Immigration and the Center in French Politics

As we arrive at the Center of the French political landscape we start to hear words like "common culture", "civilization" and "heritage".  Nationalist rhetoric tends to send me running to the bookshelf to retrieve my copy of Imagined Communities by Benedict Anderson.  What is intriguing is that this nationalism is embedded in a larger project called "Europe".  The boundaries that define "we, the people" now include other Europeans which is extraordinary when you consider European history up to and including the events of the 20th century.  Anderson quotes the French writer Ernest Renan who wrote:

Or l'essence d'une nation est que tous les individus aient beaucoup de choses en commun, et aussi que tous aient oublie bien de choses.
(The essence of a nation is that individuals have much in common and also that they have all forgotten many things.)

I think we are seeing the forging of a new identity that requires a kind of collective amnesia on the part of all Europeans.  This is not a criticism - I like to think I, a fairly nationalistic American, am not that big a hypocrite.  It is more of an observation relevant to our discussion because it has an enormous impact on the debate over immigration in EU countries.  The framing of the debate is less and less about French or Germans versus foreigners (though some of that still exists) and more and more about "Europeans" versus "Third-country nationals" or "non-EU foreign nationals."

Let's start with MoDem - Mouvement Democrate (Democratic Movement).  This party is a successor to another party called the the Union for French Democracy (UDF).  MoDem was founded in 2007 as a center/center right party more or less aligned with the Right.  If you look at their founding principles they are for limiting state intervention.  The State, they say, can not be "all powerful" - it exists primarily to defend the rights of actors in society and to be their advocate and partner.  Article 12 defines their vision of Europe as "L’Europe des peuples et des citoyens, active et solidaire, où les Etats nationaux, détenteurs d’un patrimoine commun de civilisation, défendent ensemble leurs intérêts et leurs valeurs est le modèle de ces libres organisations. Sa construction est donc non seulement une nécessité mais un devoir."
(The Europe of people and citizens, active and unified, where the national states, possessors of a common heritage and civilization, defending together their interests and values is the model of these free organizations.  The construction of Europe is not simply a necessity, it is a duty.")

Being pro-Europe, however, does not make them anti-immigrant.  Figuring prominently on their website, are the writings of Fadila Mehal, a Frenchwoman of Algerian origin.  She clearly speaks out against discrimination, violence against immigrants, and for integration.

Le Nouveau Centre (The New Center) was also created in 2007 when a disagreement arose during the creation of MoDem.  There was a split and former members of the UDF decided to create their own party.  They are allies of the President, Nicolas Sarkozy. I was charmed to see that their value statement mentions Tocqueville.  Like MoDem they are pro-Europe.

Their leader, Hervé Morin, published his views on immigration in this piece on their website.  He says, "La politique d’immigration ne doit pas être une politique de stigmatisation..." (Immigration policy should not be a policy of stigmatisation...) and "doit, pour être efficace, impérativement s’inscrire dans un cadre européen" (and must, in order to be effective, be built within the framework of Europe).  He goes on to argue that a common European policy on immigration must have three pillars:  better border control, an analysis of Europe's real needs in terms of "arms and brains" and EU aid for development.  From this, I conclude that M. Morin is probably in favor of the EU Blue Card.

So the center parties have a more nuanced approach to immigration.  Against discrimination and extreme views but for a defense of European values and a common EU policy.

Tomorrow we'll have a look at the Right, the party of President Sarkozy (the UMP).

Immigration and the French Left

I have always been an admirer of the American writer, H.L. Mencken, professional curmudgeon and literary critic.  How could I not love a man who wrote, "No matter how long he lives, no man ever becomes as wise as the average woman of forty-eight."

Mencken wrote a lot about American politics.  His essay,"On Being an American," is a wonderful read.  I've never found the equivalent here in France and I've often wondered what he would have to say about French or American politics in the early 21st century.  If he were here to see the recent trials and tribulations of the Socialist Party, I would like to think that he would reiterate the advice he gave to the American people about politicians:

Their  primary error lies in making the false assumption that some politicians are better than others... I propose that it be renounced and contend that its renunciation would greatly rationalize and improve our politics.  I do not argue that there would be any improvement in our politicians;  on the contrary, I believe that would remain substantially as they are today, and perhaps grow even worse.  But what I do argue is that recognizing them frankly for what they are would instantly and automatically dissipate the indignation caused by their present abominations, and that the disappearance of this indignation would promote the public contentment and happiness.  Under my scheme there would be no more false assumptions and no more false hopes, and hence no more painful surprises, no more bitter resentment of fraud, no more despair.
Politicians, in so far as they remained necessary, would be kept at work - but not with any insane notion that they were archangels.

Back to our discussion.  Today let's talk about the Socialist Party and the Green Party and their respective stands on immigration.

PS - Parti Socialist (Socialist Party)
This party has been around for a long time.  In 2005 they celebrated their 100th anniversary.  In recent memory they provided France with someone whom I think was one of France's greatest presidents, Francois Mitterand.  Unlike the Far-left parties they embrace capitalism while being very critical of it.  Reform is the order of the day, not a complete tear-down of the present system.   Their statement of principles can be found here.    I did not find a clear stand on immigration in that statement so I looked around the website.  I didn't find anything that gave me a clear picture about their stand on migrants.  If anyone has a link, please feel free to leave it in the comments section.

Europe Ecologie les Verts (The Green Party)

Like the NPA this is a very new party that was founded in 2010.  They have a political agenda called "Projet 2012' which they summarize in five main principles:

• Vivre mieux en préservant l’humanité et la planète (A better life that preserves humanity and the planet)
• Une économie écologique et solidaire (An ecologically and socially friendly economy) 
• Vivre ensemble dans une société ouverte et réconciliée (Living together in an open and fraternal society)
• De l’oligarchie à la démocratie réelle (From oligarchy to real democracy)
• Un monde de paix et de justice (A world of peace and justice)

Not much there to disagree with but my initial reaction was "please show me the fine print."  How exactly do they plan to achieve all this?  I read their entire brochure and did not find anything about international migration, its social and environmental impacts.  That was rather disappointing especially for a party that has pretensions to operating on the international stage.

Finishing up our tour of the French Left, I have to say that the only party I found with very clear policy statement and concrete ideas about immigration and immigrants is the Communist Party.  Again, if anyone takes exception to that remark, I am open to receiving more information.

Tomorrow we'll move more toward the center-right and talk about MODEM (Mouvement Democrate) and Le Nouveau Centre (The New Center).

Immigration and the French Far-Left

Reading Arun with a View's posts about Marine Le Pen sparked my interest in finding out more about the different French political party platforms.  It is one thing to follow the commentary on the Net, it is quite another to go straight to the source and actually read what is being proposed in their own words.  Since I can't vote here, I've never done this which, in retrospect, seems foolish.  I may not be a citizen but what they have to say, and what they wish to do, has a direct impact on my life and the lives of others here, be they citizens or residents. Eric Hoffer was very wise when he wrote:

It is necessary for most of us these days to have some insight into the motives and responses of the true believer.  For though ours is a godless age, it is the very opposite of irreligious.  The true believer is everywhere on the march, and both by converting and antagonizing he is shaping the world in his image.  And whether we are to line up with him or against him, it is well that we should know all we can concerning his nature and potentialities.

So, with that in mind, let's have a look at what these parties are saying about a subject that I think is of interest to readers of this blog:  Immigration.  If anyone reading this blog belongs to one of these parties, and feels that I am misrepresenting the party line, I invite you to tell me so.  I am not one who believes that ignorance is bliss.

Let's start with the parties on the Far Left:  The NPA and the French Communist Party.

NPA - Le Nouveau Parti Anticapitaliste (the New Anticapitalist Party)
This party was launched in 2009 during the financial crisis.  At that time, they said:

Cette société capitaliste est à bout de souffle. Les gouvernements successifs remettent en cause l’ensemble de nos acquis sociaux et démocratiques.
This capitalist society (France, I presume) is drawing its last breath and its governments are challenging our social and democratic rights.

They received a lot of media attention in the beginning when people were deeply afraid of how the financial crisis was going to impact them.  They seem to draw less attention now that people are calmer and less fearful.  I believe they tap into that well of suspicion that some French citizens have about capitalism and globalization.  They are right when they say that the hard won social rights are being degraded by governments (Left and Right) and they do not believe that the establishment Left wing parties have done an adequate job of defending those rights.  It is not easy, however, to get a clear of their actual program.  Their website reveals much action, less reflection.

Their platform on immigration is hard to discern.  On one hand they are clearly on the side of the "sans papiers" (illegal immigrants) and they defend vigorously the right of every immigrant to be treated decently and with respect.  However, I could not find a policy statement about immigration in general though I did find an excellent must-read article on their site entitled "Pourquoi l'immigration n'est pas un probleme." (Why Immigration is Not a Problem).  I will take them at their word and conclude that they are pro-migrant.

PCF - Parti Communist Francais (French Communist Party)
Yes, America, they still exist.  They have been around since 1920 and I advise you not to hold your breath waiting for their demise.  They have a large membership and they continue to be influential even though the last time they actually participated in a government was back in Mitterand's time.  Their newspaper l'Humanite is available on-line and they have an excellent website.

Their political agenda is available in a series of tracts here and I call your attention to this one in particular,  Ce Que Nous Voulons (What We Want) which was prepared by the three parties that make up the Front de Gauche.  On page 8 they echo what we heard from the NPA:  L'Immigration n'est pas un problème (Immigration is not a problem.)  They write:

La haine des étrangers, la chasse aux immigrés défigurent notre République : il faut en finir !
Les flux migratoires se développent dans le monde, ils mêlent des motivations diverses. La France ne doit pas les craindre, elle ne doit pas mépriser l’immense apport humain et matériel qu’ils lui ont déjà apporté. Non, la présence des immigrés en France n’est pas un problème.
(Hatred of foreigners, the hunting down of immigrants, disfigures our Republic:  it is time to end it!
The migratory flows are increasing in the world for many reasons.  France should not be afraid of them nor should we despise the great human and material contributions that they have already brought us.   No, the presence of immigrants in France is not a problem.)

They go on to say that they understand that zero immigration is not realistic and they would reinstate a unique 10-year residency permit, allow family regroupment, and regularize all the "sans papiers" on French soil.  They would also reverse all the immigration laws passed by the Right since 2002 and institute a new nationality code that would be based on jus soli and would make it easier for foreigners to become citizens after 5 years of residency.  

I don't think they could be clearer or more concrete in what they propose.  I was, quite frankly, very surprised to read the above statement since I have always had the impression that they were anti-migrant in the name of protecting the French worker.  

Tomorrow, let's move toward the center and examine the views of the Socialist Party and the "Greens" (Europe Ecologie les Verts). 

Bac 2011 - The Results

Early this morning, all over France, students congregated in front of their high schools to find out the results of last month's bac exams.  The schools post the names of the students who succeeded on a big board inside the school.  I found this a bit odd.  If the student's name is on the board, he/she passed.  If it is not, then the student failed.  This means that everyone knows who passed and who didn't.  Failure is public.

I passed by my Frenchling's school around 11:00 and all I will say is that most appeared both relieved and happy.  It's over and they passed and life can move forward.  Not everyone was so lucky.  I talked to a neighbor and some of her students did not and will have to go to remedial classes.

My daughter went out to celebrate with friends and she reports that some of the results were strange.  For example, one of her classmates was the star of the philosophy program at her school and not only got the top grades but was sent to the national competitive philosophy exam.  He barely passed the philosophy portion of the Bac.  Hard to know exactly what happened but there were several cases like that that had my daughter shaking her head in disbelief.

If I may, for a brief moment, be the proud mother?  My daughter passed and did quite well - a good score and a "Mention Bien."   I won't embarrass her here by disclosing her grades in each subject but I will say that she got the maximum score on the oral English exam which had me grinning all day long.

In another two years we will have to go through this again with the younger Frenchling.  I'm not sure I'll survive it a second time.  :-)

Selective Immigration: Points-based versus Employer-driven Systems

Now that the EU Blue card is off and running in Europe, this seems like a good moment to talk about the two formal systems of selective immigration around the world.  Almost all states and super-states that have decided to compete for the pool of highly-skilled talent have implemented one or the other.

Points-based:  Canada was the first to implement such a system with Australia and the UK being more recent adopters.  Based on a questionnaire or a calculator, the potential migrants answers a series of questions and is assigned points based on his/her answers.  Naturally the migrants gets more points for desirable qualities like being in the right age bracket, showing academic achievement, and having a profession useful to the destination country.  The Work Permit site has calculators on-line so a potential migrant can actually assess his/her chances of getting a work permit or residency from the comfort of home.  These tools can have another purpose - if you are interested in getting a sense of your personal competitiveness on the global labor market (or even your home market) running your skills and personal data through one of these calculators can give you a good idea of where you sit relative to other people.  I ran my data through the Australian Skilled Immigration Calculator which asked me questions like:  are you under 50? Is your English at least at 'Competent' Level? Do you have a post secondary education?  I was also asked to refer to a Skilled Occupation List which shows what professions are of interest to them.  Once you clear the basic requirements questionnaire you then go on to answer a number of specific about your work experience, language skills and so on.  Very well designed and quite transparent - they actually tell you how many points you will receive for each answer.

Critics of such systems point out that the criteria are pretty narrow and certainly don't take into account people whose experience or professions falls outside the norm.  I got the impression from the Australian Skilled Occupation list that they were primarily interested in Finance, Engineering and IT.  Does that means philosophers and poets need not apply?  

The other method is called Employer-based.  The European Blue Card definitely falls into this category.  Here selection is based on the migrant's employability.  Employers make the selection and the state provides the residency/work permit.  This is great for business but is it good for migrants?  I think it is good in the sense that the migrant has a job immediately and does not end up working at a fast-food outlet when his qualifications are more oriented to the healthcare sector. On the other hand, the migrant may be tied to that employer for a certain period of time and can't seek work elsewhere if things don't work out with the sponsoring company.  This can lead to something that is not quite slavery but does resemble a sort of indentured servitude since the migrants are not really in a position to complain about work conditions and salary.  The U.S. has such a system as do many other countries like Spain, Norway and Sweden.

There is a lot of debate about which system is better.  The Migration Policy Institute recently published a report outlining some of the advantages and disadvantages of both systems.  They argue that a points-based system can lead to "de-skilling" with immigrants being forced to take jobs in other sectors or to stay unemployed because they can't find work.  This can mean that integration into the destination country culture becomes more difficult.  Employer-driven systems do seem to help integration but, quite frankly,  they also encourage businesses to seek cheaper labor from abroad.  These foreign workers are very vulnerable to being treated unfairly since the employer holds all the cards.  These systems also reduce the power of labor in the destination countries since businesses can bypass hiring locals in order to reduce costs and degrade overall working conditions for everyone.

The MPI proposes alternatives to these systems which amount to creating hybrid systems (best of both worlds).

I think they miss the point.  The way the debate is presented implies that the choices are between allowing governments to decide who gets in based on their ideal for future residents/citizens or allowing businesses to drive immigration based on business interests and economic considerations.  Neither takes into account the interests of labor, both foreign and domestic, overall.  One has the impression that labor organizations don't even have a seat at the table when such things are negotiated.  I suspect that this situation has arisen because labor organizations can be fairly parochial and generally only look at or concern themselves with the condition of native workers within their own countries or super-states.

Since they have had limited success in keeping foreign labor out (which is highly unrealistic), this strategy seems fatally flawed.  I think we need more international labor organizations that can address labor issues at a global level to ensure that workers get a fair deal in all countries.  It will be messy, it will be hard, but  it's worth doing and it's in the interest of all working people all over this planet.  Failure to do this means that governments and business win by default.

It's an old song, "Workers of the world, unite!" but, let's face it, big business and finance went global long ago.  It's high time for labor to go back to first principles and do the same.  Not to stop globalization but to make sure that it's a good deal for everyone.

The Tea Party and the Front National

If any of you on either side of the Atlantic are political animals, you might find this interesting.

Arun with a View wrote this post about Marine Le Pen, the leader of the extreme right party in France, the Front National.  Madame Le Pen is the daughter of the rather notorious Jean-Marie Le Pen, a figure who has generated much controversy on the French political scene for his rather extreme views.   You may recall that he managed to make it to the final round of at least one French presidential election - something that profoundly shocked my Left-leaning friends here and both amused and pleased my Right-wing friends since it virtually assured Chirac's election.

Marine Le Pen has taken up the cause and is doing well.  The elder Frenchling has been following her closely and is very impressed.  Or I should say she was impressed until Le Pen attacked dual nationality. I think I can now safely say that she will not be voting for the Front National anytime soon.

Arun with a View ends his posts on Le Pen with a very provocative statement which broadens the scope of the discussion to the United States.  He (she?) asks:

"BTW, mutatis mutandis there is no significant political difference between Palin and Marine LP. Or between today’s Republican party and the France’s Front National. French frontistes would be at home in the Tea Party and Tea Partiers in the FN. If anyone disagrees, please explain why."

Excellent question and I was very pleased to read in the comments section, a very thoughtful reply by an American blogger who does a fine job of outlining what he sees as the major differences.  I'll let you read it for yourselves - my only comment is that I agree with much of what he says though I think he underestimates Sarah Palin.

For those of you who might want to investigate further and form your own conclusions, I offer you two resources.  The first is a link to the official Front National website where they outline their program for France by theme:  immigration, culture, foreign policy and so on.  The second is a link to the Tea Party mission statement.  

Before I leave you to go about my day, I would be remiss if I did not note that today is Independence Day in the U.S.  If I calculate correctly the nation is celebrating its 235th anniversary.  

Happy Birthday, America, and I wish I were there to see the fireworks. :-)

European Blue Card - Update July 3, 2011

More news is coming in.

The Netherlands:  Many many thanks to arvind who left this link in the comments section -
Invoering Europese blauwe kaart.  I was very pleasantly surprised to find that the Google translator actually gave me a coherent translation.  Check it out.  At the bottom of the webpage are links to the Foreign Credentials validation service and a Customer Service guide explaining how to apply for a work permit.

Romania:  The Guide of Foreign Workers in Romania (English) and Guide du Travailleur Etranger en Roumanie (French) link to this Ministry of Foreign Affairs webpage where I followed another link to the Visa and Consular Affairs service.  It looks like (not entirely sure of this) you would need to get a work authorization (Blue Card or other) from the Romanian Office of Immigration and then apply for a visa/long-stay permit from your local Romanian consulate. I think your best course of action if you are interested would be to write or call the local Romanian embassy or consulate (here is the list of Romanian missions abroad) since the link to the Romanian Office of Immigration does not seem to be working.

France:  Vie Publique reports that the  "Loi du 16 juin 2011 relative à l’immigration, à l’intégration et à la nationalité" has been published in the Official Journal.  The next stage is "Le décret d’application" stage where they determine how it will be implemented.  The last stage is "Evaluation."  There was nothing more I could find on the government website so I turned to the Internet and I found this article by a French lawyer.  He is saying that the implementation will be via a short-term work permit, a "carte de sejour", which will have a little note on it saying "carte bleue européenne."  He also says that the terms for applying are as follows:

1. The worker must possess a legal work contract good for at least one year.

2. The annual salary for the position must be equal or superior to 1.5 times the average salary of reference (not sure what that means, if it's 1.5 times the SMIG or if they have another way of calculating this based on the sector).

3. The worker must have a diploma showing at least three years of study at a university recognized by the French state or have at least 5 years of work experience at a comparable level.

I don't want to be pessimistic about this but, if the above is true, it's going to be tough going for applicants.  I personally don't know many French companies that would hire a foreigner with a guaranteed one-year contract.  What about the usual 3-month trial period, for example?  I also wonder about who is going to be evaluating people's diplomas or work experience.  My own experience has been that my university degree has been both under and over-valued in many situations and it all depends on how well the evaluator knows the American university system where the quality of the schools is highly variable.  I can also see some cultural issues when it comes to work experience.  I once had a recruiter here in Paris who said that when evaluating American CVs he had to remember that (especially in IT) Americans tend move around a lot and it's normal in the US to have a year here or two years there which is something that French companies don't seem to like much.

But, let's be optimistic.  The law has been passed, it is on the books, and that is already a big step forward.  I'll keep you posted.