The Evolution of French Immigration Policy

after May 1981

BY CATHERINE WIHTOL DE WENDEN *

Both before and after 1981, some American political scientists (l), in their analysis of
French immigrant policy insisted on the institutional and political uncertainties of French
policy making (2) and on its internal contradictions (3). While I agree that the French
immigrant policy is a day-to-day response to national and international political, philosophical and economic demands, as well as a compromise between profound conflicts, the
questions I will try to answer here are the following:

Have there been important changes in French immigrant policy since 1981 and is it
possible that they are turning points in the history of French post-war immigration policy?
Can we talk of continuity or discontinuity relative to past immigration policies and
practices? Has there been a fundamental change or only a perception of change? Are we
witnessing the emergence of a new immigration policy of control and selection of immigrant flows?

- What can the evolution of French immigrant policy, since the Socialist Government
took power, reveal about the kind of society France wants to be? Who are the actors who
influence decision-making processes and choices? What are the challenges to the nationstate regarding citizenship, different forms of immigrant membership in society, and
preferences given to a political and nationalistic approach or to an economic one - given
that the right to control the entry of foreigners constitutes one of the prime attributes of
sovereignty?
Indeed, one may observe that:

- There was no change in 1981 in the two main objectives of French immigrant policy:
stopping immigration and absorbing the immigrants who are settled in France. But, the
means used to implement this policy and also the final aims themselves have perhaps
changed, even if there remain gaps between means and ends and between the main gate
and the back door.
* Chargee de Recherche, Cornit6 national de recherche scientifique, (CNRS), Paris.
199

The tendency of immigrant phenomena to become political has been strongly confirmed with all its implications: immigration has become a major political issue (4); the
immigrants are assuming new roles in the political sphere in France; the decision-making
process on immigration is becoming politicized; the international context has become
involved (5).

- The search for legitimacy for the nation-state in crisis and the role of symbolic legislation passed to satisfy public opinion have become major factors (6).
- Radicalization of positions and the amalgamation of themes have been accelerated in
the major conflicts surrounding immigration in the last three years: the second-generation
immigrants in the suburbs of large cities (7); the conflicts in the automobile industry
(Renauit, Peugeot, Talbot, Citroen),the municipal elections of March 1983, which sometimes appeared as political laboratories, as was the case in Dreux for the extreme right; the
problems caused by the control of illegal immigration ; immigration being linked with
violence, insecurity, and border control in the minds of the public.

- Some problems remain unsolved or have only been partially solved: political rights,
dual citizenship (8), the structural role of clandestine immigration in some sectors, and the
fluctuations of co-operation with countries of origin. The French Government seems not
to have dared to make unilateral decisions on such controversial questions which engage
the future of the French society.
Therefore, I will try to review the French immigration policy since May 1981 in three parts
as follows:
1. - to draw up a balance sheet of the main political decisions taken or debated, and of the
trends they reveal.

2. - to focus on the limits of an institutional and declarative policy and on its possible
negative effects.
3. - to discuss the new challenge and pressure arising from immigration in the French
political decision-making process.

For a long time, public decision-makers in France were only concerned with monitoring
immigration movements. Before 1914, the movements of populations were largely free.
There was often police control of foreigners, but labour in itself was not subject to legal
regulation. In 1931, increasing unemployment provoked - or was concommittant with - a
reaction against the settlement offoreign workers in France, and measures were adopted to
protect French labour. After the Second World War, and especially during the sixties,
France permitted undocumented immigration in order to promote economic growth.
Until the crisis of 1973 and the interruption ofimmigration that occurred in 1974, most of
the immigrant workers were clandestine, but they were referred to merely as being irregular. The Portuguese represented 26% of all clandestine immigrants in 1948 and 80% in
1964. The continuous increase ofirregular situations, which generated a certain amount of
opposition between employers and trade unions, was the cause ofthe Fontanet Decree of
27 February 1972, which tended to return to strict implementation of the law. Following
ministerial decisions in 1973, amnesty was suspended on 3 1 October 1973. The crisis that
followed seemed to signal the dominance of administrative control measures.
Reasons relating to the need to maintain law and order, and to the economic situation
were the foundation of the new policies, which were meant to curtail clandestine immi-

200

gration. Such measures as the Law of 10July I976 and the decrees of 3 January 1977 and
1 1 July 1977 were adopted to reinforce existing regulations. They reflected what appeared
to be a clear-cut decision to distinguish the legitimate immigrant workers from the others.
The Law of 10 January 1980 (the Bonnet Law) is a good illustration of the conflicts
between the demand for a labour force in relation to the fluctuations of the economy with
the facility for expulsion and demographic considerations. Thus, in May 1980, Lionel
Stofem,the state secretary in charge of manual labour, began to consider amnesty on an
individual basis for workers who had lived in France since 1 March 1980 and who were
heads of families. However, the Council of Ministers on 5 September 1980 seemed to
signal a trend toward the reinforcement of restrictive measures.
Between 30 May 1977 - when a policy of granting financial assistance to workers to
return to their home country (aidfor return) was established - and 1981, one of the main
objectives of French immigration policy was to encourage the immigrants to leave. But in
view of the failures in the implementation of this policy, an evolution occurred. Significant changes had already taken place in September 1980 with the Franco-Algerian
agreement :

- The idea that nationals would replace immigrant workers when they returned to their
home countries was abandoned;
-

The necessity of bilateral co-operation with the countries of origin was stressed;

Qualitative considerations concerning job training and reintegration were given priority
over quantitative considerations.

The Franco-Algerian negotiations on the return and reintegration of Algerians living in

France illustrate the diplomatic dynamics generated by international labour flows. If
Algeria continued to demand the application of the 1980 agreement on reintegration,
France would permit itself to control Algerian entry and residence in France more
strictly. Inversely, if Algeria proved less demanding and France less desirous of financing
the reintegration (repatriation with vocational training), the French authorities would find
it difficult to be more severe in the control of the entry and residence of Algerians.
A NEW POLICY: SOME CHANGES
Such an analysis cannot be made, apart from a comprehensive political view of French
immigrant policy in recent years and especially since the left took power in May 1981.
Discontinuity in Principles
With the failure ofthe depoliticization strategy of the former political elite, one is struck by
the ideological dimension of the new immigration policy. Even if the objectives have
remained roughly the same - to stop immigration and to integrate those already settled in
France - the issues have changed. Now they are cast in terms of human rights, the fight
against arbitrary administrative measures, and giving voice to the immigrants themselves.
The policy was announced and presented as having two elements, the first being the
condition of the second: to stop new immigration by taking measures against the future
illegals and to improve the living conditions of the others. This was the programme
announced by FranqoisAutain, the state secretary in charge ofimmigrant workers, in June
1981. His intention was to offer amnesty to illegal immigrants, to penalize employers, to
reinforce border controls, and to favour the integration of legal immigrants. Later on,
20 1

Georgina Dufoix, the new state secretary for immigration, stated at the Council of Ministers meeting of August 1983 that illegals impede the integration of immigrants.
Thepolicy of improvingthesituationof immigrants already settled in France is expressed in
three laws:

The Law of 9 October 1981, concerning associations;

- The Law of 17 October 1981, concerning employment of illegal immigrant workers;

-

The Law of 29 October 1981 on the entry and stay of foreigners in France.

Some problems were not dealt with, for example, the problem of the political rights of
foreigners.
The Law of 9 October 1981replaced the law-decree of 1939on foreign associations, which
required that they be authorized by the Ministry of the Interior. Now they are subject to
the same conditions as French associations, i.e., declaration to the Ministry of the Interior.
The Law of 17 October 1981 is intended to raise the status of illegally employed foreigners
to that of the legally employed foreigners, particularly with regard to their social benefits.
However, it also stiffens the penalties against firms that employ clandestine aliens and
firms that contract clandestine aliens as temporary workers to other firms. Unions were
granted the right to take legal action against recalcitrant employers if the foreign worker in
question did not explicitly oppose it. Parallel to this law, the Circular of 11 August 1981
stipulated that illegal alien workers who were capable of proving that they were in France
prior to 1 January 1981, and that they held steady employment, could have their status
regularized. Those with proof of residency prior to the cut-off date and with an employment contract for one year, could receive their papers immediately. Those who had
difficulty in proving their eligibility could request a hearing before a commission composed of elected officials, judges, civil servants, and representatives of the immigrant
reception associations. The commission, which is set up in each dkpartement (administrative district), would recommend whether an immigrant should be granted regularization or not by the Commissioner of the Republic (the representative of the central government and chief administrative and police official in each dkpartement, formerly called
the Prefect). At the same time, employers were granted a period of grace from legal
sanctions if they agreed to put their affairs in order before 1 January 1982.

Some other measures completed the implementation of this policy, which was thought to be

a global one:
the improvement of the conditions for entry of family members; the establishment of
priority educational areas in sectors with a high concentration of immigrants, and the
creation of contrats dagglomkration with a view to better housing.
The subsidies granted for returning to the home country, which had been widely criticized,
were suppressed in November 1981. French officialsthen began to use the termformation
reinsertion instead offormation-retour (9).
Continuity of Control Measures
In France, the theme of control and security associated with the idea of preventing

202

automatic immigration that would endanger the cohesion of French society was widely
used for political ends, both prior to and after 10 May 1981 when FranGois Mitterand was
installed. The municipal elections of 1983 became the ideal grounds for the amalgamation
of terms like immigration insecurity and national cohesion. Nonetheless, it would be to
no purpose to seek the explanation ofwhat was at stake for the various political actors and
mechanisms in the regularization programme in terms of the political marketplace, as
there was no national debate on legalization and only timid efforts to sensitize and inform
public opinion.
The major immigration question in France remains the control of the border and of
illegal employment. As noted by DenisMoreau,the head ofthe inter-ministry taskforce on
the suppression of traffic in labour, if labour flows are not controlled, the attraction ofthe
underground economy will remain very strong. If, inversely, illegal employment is not
severely sanctioned, the incitement to illegal entry and employment will be such that even
reinforced border controls will be imperative.
Above and beyond the question of means, there remains the question of the determination and effective co-operation of the various public authorities to ensure that the laws
are respected. Major efforts are being made to sensitize and inform public opinion about
illegal alien employment, and to develop a non-falsifiable identity card.
The Law of 29 October 1981 reinforced some elements of the Bonnet Law of 10
January 1980, but some guarantees were provided for aliens in the form of stronger
judicial controls to prevent arbitrary action on the part of administrators. In addition,
some categories of aliens, such as second-generation immigrants, long-term residents,
parents of French children, and persons married to French citizens now have the right to
stay in France (10).
THE LIMITS OF AN INSTITUTIONAL POLICY
Some of the policy limits are linked to the incompleteness of some of the reforms. Others
derive from internal contradictions and unexpected effects ofthe implementation of some
ofthe measures. The latter are rooted in the nation-state crisis, coupled with the rise of the
politicization of the immigrants as actors and issues in French politics.
These points raise the question of the limits of an institutional and declarative policy,
and of the responses to it by public opinion, political parties, immigrants, employers, and
the other countries.
During the last ten years, the permanent settlement of immigrant workers with their
families as a structural phenomenon appeared as a challenge in a France being confronted
by an economic crisis. But it also generated a new concern about the definition of the
nation-state and about the role of minority political participation. Recently, measures
were taken to reinforce the rights of foreigners (in labour and administrative levels of
representation since 1975)and to establish structures that would be able to represent them
on the local consultative level. In the meantime, new forms of political involvement of
immigrant workers appeared: wildcat strikes of illegals about housing (1 977- 1981);
conflicts in the automobile industry (1982- 1983); the rise of associations, and the march
for equal rights (October-December 1983) reveal not only a politicization process of
previously non-political matters (politisation du non politique) but also a passage au
politique of immigrants both as receivers and as participants in the French political
system. Even without full civil rights, immigrants are now involved in French policymaking, not merely as objects but also as subjects.
The political impact of such changes and the political response of the French Covernment raise important questions in both the macro- and the micro-political contexts, even

203

though the strategy of the State is still uncertain. For example, before May 1981, the
Socialists were committed to granting immigrant workers the right to vote in municipal
elections, but the hostile reaction from the general public, and from some political parties,
caused them to drop the idea.
The Incompleteness of some Reforms
The most striking illustrations of the incompleteness of some reforms is the question of
political rights for immigrants. In 1981, the right to form associations was granted to
foreigners on the same terms as those of French citizens (Law of 1901).
The question of political rights for immigrant workers in France is an old debate, and
some would say that little progress has been made in the last two centuries. This article is
contained in the French Constitution of 24 June 1793:
Each foreigner of more than 21 years of age and established in France for more than one year, who
earns his living by working or acquires property or mames a French wife or adopts a child or cares for
an elderly person, each who had contributed to the cause of humanity, is admitted to exercise the
rights of the French citizen.
The problem was raised again at the end of the 19th century and between 1919 and 1939,
and recently it has been reintroduced into the debate between the French political parties.
In the presidential elections of 1974, a non-eligible candidate, Djelali Kamal, stressed the
question. Moreover, this right, considered as the first step toward participation of immigrants in French political life, was included in the electoral programme of the Socialist
Party. Those who resided in France for at least four or five years would be granted the right
to participate in municipal elections. After the Socialist victory in May 1981, it was
expected that immigrants would participate in the 1983 elections, but the Government
was forced to declare that participation in 1983 was impossible. During the summer of
1981, statements by Mr. Cheysson, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, favouring immigrant
voting in local elections relaunched the debate.
In fact, the problem is linked to the problem of long-term - but not necessarily definitive
- residence of immigrants who want to preserve their freedom to settle in France or to
return to their home country. Immigration, which has become a structural problem,
demands another approach for the participation in the nation-state in which the immigrants are residing.
Today, it is no longer possible to identify the immigrant merely with his economic role.
Immigrants progressively seek means of expression that are more autonomous relative to
those of the classic policy in order to defend their interests. But, because of their juridical
status, which limits their local participation to more or less fictive consultation, they are
forced to act by means of politicization of non-political problems, which is a very
ambiguous method.
Indeed, the status of foreign workers is no longer adapted to the new forms of immigration, just as their strong aspirations to participate in public life is not necessarily
associated with a desire to acquire French nationality. But first, we must admit that there
i s a desacralization of the French conception of nationality and citizenship.
Unexpected Effects of Institutional Mechanisms

A good example of the negative effects of institutional measures is the legalization programe. Many unexpected effects occurred. First, there was the problem of arbitrary
administrative rulings refusing legalization that led to increasing demands on the dkpartemenf level, where positive rulings prevailed. Then there was the problem of illegal alien
204

inflows from neighbouring countries (particularly West Germany) that were apparently
precipitated by the announcement of the legalization programme. Members of the family
of recently legalized foreigners began to come in because the one-year work and residency
permit prevented their expulsion. Some of those legalized quickly applied for unemployment benefits, while other unemployed foreigners who had returned home came back to
France to benefit from the legalization programme.
This exceptional, one-time only legalization programme - which was started in August
1981 and survived until 15 April 1982 for clandestine aliens and until 26 February 1982
for seasonal workers - was based on legal criteria that evolved as unanticipated cases were
encountered. While the prolongation of the programme facilitated a proliferation of false
documents and the creation of clandestine alien smuggling networks, the legalization
procedure revealed the diversity of the forms of clandestine alien residency and employment. Aside from Algerians, who have a unique legal status, the population that came
forward to be legalized was young (80% were less than 32 years old) and recently settled in
France (88O/o having arrived after 1975and 40% after 1980). The major groups represented
were Tunisians, Moroccans, Portuguese, and then Black Africans and Turks (80% of the
total). There was a non-negligible percentage of women among those legalized (some
18%), and strong concentrations were present in areas with large foreign worker populations (Paris, Lyon, Provence-C6te dAzur and Corsica). As for the employment characteristics of those legalized, 30 O/o worked in construction, 15% as domestics or in cleaning
services, 12% in restaurants and hotels, 11Oh in agriculture, 10% in commerce and 8% in
the textile industry.

A NEW POLITICAL FORCE

The increasing politicization of immigrants by means of direct or indirect pressure groups
poses a challenge to the sovereignty of the State.
Immigrants as a Political Issue in French Politics
The impasse in the debate on the political rights of immigrants along with the use of
immigration as a symbol in local political dialogue, and as a bargaining chip in relations
with the countries of origin, reveals the political importance of immigrants in France
today.
The extent of what was as stake appeared in the municipal elections of March 1983,
which was a privileged theatre for a political class. In addition, there was the long lasting
immigration - a situation that is not necessarily considered definitive in French society along with the large-scaleentry ofimmigrants in labour and urban conflicts, and a crisis in
the ideologies of citizenship and the nation-state as defined in the 19th century.
This situation is not without paradox, for the immigrants are being refused the right to
vote, which seems to run counter to the evolution of the role of immigrants in French
society. The theme of foreign presence is played upon - especially with regard to the
Maghrebi and the Algerians - for political reasons. Immigrants, therefore, form an illegitimate group in the French political system. Long relegated to the periphery of the
political sphere and confined to the margins of society, they are now classified as political.
The paradox should be evident. Because immigrants are denied political rights and are
therefore absent as actors from the political debate, they became fundamental issues in the
municipal elections and also, though less obviously, in the agreements with the countries
of origin. Can the use of immigration as a political issue in electoral rhetoric or international negotiations be considered a real consequence of the lack of political rights of the
205

immigrants? Too often, what is at stake exceeds the object of the polemic and remains
largely outside of the experience of the immigrants, although they themselves form the
target. Moreover, if these issues were to disappear, would the immigrants be able to
acquire a legitimate political identity in the French political debate? The immigrants,
therefore, form a kind of pressure group without wanting to, and often without being
aware of it (the Portuguese, for example, were not included in the xenophobic rhetoric of
March 1983). Sometimes, they become a political force by proxy or by virtue ofthe actions
of political parties or leaders.
Some consider this situation explosive, although it is hardly new. In December 1980,
the Vitry Affair saw the use of immigration as a pretext used in municipal dialogue for the
conversion of social demands and requests for support and by certain political parties in
their attempt to gain legitimacy. The immigrants were, for the most part, left out of the
March 1983 municipal elections, except when violent demonstrations in suburbs caused
immigration to become an issue. But the parties, politicians, and militants - of the left as
well as the right - who were concerned about immigration, exacerbated racism by identifying immigration as a social menace and linking it to national insecurity. It is difficult to
measure the consequences in immigrant communities of their having become political
pawns, and especially to determine their perception of French policies and their desire or
refusal to integrate politically into France. More obvious, perhaps, is what is revealed
about the mentality and political life of French society as a whole by the immigrants
becoming referees in games of municipal political alliances, having the means to sway
French voters on the national level, and possessing diplomatic and economic bargaining
chips with the countries of origin, with the full knowledge that these countries would have
difficulty reintegrating them economically.
It is interesting to know if social resistance to immigrants - a recent object of political
debate - is an indication of a movement on the wane in the judicial sphere or in the
assimilationist ideology of the nation-state, or if it is something that is ripening via a
transformation of cultural symbols of citizenship, the state, and the political community.
The rules of the political game are being refined and expanded on the periphery of the
political system. Among the new elements are the acquisition of voting rights and a trend
toward universilization of political rights, each of which constitutes an important step in
the formation or redefinition of the notion ofthe state. In the same way, the introduction
of the immigrant position into the French political debate may loosen up the French
political scene, freeing it from a certain asphyxiation that seems to prevail, since the
immigration theme crosses the traditional barriers between the left and the right. The
young, second-generation immigrants, who have the right to vote (though they currently
take little advantage of it), threaten to alter the rules of the political game by questioning
the process of immigrant integration, by contesting the nation-state model, and by professing allegiance to more than one national sub-group.
Throughout this crisis in the transition of the nation-state, what is at stake is the
desacralizationof the main symbols in French society. The institutionalization of a new
form of consensus will redefine the fundamental social contract, which will use a new
definition of citizenship.
A new Phenomenon and its Importance

During the 1983 municipal elections, immigrants entered the political stage by the front
door, having been promoted to the position of second degree actors by the political class.
Before then, and after the pivotal years of 1968-1972, there was a rapid politicization of
immigrants in such non-political issues as housing and regularization, and immigrants

206

became autonomous actors indirectly. Several political uses of immigration can be identified. One is the return to immigration as a symbol on the national level; another is the
attempt to capture a political market by using the theme to attract voters, especially on a
local level; and a third is the organization of marketing purely and simply, with immigration being an element on the international market of major political and economic
importance.

Immigration as a symbolic Issue. France is not the only country to experience such a
phenomenon. During times of crises, nations will attempt to reinforce their legitimacy by
using the control of immigration as an example of their dominance and their capacity to
deal with the challenge of a large, clandestine immigration population capable of entering
their territory illegally - the control of territory being a primary quality of sovereignty. An
American immigration law proposed in 1982 and voted on in 1983 is an example of such
an effort. Several analyses of American immigration policy, however, indicate that such a
law would be of little use except politically. Furthermore, symbolic legislation in this area,
which is designed to alter public opinion by means of a re-legitimation ofthe image of state
control and dominance, could hardly result in the dismantling of the vicious structural
cycle created by clandestine immigration. But immigration control as a political theme
during a time of crisis is, despite its inefficiency,a viable rallying point for the image of the
state only when the public is convinced that such policies are indeed successful. Some
consider that such laws are passed only to reassure a clientele that they have access to a
political market. Thus, the public authorities can easily accept the illusion of a policy of
regularization, as well as a certain degree of failure in implementation, provided that the
image of the government and the current administration that makes such laws is benefited. Public opinion seems to be more sensitive to the idea of control than to control itself,
which reveals the power of persuasion held by a political ideology over administrative
efficiency.
In France, the symbolic dimension of recent agreements on immigration, and particularly border control and internal security, did not escape political notice. On 18 July
1983, Max Gallo, representing the Government, warned of the risk of using the immigration problems as a political weapon. The political rhetoric about immigration, which is
merely an administrative problem in growth years, has assumed a new, ideological tone
reminiscent ofthe period between the two world wars. Could this be an indication that an
obsolete notion of the nation-state is being fostered; that a key period is being used in an
attempt to redefine nationality and the state? Or does French society find it necessary, in
its fragility, to return to grandiose symbols such as the restoration of the State to protect it
from a foreign menace and other feelings of insecurity? The 1983 municipal campaign
slogans, for example, compared the wild immigration programmes of former administrations with todays controlled immigration, as was the case in Marseille. Nevertheless, it
is difficult to distinguish a search for symbolism from a less noble need, being the conquest
of political markets at the expense of the immigrants by passionate displays of nationalistic fervor and political and moral stances, by appeals for mobilization, and by references
to great republican and democratic principles. The strategy of using immigration for
Political gains is obvious.
Immigration: a political Commodity. In this case, immigrants become second degree
Political objects to be used as a rallying theme. The goal appears for the most part to sway
voters by stirring up xenophobic sentiment, rather than to avoid the future loss of second
generation voters by promoting a more conciliatory dialogue. The victory of the right in
the municipal elections in Dreux is an extreme example, and the campaign methods are

207

not new, having been used widely between the two world wars. The game is initially played
at the local level, with immigration being the pretext for municipal political rhetoric, and
the foreignmenace theme serving to fill the gaps in an ideological debate. On the national
level, immigration becomes a showcase for political party generosity (except for the far
right). In March 1983, two mayoral candidates in Paris, Paul Quiles (a Socialist representative from Paris) and Jacques Chirac (RPR Mayor of Pans) held similar positions on
the necessity of findinglarge-scale answers to quell the fear of the other. The left proposed
to do it by intervention, educational and cultural programmes, and protection and respect
for those who are different; the right proposed protection, integration, information and
understanding.
In the municipalities, the situation took on a different tone during the 1983 electoral
campaign. The attitude toward immigrants was often just the reverse side of municipal
policies toward electors. Despite the existence of a few extra-municipal committees which had become more numerous since the 1977 municipal elections - in cities such as
ChamMry, Saint-Etienne and Chiitenay-Malabry, the immigrants were generally viewed
by local officials as a problem population; the difference between this group and other
voters being the lack ofthe right to vote. Insecurity, too, became an exploitable theme with
immigrants (here the Maghrebi) serving as the example of the evolution of the situation in
some neighbourhoods and communities. Candidates of all political persuasions became
entangled in the manipulation and amalgamation of problems concerning and affecting
immigrants.
In Toulon as well, the UDF Mayor, Maurice Arrecku, took on the role of the clarifier of
past wrongs :Asan elected official, it is my duty to say out loud what everyone is thinking
to himselfbut is afraid to say. France must continue its great tradition ofwelcomingthose
who come from afar, but it has never been its role to harbour the unemployed of Europe
and Africa. Our country has become a dust bin containing revolutionaries, delinquents,
and anarchists ofall kinds. We must get rid ofthem. I approve ofthe long-awaited decision
to appoint a Secretary of State Security to act against the presence in France of those who
do not belong here. Be it the right of yesterday or the left of today, everyone has a complex
about facing the immigrant problem. In Dreux, immigration is a political weapon, and
the far right has not hesitated to use it to score in municipal elections. The general secretary
of the National Front Party, Jean-Pierre Stirbois,stated that foreign commandos trained
by communists and the CGT make the rules and use intimidation and violent tactics when
dealing with workers. Such catch-all strategies attract attention since, by their violence
and force, they break with previous municipal election campaigns. Furthermore, in a
political context in which anti-racism is an official moral position demanding respect of
the consensus in the interest of not appearing in bad taste, these strategies represent, for
some voters, a new political dialogue considered to be too conventional and dull, or too
favourable and hypocritical.
These questions on the use of immigrants as a political weapon merit reflection since the
immigrants alone cannot express themselves in the political arena as they do not have the
necessary clout to counteract the weight of overtly xenophobic practices and anti-immigrant rhetoric.
The Political Strategies of the Immigrants
Since 1972-1973,immigrant workers have begun to express themselves in French political
life with aims rather different from those of nationals. These efforts are characterized
mostly by the rise of political autonomy with respect to French pressure groups and parties
(hunger strikes, rent strikes in the SONACOTRA, in 1977, participation in local association movements, strong interventions in conflicts in cities such as Marseille and Grenoble
208

in 1978-1981). Most of these forms of expressionfirst apsared as means to improve their

social and economic conditions in France (such as the strikes by the workers of the Paris
Metro in 1980),with some elements of the political sub-cultureofthe immigrants(the role
of agents and mediators of socialization).Different strategieswere used by the immigrant
workers, individuallyor collectively. Some efforts were aimed at assuring existencein the
city; others strove to gain influence on political and administrative authorites (against
expulsions or administrative decisions); others operated on sectoral levels.
Such movements raise the question of the relationshipbetween the institutionalization
of relationships to politics and the originality and specificity of infra- or sub-political
levels of expression,which risked rapid disappearance.We could then ask if the emergence
of institutionalized forms of representation would not risk depriving immigrant worker
movements of their political specificity and of the originality of their forms of politicization with respect to the political system of the host country (cf the debate on political
rights).
In the later years, the strikes of illegals (1980-1982)again raised the question of the
dynamics of association and conflict among immigrants. The essence of the political fight
on the local level resided in the dynamism of local associations and the struggles of the
illegal foreign workers themselves. Hunger strikes by immigrants awaiting legalizationin
Nimes and Avignon in February 1982, and in Nice in November 1982, enabled them to
have their cases re-opened after they had been denied legalization on the prefectoriallevel.
These conflicts underscored the inadequacy of the criteria for legalization,which ranged
from proof of steady employment to the nature of clandestine labour (seasonal, temporary, part-time, etc.). They were supportedby pressuregroups, which included the Roman
Catholic Church, immigrant aid associations, and the extreme left-wing political parties.
The support of the main-stream labour unions was very nuanced.
In their forms of expression, which were said to be uncontrollable, and in the nature of
their backers on the local level, the conflicts that occurred in France in I98 I 1982 with
regard to the legalizationprogramme, were more similar to the types of conflicts spawned
by the Marcellin-Fontanet decrees in 1972 - which made easy legalization virtually
impossible- than to the conflicts involving legal foreign labour in the automobile industry
of 1982-1983. The latter conflicts benefited from more union support, especially from the
CGT, perhaps because they were of a more orthodox form. If clandestine immigration is
now occurring on such a scale that it prefigures a new form of immigration, it also
constitutes a challenge to the institutionalizedlocal political forces as to their capacity to
adapt to the demands of clandestine aliens.
More recently, and especially since the marches for equal rights organized by secondgeneration immigrants in the suburbs of Lyon from 15 October to 3 December 1983, the
challenge to the nation-state seems to be all the more forceful in that it avoids the usual
reprisals (by workers and/or unions) and focuses on the role of pressure groups.

CONCLUSION: A POLITICAL COMMODITY

Because the immigrants in France lack the right to vote, the theme of immigration has
become a commodity in France. Presently, in the face of the use of immigration as a
political theme by the extreme right, immigrant associationsand churches are demanding
a national debate on immigration.

209

LEVOLUTION DE LA POLITIQUE DE LEMIGRATION

EN FRANCE DEPUIS MAI 1981
Lauteur de larticle, Catherine Wihtol de Wenden, retrace lCvolution de la politique de
Iimmigration en France depuis mai 1981. Elle dkcrit dabord les principales decisions
politiques prises en ce domaine et en indique lorientation. Elle analyse ensuite les limites
dune politique institutionnelleet declarative et ses effets nkgatifs possibles. Elle formule,
en conclusion, quelques observations sur les dkfis nouveaux et les pressions nouvelles
venant de limmigration dans le processus de decision politique de la France daujourdhui.

LA EVOLUCION DE LA POLiTICA DE INMIGRACIbN

DE FRANCIA A PARTIR DE MAY0 DE 1981

La autora, Catherine Wihtol de Wenden, examina en este articulo la evolucion de la

politica de Francia en materia de inmigracion desde mayo de 1981. Describe en primer
tkrmino las principales decisiones politicas adoptadas a1 respecto, y las tendencias que
estas revelan. Luego de haber analizado 10s limites de una politica institucional y declarativa, y sus posibles efectos negativos, concluye con algunas observaciones sobre 10s
nuevos problemas e influenciasque presenta actualmentela inmigracion en el proceso de
adopcion de decisiones politicas por parte del Estado francts.

NOTES
(1) Cf. Douglas E. Ashford, Policy and Politics in France: Living with Uncertainty. Temple University Press, 1982, Philadelphia. Gary Freeman, Immigrant Labor and Racial Conflict in Industrial
Societies. The French and British Experience 1945- 1975. Princeton University Press, 1979, Princeton. Martin A. Schain, Immigrants and Politics in France: Local Politics, Socialism and Race, in:
John S . Ambler, ed., France under Socialist Leadership. Phila Institute for the Study of Human
Issues, 1983. Aristide R. Zolberg, International Migration in Political Perspective, in: Mary M.
Kritz, Charles B. Keely and Silvano M. Tomasi (eds.) Global Trends in Migration: A Theory and
Research on International Population Movements. Center for Migration Studies, 1981, pp. 3-27.
Aristide R. Zolberg, Dilemmas at the Gate: The Politics of Immigration in Advanced Industrial
Societies, Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Denver, 2 September
1982.
(2) Cf. D. Ashford, op. cif.: A more accurate version of French immigration policy from a political
perspective might well be that France never knew what policy to follow.
G. Freeman describes for the 1945-1975 period the tendency to depoliticize and technicize the
problem and its failures, and observes a movement ofthe question from the periphery to the centre of
the political system.

(3) M. Schain, op. cit., sees a contradiction between reassessment of Arabs identity and their defacto
integration into French society.
A. Zolberg,op. cit., notes a contradiction between moral and political aims and economic interests:
the main gate and the back door.

210

(4) Cf Catherine Wihtol de Wenden, Les immigrks, enjeu politique, Les temps modernes (Nrs.
452-453-454), March, April, May 1984, on Limmigration maghrebine en France, pp. 18581876.

(5) Catherine Wihtol de Wenden, L6change de lettres franco-algkriens du 18 septembre 1980:

reflexions sur une politique de concertation bilaterale. GRECO 13, Actes du colloque de Grenoble,
sur Limmigration algkrienne (in press).
(6) Jacqueline Costa-Lascoux and Catherine Wihtol de Wenden, French policy towards illegals: an
institutional and political comparative analysis with the American decision-making process (to be
published in the International Migration Review, special issue on illegals, end of 1984).
(7) Cf. Catherine Wihtol de Wenden, La seconde genkration, Project, Nr. 171-172, special issue on
Ces immigres qui sont aussi la France, pp. 100-112.
(8) Cf. Catherine Wihtol de Wenden, Droits politiques des immigrks, &tudes, January 1982, pp.
33-44.
(9) The French Government has announce& the creation of subsidies for the reintegration of
unemployed foreign workers willing to return to their countries. The funding of this subsidy will be
shared by the State, the employer, and the unemployment insurance fund. Council of Ministers, 4
April 1984.
(10) Georgina Dufoix, State Secretary in charge of immigration, has recently announced the adoption of a unique residence and work card for foreign workers. This card was strongly supported by
most ofthe immigrant associations. Ifthis is adopted by Parliament, the new law will replace some of
the measures taken in October 1981 or announced in August 1983(Council of Ministers, 3 1 August
1983). Cf Jacqueline Costa-Lascoux, Lespace migratoire institutionnel :un espace clos et contr6lC ?
Espace, Populations, Sociktks, Nr. 2, January-February 1984, pp. 69-88.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
French Immigration Policy before May 1981
Francoise BRIOT, Gilles VERBUNT, lmmigrks duns la crise, Paris, Ed. Ouvrieres, 1981, 188 I:
Jacqueline COSTA-LASCOUX,Une legislation pour une nouvelle politique de Iimmigration?,
Pluriel, No.22, 1980, Paris, pp. 9-32.

La politique francaise de lirnmigration depuis 1978: logiques et contradictions. In: Journees

detudes sur Iimrnigration, Lille, CRESGE, 1981, 12 p.
Jacqueline COSTA-LASCOUX, Catherine WIHTOL de WENDEN, Les travailleurs irnrnigres
clandestins en France: deux approches, Studi Emigrazione, No.63, septembre 198I , Rome.
Jacqueline COSTA-LASCOUX, Les oublies de la politique franeaise de Iimrnigration : les
femrnes imrnigrees et les enfants dimmigres in: Migrations internes et externes en Europe Occidentale. Hommes et Terres du Nord, Actes du colloque international de Lille (octobre 1980), tome 2,
1981, No.57 1-591.
Jacqueline COSTA-LASCOUX, Catherine WIHTOL de WENDEN, Immigres: le travail clandestin, Encyclopedia Universalis, 1982, pp. 283-287.
Jacqueline COSTA-LASCOUX, La politique francaise de remigration et la condition de la
deuxitme generation, 1974-I98 I , L emigration maghrkbine en Europe, Alger, CREA (Actes du
colloque dAlger: Crises en Europe et emigration maghrebine, de mars 1981), 1982, pp. 331-367.

21 1

Mark MILLER, Foreign workers in western Europe: A n emerging political force. New York,
Praeger, 1981, 228 p.
Eric-Jean THOMAS, Les travailleurs immigrks en Europe: quel statut? Paris, Les Presses de
IUNESCO, 1981,249 p.
Gilles VERBUNT, Qui rkgit la politiquedelimmigration?Projet, No. 147,juillet-aoat 1980, Paris,
pp. 817-822.
Catherine WIHTOL de WENDEN, Les immigrksdans la citP, Pans, La Documentation Franpise,
1978, 135 p.

--____
Immigres, Encyclopedia Universalis, 1979, pp. 765-767.

__--__
Face a la lo?, Informations Sociales, Immigration : la metamorphose, No.9- 10/79.

----_La participation des immigres a la vie locale, Correspondance municipale. Les immigrh duns la
commune. ADELS, No.204, janvier 1980, pp. 6-1 1.

-----Une immigration durable en Europe, Projet, juillet-aoiit 1980, Paris, pp. 823-838.

---.-Leretour des travailleurs immigres en France dans leurs pays dorigine,Die Dritte Welt, No.3-4,
1980, pp. 291-305.
Lespace politique des immigrks en France, in : Migrations internes et externes en Europe Occidentale, Hommes et Terres du Nord, Actes du colloque international de Lille (octobre 1980),Tome 2,
1981, pp. 605-622.

-__-__
Les orientations recentes de la politique franCaise de retour 1980-1981, LPmigration maghrtbine
en Europe, Alger, CREA, (Actes du colloque dAlger: Crises en Europe et emigration maghrkbine de
mars 1981), 1982, pp, 315-330.

Les immigrks et Ic discours politique municipal, GRECO 13 - Recherches sur les migrations
internationales, 1982, No.4-5, pps 68-79, CNRS.
French Immigration Policy after May 1981
Douglas ASHFORD, Policy and Politics in France: Living with Uncertainty. 1982, Temple University Press, Philadelphia.
Association de junstes pour le respect des droits fondamentaux des immigris. Le droit et les
immigrts, (Actes du colloque de Marseille, janvier 1982), Edisud, 1983.
Jacqueline COSTA-LASCOUX, Le projet de traitement automatist. des titres de sejour detrangers, GRECO 13 - Recherches sur les migrations internationales, 1982, No.2, CNRS.

___--La politique migratoire franCais depuis mai 1981. (Actes du colloque dArniens, organise par
Pluriel, decembre 1982), Pluriel La France au pluriel, 1984, Ed. LHarmettan, pp. 221-249.
Lespace migratoire institutionnel: un espace clos et contr61e? Espace, Populations, SociPrts,
No.9, janvier-fevrier 1984, pp. 69-88.

212

Jacqueline COSTA-LASCOUX, Catherine WIHTOL de WENDEN, French policy towards illegals: an institutional and comparative analysis with the American decision-making process, (to be
published in International Migration Review, special issue, end of 1984).
Jean-Pieme GARSON, Yann MOULIER, Les clandestins et la regularisation de 1981-1982 en
France, Gentve, BIT, Migration internationalepour 1 Emploi,Document de travail, mai 1982, 104 p.

----_Les obstacles majeurs a un contrble des migrants en situation imkgulitre, Gentve, CIM Sixikme
seminuire sur Iadaptationet Iintkgrationdes immigrants (avril 1983), Doc. dinformation, No.3 1,22 p.
Jean-Pieme GOMANE, Flux migratoires et impacts possibles sur la population Franqaise, Futuribles, juin 1983, pp. 91-104.
Jean LECA, Questions sur la citoyennete, Projet, janvier 1983, Ces &rangers gui sont aussi la
France, No. sgcial, 171-172, pp. 113-125.
James MARANGE, Andre LEBON, Linsertion des jeunes dorigine Ptrangkre duns la sociktk
fiancaise. Paris, La Documentation FranCaise, 1982, 270 p.
Martin SCHAIN, Immigrants and politics in France: local politics, Socialism and race (to be
published as a Chapter in John Ambler, ed. France under Socialist leadership, Phila Institute for the
Study of Human Issues, 1983).
Roxane SILBERMAN,Lkvolution des migrations internationales et Ienjeu des politiques migratoires en France, Ecole Normale Sukrieure, GRAMI, Doc. de travail No.2, fkvrier 1983, 25 p.
Gilles VERBUNT, Lanouvelle politique migratoire en France CIEM, Dossier Migrations, NovDec. 1981, No.5, 4 p.
Catherine WIHTOL de WENDEN, Droits politiques des immigres, Etudes, janvier 1982, pp.
33-44.

_----La seconde generation, Projet, janvier 1983, Ces Ptrangers qui sont aussi la France, No. spkial,
171-172, pp. 100-112.

_----Lechange de lettres franco-algerien du 18 septembre 1980 et son evolution en 1981 et 1982:

reflexions sur une politique de concertation bilaterale. Actes du colloque du GRECO Migrations
internationales sur (immigration algbrienne. Grenoble, janvier 1983 (a paraitre fin 1984),
CNRS.

---__Lesimmigres enjeu politique, Les TempsModernes, Nos 452,453 and 454 - mars, avril, mai 1984,
pp. 1858-1876 in: Limmigration maghrebine en France.

213