We the Immigrants

Europeans are taught from an early age to think that the term migration should never come up as referring to the history of Europe. Although the dominance of the Eurocentric narrative is beginning to change, the concept that some cultural circles are inferior, even uncivilized, compared to the European one is very much alive. Most debates on immigration in European politics revolve around the conviction that European heritage could not possibly benefit from other cultural circles and that foreigners pose a threat to European integrity due to their inability to comprehend European values. While the perception of one’s culture as the most important is not limited to Europe, nowhere else is the need to protect it from outsiders expressed so openly.

France has worked out values defining the French identity independently of race, ethnicity, and religion but is not exempt from the belief in European greatness and its homogeneity. The country’s history, dating back to the 10th century and extending to the Gallic times, has shaped its stature as one of the cruces of European culture. Perhaps that’s why there are so many innuendos in the public discourse linking contemporary French society to Gauls, Franks, and later dynasties. One of the French classic comedies, Les Visiteurs, tells the story of a 12th-century knight and his squire traveling in time to the end of the 20th century, inadvertently encountering their descendants.

While today’s France undoubtedly derives from historical continuity, it bears no resemblance to the state at its inception. As a matter of fact, it wasn’t for most of its existence secular and democratic. The French Republic, a direct outcome of the French Revolution, is relatively new. The same applies to its values that developed in a long and complex process of overturning the previous order. What was inconceivable for centuries has gradually become the staple of French identity. Regardless of differences between particular states, everything Europeans cherish about their Europeanness was born and bred in more or less the same way.

France’s rejection of identity politics leaves liberty in cultivating one’s ethnocultural identity by sequestrating it from the public sphere, where identification as a citizen is non-negotiable. In other words, this seclusion ensures both allegiance to the state and citizens’ right to their religious, racial, or cultural identity; as long as there is no conflict of interest with the values of the French Republic, the secular state can’t impose anything in the matter. In that sense, such egalitarian dogmatism could be the panacea to the challenges of consolidating a multicultural society, but unfortunately, it turns out to be too idealistic to be true. Albeit France has never been free from prejudice and discrimination, the current surge in right-wing, anti-immigration sentiments lays bare a drastic shift back from the original vision of freedom regarding the identity of an individual.

The balance between public and private is increasingly disturbed by successive laws purporting to defend French values against foreign influence and radicalization. The controversial ban on wearing the abaya is possibly the most prominent proof of absurd laws introduced in alleged protection of the public interest, but in fact, limiting identity expression within the sphere of private life. Considering that the abaya has no religious significance and represents nothing more but a garment specific to a particular cultural circle, it’s hard to see the law in a sense other than restricting people of Muslim background from expressing their ethnicity. Fearing accusations of unfair treatment contradictory to freedom professed by the French Republic, the government wants to resolve the problem with school uniforms. The proposed measure seems to echo conservative politicians who uplift ideas such as the prohibition on foreign names suggested by 2022 presidential candidate and far-right politician Éric Zemmour.

Unlike the United States, France doesn’t embrace the reputation of a melting pot, even though immigration has a crucial impact on the country’s growth. France takes pride in people of immigrant backgrounds who reached excellence in their disciplines, science, or arts. Some were naturalized and assimilated, while others were born and raised as second and third-generation French citizens. All of them were able to thrive thanks to the inclusive approach to immigration. Foreign-sounding last names are omnipresent in France; they are everywhere, in every social circle, profession, and politics.

It’s part of the social contract that neither someone’s origins nor sexual orientation should become a discussion matter, hence the difference in how the American and French media portray newly appointed Prime Minister Gabriel Attal. But that’s not always the case. Derogatory remarks based on soccer players’ skin color occasionally resurface, questioning the legitimacy of the national football and proving how conditional is the national motto promising liberty, equality, and fraternity. It goes beyond the definition of an immigrant as this division is also visible in the perception of overseas territories such as the Antilles, where the black inhabitants, mostly descendants of slaves brought by force from Africa, are treated as second-class citizens because of their skin color. The recent tightening of immigration law catering to populist views on immigration, in the French government’s evident turn to the right, indicates that France is heading further in that direction.

Without a doubt, there are valid concerns associated with migrations that the officials should address in policymaking. Immigration law is necessary, playing a critical role in protecting the order in place and enabling seamless coexistence. But the intentions behind policies often turn out to be misleading, diverting attention from the government’s ineptitude or serving the political pursuits of populist parties vying for power. Immigration-regulating measures are already in force. Those facilitating integration into French society as well. Whenever they turn out to be inefficient, it’s usually due to indifference of the services. Poor suburbs, so-called quartiers populaires, inhabited predominantly by immigrants, become culturally isolated because of disparities. The looming sense of systemic injustice propels religious radicalization as a response to the lack of equal opportunities. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy where poverty and discrimination lead to crime rate increase and forming precarious ethnic enclaves separated from the rest of society. Conservative populists deliberately downplay the paramount issue of the flawed system to misinterpret the outcome perceptible from the outside in order to blame diverse cultural influences and the supposed inability of certain foreigners to adapt. By inciting Kafkaesque fear based on what’s palpable but not comprehended, right-wing politicians gain more political leverage without proposing any accurate solutions to the problem. Since many people form opinions on immigration from subjective media coverage and social media, these efforts to propagate exaggerated fears have been incredibly successful, which explains the recent decisive shift of a centrist straddling divide toward right-wing policies. On the other hand, anti-immigrant sentiment also thrives on left-leaning parties, often completely discrediting concerns about immigration and failing to address social issues other than by decrying any emerging fears as immoral, causing anti-immigration populists to look like empathetic listeners.

Probably the most obsolete European concept is that there are still ethnically and culturally homogeneous nations. France was, is, and will be a multicultural country shaped by immigrants. Yet, the futile discussion over forbidding immigration keeps going in circles. We are long past the point where it was a debatable option. Now, the only question the Western world should be asking is how to handle it. To that end, we should support fair policymaking that sets concrete rules allowing harmonious coexistence while acknowledging the dignity of each individual. Improving the functioning system in a solution-focused manner would be beneficial to everyone. While this approach is inherent to the country’s core principles, it’s slowly succumbing to populist propaganda spreading the biased perception of immigration, according to which cultural exchange could by no means bring anything to the table. But going down that path would probably lead us to a Brexit-like situation and the bitter realization that greatness seldom comes with political placebos.