite of Sarkozy's shift to the right (and all the pre-election shenanigans like the Circulaire Gueant), I still would have voted for him if I had had the right to vote here. It appears that my neighbors here in Versailles and I were on the same wavelength since they voted overwhelmingly in his favor. I've been a sincere admirer of his for years and I thought that he did a fine job of steering France through some very tough times. With family and friends on two continents I was well placed to see how France under Sarkozy escaped some of the worst of the global recession and that is to his credit. Watching his very gracious concession speech this morning I was reminded once again of all the reasons I liked him and how amazing he is when he is at his very best.
Do I think he will actually content himself with being "A French among the French?" Not for two seconds. I think the political arena of the future in this part of the world is Europe and I expect to see him there.
I may have admired Sarkozy but I'm not unhappy to see Hollande win. Not only was I was very fond of the last Socialist president, François Mitterand, but Hollande's 2012 platform is one I like: "égalité" to soften the "austerité," gay marriage rights, possible voting rights for long-term residents, and a plan for economic growth that has found favor with economists. Here is Hollande's victory speech last night at the place de la Bastille in Paris:
Does immigration help or hurt a national economy? That question is complex to answer because one has to determine what immigrants contribute (human capital, financial capital, taxes, jobs) versus the resources they consume (government services). In spite of the fact that there are numerous studies that address this question, most politicians and citizens rely on anecdotal evidence or impressions or statistics pulled out of context to get their constituents to agree that something must be done about this rather ill-defined "problem." And you have only to look at the front page of the newspapers or peek at the platforms of the various political parties in France and the U.S. to see that there is indeed a consensus that action is urgently needed.
While the politicians and the voters cogitate endlessly over this topic and whip themselves up into a state of fear and stress, one group seems to be remarkably serene about the whole business: economists. Fancy that, some of the people who have the most knowledge about how immigration effects the national economy don't think it's a problem at all.
This article from Telos, Pour les économistes l’immigration n’est pas un problème , gives an excellent summary of how French economists view the issue of immigration and how they respond to various allegations about how immigration hurts the French economy.
First of all (and I was delighted to read this) economists look at the entire picture - what is referred to as the "solde migratoire" (net migration). Flows in and flows out, folks. Migrants don't necessarily come to France and stay forever. For many the migration is circular - they come for a time and then they leave to return home or to move into greener pastures. There is also a not inconsequential number of French natives who choose to leave. So when a politician cites a scary number - a whopping 200,000 foreigners coming to France every year to live and work - that number needs to be put into context.
Cependant, face aux 200 000 entrées, on trouve un nombre conséquent de sorties de Français, mais surtout d’étrangers qui repartent. En 2010, le solde migratoire (différence annuelle entre les entrées et les sorties du territoire) se situe aux environ de 75 000 personnes. (However, against these 200,000 coming in, there is an important number of French who leave, and a large number of foreigners who also leave. In 2010, net migration (the annual difference between entries and exits from the national territory) was about 75,000 people.)
In a nation of 65 million people 75,000 per year is nothing. To get some idea of how this compares to other countries, have a look at this net migration map by Index Mundi. France has a higher net migration rate than Germany, for example, but a much lower rate compared to countries like the UK, Spain or Canada. Frankly a net migration rate of 1.46 per 1000 does not make France a "magnet for the world." It's respectable but not anything to get too worked up about. Unless of course you want to ask the politically incorrect question, "Why don't more people come to or stay in France?"
What about the contention that even small numbers of immigrants have a terrible effect on natives - also known as the "They steal our jobs" argument. Immigration is often held responsible for a lowering of salaries and a rise in unemployment. What do the economists have to say about that?
Aux antipodes de cette perception, les économistes aboutissent, fait rare pour être signalé, à un relatif consensus sur une absence d’effets visibles négatifs sur l’emploi ou le niveau de salaire des natifs. (Contrary to this perception, economists have come to a consensus (and this in fact is rare enough to be notable) that there doesn't seem to be any visible negative effects on employment or on natives' salary levels.)
One reason for this is that immigrants and natives are not necessarily competing for the same jobs. In France one does not see French workers falling over themselves for certain jobs in the service sector. Another factor is industries that have a penury of skilled native workers. If a country does not have enough people with engineering degrees (U.S.) or nursing degrees (France) they can't simply substitute a native worker who doesn't have those skills. Or perhaps they could but who wants to be a patient at a hospital that provides on the job training to unqualified native workers?
Economists also point out that immigrants are consumers of good and services and they pay taxes on these things. More immigrants means more demand and more tax revenue:
Les immigrés contribuent à augmenter la demande finale de biens et de services, ce qui stimule l’activité et, par ricochet, l’emploi. Une étude récente des Nations Unies montre ainsi qu’une hausse de 1% de la population active provenant de l’immigration augmente également le PIB de 1%. (Immigrants contribute to the rise in demand for goods and service which stimulates economic activity and, be extension, employment. A recent study by the United Nations showed that a 1% rise in the working immigrant population raised GDP by 1%.)
So anyone looking for an economic argument against immigration is going to have to go through some pretty serious mental gymnastics to ignore all the evidence and the consensus of the economic experts that, on the balance, immigration is more often then not a Good Thing for everyone (at least in the economic realm). Will this change anything? Will this quiet the rhetoric against immigrants? Not entirely because economics is only one part of the very complex and emotional arguments for or against migration.
Still it is helpful to put a few facts on the table, raise the level of the conversation and counter the endless rhetoric that says, "Something must be done!" which only serves to send everyone into spasms of frenetic activity that have about as much useful impact as pushing air around.
We could even (dare I say it?) go one step farther and consider that the only reason we are discussing it with so much fervor is because we have ourselves defined it as a "problem" that needs to be "fixed." France has been a nation of immigration for hundreds of years and thus far she seems to have muddled through just fine. Looking around, I'm very pleased to see that she's still here in the year 2012 and doesn't seem the worse for wear after having welcomed millions upon millions of immigrants in times past. Just a thought here - may I humbly suggest that we could resolve this with one simple mental leap: just stop considering it to be a problem. After all, if the economists aren't worried, why should you be?
From the excellent blog, Les Chroniques Berliniquaises, a few words about his election experience as a French expatriate living in Berlin. Americans abroad, pay attention! Some of what he says, you will find hauntingly familiar. One part may even have you weeping in despair. Oh, what I would give to have our presidential candidates favor us with as much attention....
What follows is my translation of one paragraph but I encourage you to go over and read the original post in its entirety. This blogger's French is wonderful (and very drole) so be aware that I am not doing it justice here in the language of Shakespeare.
"Difficile, pour nous autres membres de la communauté habituellement désignée sous le plaisant vocable de traîtres à la patriesuppôts de l’anti-Francedéserteursexilés fiscaux «principaux vecteurs du rayonnement de la France à l’étranger», d’ignorer l’échéance électorale de ce dimanche 22 avril, tant nos adresses e-mail, que nous avions été obligés de communiquer aux services consulaires lors de notre inscription, ont été bombardées de courriels, de harangues, de promesses, d’exhortations, de sollicitations, de clins d’œil et d’appel du pied ces dernières semaines. Sur les dix candidats, sept ont goûté avec un gai abandon aux joies de la cyber-drague, y compris le candidat qui veut taxer à 100% «nos millions» de richissimes expatriés nous la coulons douce sous des cieux cléments, loin des griffes crochues du fisc. Y compris le tenant d’une France «qu’on aime ou qu’on quitte», et qui a bouté hors de France, avec une remarquable diligence, des milliers de diplômés étrangers très qualifiés à qui l’on reprochait de manger le pain des Français. Y compris la pasionaria de la desouchitude, qui dans la même phrase, promettait de supprimer d’un trait de plume le droit du sol et de bouffer du binational, tout en rappelant à ses lecteurs effarés, sur un ton maternel et rassurant, que«les Français expatriés seront bien entendu libres d’accepter la nationalité de leur pays d’accueil s’ils l’estiment nécessaire». Ouf, pendant un instant on a failli croire que la politicienne droite dans ses bottes allait faire preuve de cohérence sur ses principes, mais en fait non. Après tout, une voix est une voix."
Difficult, for us the other members of the community usually referred to under the pleasant terms traitors to the country anti-France henchmen deserters tax evaders "principal vectors of the radiance of France abroad" to be oblivious to the election deadline this Sunday, 22nd of April, given that our e-mail addresses , which we were obliged to provide to the consulate when we registered to vote, were bombarded with mail, lectures, promises, pleas, requests, winks and appeals these past few weeks. Of the 10 candidates, seven launched themselves with wild abandon into the joys of cyber-dating, including the candidate who wants to tax at 100% "our millions" in expatriate riches earned under pleasant skies, far from the claws of the French taxman. Including those who believe in a "love it or leave it" France that has driven out, with remarkable diligence, millions of highly-skilled foreign graduates accused of stealing the daily bread of the average Frenchman. And including the "mistress of the sons of the soil" who manages in one sentence to propose with the wave of a pen the elimination of jus soli and dual citizenship while assuring her frightened readers, in a maternal and reassuring tone, that "French expatriates are, of course, free to accept the citizenship of their host countries if they deem it necessary," Huh. For a moment there I almost thought that this right-wing politician was going to prove the consistency of her principles, but finally no. After all, a vote is a vote.
The first round of voting for the next President of the French Republic is over and it is Francois Hollande Socialist Party) by a hair. He received 28.63% of the vote with Nicolas Sarkozy, the incumbent, a close second with 27.08%. Marine Le Pen (Front National) did very well indeed with over 18% which didn't surprise me. Sarkozy's efforts to seduce her supporters by being anti-immigrant, anti-Europe were a nice try but it didn't seem to make much difference. Le Pen has a lot going for her: she's young, charismatic, fairly new on the scene, a good speaker, and her message has real appeal. Not enough to win the election but certainly enough to influence it.
For those of you who want a snapshot of the candidate's positions on the major issues, have a look at this page up on the Al-Jazeera website, Where do France's election candidates stand? What a wide variety of parties and positions - makes the U.S. elections look downright dull by comparison. Obama versus Romney? Snore. Just wake me up when it's over....
Naturally I am most interested in the candidates' positions on immigration. Sarkozy and Le Pen want to reduce it (no big surprise there) but they have wildly different targets with the former proposing a reduction of 50% and the latter wanting to pretty much shut it down all together. If Al-Jazeera is correct Hollande's take on immigration is: "What's the problem?" which did much to endear him to me.
Do I take these positions seriously? Not so much. Sarkozy and Le Pen can propose any number they like but they don't necessarily have the power to make it happen. The EU is a factor here and so are other stakeholders like sending country governments, French industry and higher education. The devil is always in the details and once the abstract immigrant is given a face in the media following some anti-migrant initiative, public opinion changes very quickly. When the impact becomes real, when people see families being ripped apart, highly-qualified immigrant workers desperately needed for certain industries happily leaving for Canada or watch French higher education start to lose its international luster, the reaction is, "Wait a minute, that's not at all what we had in mind." There is no way Marine Le Pen could reduce immigration in France by 95% - this is a wild promise without any substance at all. Even Sarkozy's more modest goal of 50% is probably unrealistic and, if he won (and he probably won't), his government would find ways to get around it to satisfy all the actors with an interest in maintaining, or even increasing, the number of foreign "guests" in France.
Immigration is dangerous territory for all politicians. I think the French political parties who propose to kick the whole business up to the EU are on to something. An elegant, if not terribly courageous, way of getting rid of an really sticky problem that has no solution that will not come back to bite a politician hard and in tender places.
Last remark - I find it amusing that any country can have a national discussion about immigration without talking about emigration. Where there are flows in, folks, there are also flows out. Check out this graph at the France Diplomatie website. Since 1985 the number of French expatriates has steadily grown with only a minor dip in 2007. Officially there are 1.6 million French men and women outside the Hexagone but this number only includes those who have registered as expats and my guess is that the real number is much higher. In 2011 alone the number rose by 6% compared to 2010. French politicians are conspicuously silent about this trend. Is it because they think it is a good thing? It is, after all, a very effective way of getting those unemployment numbers down. When the young cannot find jobs, just send them abroad to countries that are thrilled to have them. It doesn't take a genius to see that this can be very good, very sane policy, though perhaps not one that would win elections if it was spelled out for the voters.
Or is it because the French population isn't really aware of the numbers and, frankly, would prefer not to know? I don't know. All I can say is that the reactions of my French friends to their "domestic abroad" resembles closely those of my American friends: "They are just temporarily abroad" or "French citizens always come home eventually." Interesting. I'd like to see the empirical evidence supporting those statements. I've met a lot of French citizens abroad in the U.S., Japan and Canada and many of them are long-term residents, if not actual citizens of those countries. Once someone has lived in another country 10+ years, I just don't see how you can fool yourself into thinking they are "temporary."
And I really wonder what Marine would have to say about that. :-)
While we are on the subject of election humour, someone at the Survive France Network posted a link to last week's Les Guignols, a satirical television program that I used to watch religiously.
On April 13 they presented the French presidential candidates in all their glory. Not as good a watch, I think, as the Japanese mayoral candidate but not bad.
Peter Spiro, the author of the excellent book Beyond Citizenship, has an interesting article up about a recent ECJ (European Court of Justice) ruling concerning voting rights for the Greek diaspora.
Unlike most EU countries Greece does not allow its citizens abroad to vote in Greek elections. Figures vary but there are around 3-5 millions Greeks living outside of their home country concentrated in places like the U.S., U.K. and Canada. The recent Greek crisis has provoked considerable emigration with Greeks headed for other EU countries and North America. According to this site, there are about 35,000 Greeks living in France and two of them decided to fight on behalf of Greek overseas everywhere.
In 2007 two EU civil servants living in Strasbourg who are Greek citizens asked the Greek Ambassador to France to allow them to vote from France (their country of residence) in Greek parliamentary elections. The Greek ambassador said "no" because it was not practical for them to do so - no process existed to make this possible.
That led to the case Sitaropoulos and Giakoumopoulos v. Greece. The plaintiffs argued that denying Greek expatriates the right to vote in Greece elections amounted to "disproportionate interference with the exercise of their voting rights." It appears that the Greek Constitution does indeed have a provision that allows for expatriate voting but it doesn't seem to have ever been implemented - theoretically it's possible but the mechanisms have never been put into place to make it a reality.
EU citizens living outside their hosts countries should sit up and take notice because they lost. Here is how the ECJ ruled:
The Court notably found that neither the relevant international and regional law nor the varying practices of the member States in this sphere revealed any obligation or consensus which would require States to make arrangements for the exercise of voting rights by citizens living abroad.
So if you are a citizen of France, for example, living abroad, understand that your right to vote in France is viewed as "desirable but not mandatory" from the standpoint of the EU. This is true even where that right may be enshrined in the national constitution.
"Out of country" or "overseas voting" is a really tough call. Let's be honest here - many countries and their citizens do not like this idea one bit. I've had many hostile reactions from my compatriots when they discover that, after many years abroad, I still vote in U.S. elections. I think it's fair to ask if this a good thing or not. This excellent report from the European Commission on overseas voting rights in the EU is worth reading because it not only talks about where the different member states and other countries are in conferring these right on their expatriates, it also gives some pros and cons. Here are some of the arguments in favor:
Citizens are citizens wherever they are and should have the same rights regardless of where they live
Overseas voting allows these citizen to participate in the "political life of the nation." Though they live abroad they still have an interest and a stake in home country politics. Voting is one way they maintain a tangible connection with the home country.
Not allowing them to vote would be discrimination. Expatriates would be unequal to resident citizens.
If overseas citizens lack the right to vote in their home countries and in their host countries, then they effectively have no right to vote at all, anywhere. This shuts them out of any democratic process.
And here are some of the arguments against:
Citizens abroad may be less concerned with or even have very limited knowledge of issues in the homeland. I have absolutely no stake in American Social Security (U.S. state retirement program) so is it reasonable that I have a voice about what happens to it? There is something to that "tenuous link" argument.
Countries that have lots of citizens abroad could see their elections skewed by overseas voters. This could happen in the U.S. in certain state elections but it could also be true of other countries that have large numbers of emigrants abroad. It is possible that their vote could change the course of home country politics.
It may be impractical. There has to be a process for overseas voters to exercise the right to vote and some countries may simply lack the means to make it possible.
It's quite a conundrum and, frankly, as proud as I am of my King Country voter card, I can see both sides. Is this a topic on which, as member of the American Diaspora, I would be willing to negotiate? Absolutely. I don't speak here for anyone but myself but I would consider trading my U.S. voter rights for the right not to be taxed by or report my assets to the U.S. government. I'm sure some of you would violently disagree with that but I think it is an option that we could discuss.
All diaspora past, present and future rights are the result of negotiation between the home country and the "Domestic Abroad." The expatriate Greeks may have lost this round but I don't think they should give up. If this is something they really want then surely something could be arranged. And, for those of you who are fortunate enough to be citizens of countries where voting rights and even direct representation are a fait accompli, be careful. They have been given but they could be taken away and, in the case of Europe, this could happen with nary a peep of protest from the EU since it seems to be a "nice to have" and not a fundamental right.
I came across some very interesting articles about U.S. immigration law recently and I thought I'd share them with you. It seems that the U.S. Congress is not necessarily the highest authority in this matter and some very creative people have had the intelligence to take this out of the national realm and make it an international fight.
Civil Rights Groups Take Alabama Immigration Law to the UN: Union and civil rights leaders have filed a complaint against Alabama and the U.S. government with the United Nation International Labor Organization. They allege that Alabama's immigration laws are a "flagrant violation of international norms" and that the United States' inability to come up with coherent immigration policy hurts domestic and migrant workers alike. The Service Employees International Union filed the complaint with the UN earlier this week:
The complaint, submitted to the ILO Committee on Freedom of Association alleges the U.S. government’s “inability to act promptly and decisively to put in place a national policy related to immigration - attentive to international guarantees related to individual workers’ rights as well as to the rights of trade unions with immigrant members - has given the space to individual states to enact laws that are in flagrant violation of international norms.”
They are holding the US government responsible for the recently enacted Alabama immigration laws and they are not only willing to take it to the UN, they are bringing the fight directly to the foreign companies that have invested in that state.
In a statement to Daimler AG, which produces Mercedes-Benz vehicles in Alabama, the SEIU and its affiliate, the Southern Regional Joint Board of Workers United wrote, “Until now, Daimler and Mercedes-Benz have been silent on this law which violates human rights, even though one of its German executives was arrested under the Alabama law.”
Labor Leaders Take Alabama Immigration Law Repeal Bid to Berlin: Labor leaders are backing up their words with action by going directly to the source in Berlin, Seoul and Tokyo and calling these companies on their tacit collaboration with what they feel is legislation that violates human rights:
At the Daimler AG annual shareholders meeting in Berlin April 4, U.S. labor and civil rights leaders said that unless the German company takes a stand on Alabama’s infamous anti-immigrant law, it is tacitly supporting a racist and unjust regime in a state where its Mercedes Benz factory is considered responsible for 10,000 jobs and $1.5 billion in economic impact.
In March, civil rights activists and labor leaders attended Hyundai’s annual shareholder meeting in Seoul to make a similar point, as Colorlines reported, since Hyundai’s Alabama operations account for 2 percent of the state’s GDP. Depending whether the state legislature acts to repeal before then, they may also visit Honda’s shareholder meeting in Tokyo in June.
That is not only very gutsy, it's a very smart strategy. This is not exactly the kind of publicity these companies need. As for the U.S. government, if the ILO rules against them, it makes their criticism of other governments' policies (like China) look terribly hypocritical. Alabama certainly doesn't come off well either. If the unions and civil rights leaders can successfully equate investment in that state with support for violating international standards for human rights, companies might be less willing to do business there and that ought to make local lawmakers sit up and take notice. This is one to watch closely. If anyone in Germany, Korea or Japan finds links to this story in the local media, I'd really appreciate your adding them in the comments section. It would be interesting to see how this story is presented in these companies' home country media.
India challenges U.S. immigration rules at WTO: India has filed a complaint against the U.S. government with the World Trade Organization (WTO). In 2010 the U.S. raised visa fees for skilled workers to a whopping 4,500 USD per visa. Indian IT firms say that this discriminatory (and it does seem to have been directed against them) and a barrier to free trade. This may be a bit of a "tit for tat" situation since the complaint was filed after India put a ban on poultry imports from abroad - something that hurts the U.S. poultry industry. Nonetheless, the high fees and the high rejection rates of Indian applicants for U.S. work visas (H1B and L-1) really hurts the Indian IT industry.
The law under which those business visa fees were raised is known as the James Zadroga Act. Under the law, fees are substantially increased for H1B and L1 immigrant business visas. The rule also makes it harder for Indian multinationals in the U.S. like Tata Consultancy Services, Infosys and Wipro to bring in top executives or senior computer engineers from abroad.
“It is the sovereign right of any country to hike visa fee, but the U.S. move is mainly against Indian IT companies. The law discriminates between an American and Indian companies. This is a breach of national treatment and most favored nation status,” an unnamed Commerce Ministry official told the ET.
Tech CEOs visit Washington to lobby for H1B visa, tax reforms: Last month 60 CEOs of high-tech companies in the U.S. descended on Washington to fight for immigration reform. What do they want? More H1-B visas, faster processing of visa applications and a better retention policy for foreign graduates from U.S. universities with high-tech degrees. Technet is a lobbying organization that represents high-tech industries in the U.S. However, if you take a look at the executives they sent to Washington, you'll see that its members are not really U.S. companies, they are international companies like Cisco, HP, Intel, Google, Microsoft and EMC.
These articles really highlight the complex nature of immigration policy and how it can't ever be made in a vacuum that takes into account only local concerns. Look at the stakeholders above: United Nations, WTO, trade unions, civil rights leaders, workers, lobbyists, local and international industry, local and national governments. And then take a look at the people who are responsible for sorting through all this and actually passing laws that make sense in this complex environment. How many U.S. congressman, for example, have ever lived or worked overseas as a civilian? How many of them have been immigrants? How many of them speak a foreign language or have extensive experience with another culture? I couldn't find any statistics on the Web but just looking at my Congresswomen, Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, the answer is they have zero international experience. That's a bit worrisome when you consider that they represent a state that hosts the offices of international companies like Boeing and Microsoft. And lest you think that I am picking on the U.S. check out the biography of Claude Guéant, the French Minister of the Interior. His world is the Hexagone and reading his profile you start to understand why he was so surprised when his infamous circulaire received international attention.
I am not saying that these people are not intelligent - on the contrary they are smart, dedicated public servants who I am sure are doing the very best they can for their constituents. What I am saying is that when it comes to immigration policy they may be at the lowest level of ignorance which is "not even knowing what you don't know." They just don't have sufficient international experience that would give them the context they need for the decisions that they are responsible for making.
I think this is something to take into account in this election year even at the local level. Globalization is a fact of life and your local representative might just find him or herself thrust into an international spotlight thanks to some local policy or law that has international stakeholders. The question to ask is: can this person play at that level? Is he/she experienced and knowledgeable enough to understand the international implications of the votes he casts or the policies he has a hand in making? If the answer is "no" or "I'm not sure," you might want to think again. For your own protection and so that globalization may be rightly guided to the benefit of us all.
Two stories from the French media recently where the party in power, pushed by the Far Right, has managed to get itself into all kinds of trouble. Watching this unfold one is very tempted to channel Jacques Chirac who once said this about his allies/adversaries, "Ils ont perdu une bonne occasion de se taire." (They missed a good opportunity to stay silent.)
The first missed opportunity I'd like to mention came from our old friend, Claude Guéant, Minister of the Interior and author of the now infamous "circulaire" against foreign students.
So what did Guéant say this time? In a speech he gave in early February, he stated that: "Contrairement à ce que dit l'idéologie relativiste de gauche, pour nous, toutes les civilisations ne se valent pas." (Contrary to what the left-wing relativist ideology says, for us, not all civilizations are equal.) Naturally, people responded to this by asking the obvious questions, "OK, so how do you rank them, sir?" and "Which civilizations do you think make (or don't) the cut?" And with that we entered very dangerous territory because there are no acceptable answers to those questions that won't drag someone further into the pit. When questioned about it later Guéant reaffirmed his statement and gave examples like the wearing of the burkha or public prayer. It was embarrassing to watch him flailing about trying to find the right "code" to get his very negative message across. Here is a nice bit of reporting on it from TF1.
The second missed opportunity came recently in response to a debate launched by Marine Le Pen concerning meat slaughtered in a fashion that conforms to Islamic tradition and law (halal). At first Sarkozy replied by saying it was "not a problem" and then he seemed to be calling for new labeling laws. Let's be generous and say that his views were evolving when his Prime Minister Fillon fearlessly threw himself into the fray in this interview on Europe1.
Basically Fillon suggested that both Moslems and Jews take another look at their ancestral traditions that "n'ont plus grand-chose à voir avec l'état aujourd'hui de la science, l'état de la technologie, les problèmes de santé." (no longer have anything to do with modern science, technology and health issues.) Needless to say, both groups are highly unamused by his words.
Following Fillon's performance other French politicians prudently kept their distance from this topic. Ironically, it was Dominique de Villepin who said exactly what I was thinking - he lamented that François Fillon "aurait mieux fait de se taire" (would have done better to stay silent.)
If they are incapable of raising the level of the debate and they continue to happily bumble into traps set for them by the Far Right then there is no hope for them and they will deserve everything they get when the election finally rolls around later this year.
So how are we doing? Well, we are not out of the woods yet. Not even close. They think we are in stage two of a three stage crisis. In stage one we had the shock and then the stimulus which softened the blow. Now we are in stage two where high deficits and sovereign debt are leading to austerity measures. A slow recovery is not helping matters. If there is a second shock there will be second dip in growth and employment with very little money left in government coffers to lift us out.
In the worst case scenario there will be a negative shock in the eurozone (bad debt ) followed by the U.S. (slow growth and loan losses on mortgage portfolios) and perhaps emerging Asia (non-performing loans). Largest impact would be in the EU and the U.S. Latin America and Asia would be more resilient just as they were in the previous shock.
Before the crisis there were 171 million unemployed workers to which we can now add another 27 million. And then there are the 40 million new workforce entrants per year (young people). That's just the jobs picture and doesn't even touch the other issue: a "decent work deficit," jobs that can keep food on the table and a roof over the head of a family. They estimate that we need to create 400 million new jobs over the next decade. For those of you who would prefer not to read pdf's in bed late at night, here is a synopsis by Steven Kapsos, labour economist at the ILO that goes over the figures I've cited above:
ILO is predicting a recovery slowdown and flat employment which will drag down wages everywhere. Less opportunity, low wages, and precarity will drive even more migration. They recommend four courses of action:
Global policy coordination
Regulation of the world financial system to loosen credit for SMEs which create 70 percent of jobs
Stimulus packages targeted to increasing employment
Incentives for the private sector to invest but....
Without putting fiscal stability at risk.
I'm not an economist nor a reader of tea leaves so I can't judge the merits of their recommendations or the accuracy of their predictions. What is clear to me as I watch the ramp up to the 2012 elections in both the U.S. and France is that all this talk of contraception, immigration, flag-waving, saber-rattling and the merits of one civilization over another, is really nothing more then a bread and circus show. If the world economy goes to hell yet again, all this will be pretty irrelevent.
Another sign that we are well into an election cycle.
The Droit populaire is launching a campaign against allowing foreigners to vote in French elections at the local level.
This is a direct attack against the Socialist party that has placed allowing non-EU foreigners (us "Third-country nationals") to vote in local elections on their platform for 2012. Mr. Mariani, the Transport Minister, rightly points out that this idea is not new:
"C'est un vieux fantasme du PS puisque chacun se souvient que c'était l'une des 110 propositions de François Mitterrand en 1981."
This is an old fantasy of the Socialist Party as everyone remembers that this was one of the 110 propositions of Francois Mitterand in 1981.
As one of the foreigners potentially impacted by this I must admit that I am a bit unsure how to react. While I personally think that there is great merit in the idea of allowing long-term foreign residents to vote in local (municipal) elections, I can also understand those who would say that this is a right that should be reserved for citizens. Is it really so unreasonable to ask long-term residents (like me, for example) to go through the process of naturalization before being allowed to exercise one of the most fundamental (and most important) rights of a citizen?
While I understand where both sides here are coming from, I do take exception to Mr. Mariani's implying that, if given the vote, we foreigners would flock to the banner of the Socialist Party.
"Foreigner" is not a category that correlates directly with one particular ideology or party. If allowed to vote in 2012, I very much doubt that I would vote for Mr. Hollande or any of his pals since my personal political views make me much more at home in the Center-right.
This campaign is a splendid example of how immigrants are being cynically used by politicians to deflect attention from other issues like, say, jobs, the state of the national economy, the Euro-zone crisis, the bail-out of Dexia. Such is politics, I suppose, but I am still disappointed to see the French presidential election moving in this direction.
It is (dare I say it?) exactly the sort of tactic my friends on the American Right back home would approve of wholeheartedly.
