I have modified some entries since some things have changed:
- Hillary Clinton got in trouble in a debate when asked about Spitzer's plan. New York governor Eliot Spitzer stopped his attempt to provide driver's licenses to undocumented immigrants, while San Francisco is close to implementing this (for more see updated blog entry).
-In France, the Constitutional Committee declared on November 14th, 2007 that the legislative proposal regarding DNA tests included in the new immigration law was constitutional as long as the tests also respect the laws of the country of origin (very few people are clear about what is that supposed to mean). Concluding that discretionary and differential treatment depending on country of origin is NOT anti-egalitarian. While it declared that any official COMPILATION of ETHNIC STATISTICS of people living in France unconstitutional, since it violates the principles of equality espoused in the French Constitution and its declaration of human rights. Few people have bothered to point out the contradiction between these two rulings, one in favor of inequality within France and the other one accepting different administrative rules for people from different countries. Obviously this group of wise men cares more about political and ideological concerns than about philosophical coherence. So, the heinous DNA tests have been symbolically approved, although probably rendered inapplicable by so many caveats, while the law to finally gather statistical data to look empirically at issues of de facto inequality between people who are theoretically equal was disapproved by Chirac who opposed this idea throughout his 12 years as President(see DNA blog entry).
-The person who had been fooling foreign students into renting the same department many times, all while collecting their rent deposits, was found trying to leave to Italy and is under arrest (see blog entry called "Trust in Economic Transactions").
- People at Rue de la Banque continue sleeping in the streets since they have not found adequate housing. There was a big march on Sunday November 11th, 2007 in which I participated too, although, fortunately I have finally found stable housing in Paris.
- Students and transportation workers continue to strike in France.
What would be the worst result of immigration “management and control”? For hypothetical and theoretical reasons, let’s consider what this world would look like. (Any coincidence with real life events is a mere coincidence. Real life cases are used here to exemplify but should not be used to generalize).
After whole-scale groups of immigrants and long time residents are labeled as “illegal”, "alien", "criminal" and “terrorist” and are thus dehumanized while being considered a “security threat”, the security apparatuses of the “host” countries would then develop a “low level warfare” in order to rid their societies of “unwanted elements.” Repressive and undemocratic regimes in the “less developed nations” would engage in this, but so would the “most advanced liberal regimes.” The issue would become such a pressing one that not only professional military and police staff would be engaged in "national protection" but also civil guards, militias, and citizen groups would get mobilized in an effort that would start looking like a set of civil wars, first symbolic and discursive, and then violent, between groups of citizens across countries. Because most countries in the Global North would be engaged in the same behavior simultaneously, no one could point fingers or ask for things to change. Without the backup of influential national governments, the U.N., and NGOs would have a limited palliative effect and only solidarity and civil disobedience by citizens would be able to reverse some of the adverse effects of this civil war [e.g. in France, "More than 22,000 people have joined protest movements and underground networks to hide immigrant children and prevent their parents' deportation. They call themselves a new Resistance" (Chrisafis, 2007)].
In order to cure the "social body", the social doctor must:
1 Locate a naturally occurring phenomena and categorize it as a minor disease that can be cured.
2 He must diagnose a society with it.
3 He must move to intervene and operate.
4 But the cure should never be complete. The victim has to continuously check her status and engage in preventive actions.
Lets study these steps in more detail.
Anti-immigrant Recipe
1. First, security professionals, enabling social scientists, demagogic politicians, journalists, and concerned citizens would "categorize the problem", in this case the "immigrant problem". Then measure it, and ask for solutions. What would this look like?
a) Measure illegal immigration with broad approximations and display it in the manner of a ticking bomb, next to the number of prisoners and disease rates, so that people will associate these ontologically different things in their minds:
b) Create more laws to produce new illegal and terrorist categories. In contrast to the past make it illegal for foreigners to come to your country if they lack visas, even if the have jobs or families in your country. Make it hard to obtain visas and renew them but make sure your industries can exploit them. To prevent collective action pass laws against any "radicalization" and "politicization."
(e.g. on October 23, 2007, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the law "H.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007" where: "The term 'violent radicalization' means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change" and " 'ideologically based violence' means the use, planned use, or threatened useof force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs." http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1955 emphasis my own).
c) Locate the problem geographically, map it and display it graphically:
The Los Angeles Police Department tried to map all Muslims living in Los Angles in order "to determine which communities might be having problems integrating into the larger society and thus might have members susceptible to carrying out attacks, much like domestic cells in England and elsewhere in Europe. ... There are people out there who believe in extreme violent ideology who present a threat to the American people, and that is what we are trying to prevent. ... This could be called another prevention strategy” said Michael P. Downing, deputy Los Angeles Police chief who is heading the L.A. "Counter-Terrorism Bureau" (MacFarquhar, 2007). Try to avoid that civil rights groups (e.g. ACLU) stop this initiatives and complain if they do and call them anti-(insert your nationality).
d) Provide "real time" security warnings:
Use devices like the "Global Incident Map Displaying Terrorist Acts, Suspicious Activity, and General Terrorism News" not for research purposes but to create a feeling of emergency, anxiety and fear.
e) You can also use the "Tracking Illegal Alien Activities, Arrests, Crimes, Legislation, and U.S. Border Enforcement" to further mix in the minds of the "public opinion" migration, illegality and terrorism and insecurity.
f) Any time there is a car accident or a crime involving an immigrant, report and map it, as this will make people confuse causation with correlation and ignore other evidence and simple probability and statistical principles. Thus underline crimes committed by immigrants (even if their overall rates are lower that those for natives as in the case in the U.S.). If there are a lot of crimes in an area (e.g. Newark, N.J.) and an immigrant commits homicide or runs someone over repeat the mantra if "that illegal would have been deported those (students, young, children, elders) would still be alive." Do not forget to remind the public about the rise of auto-defense groups and immigrant and ethnic gangs.
g) Target easily visible symbols:
Given the supposed claim of a "clash of civilizations" invented by "prestigious intellectuals" bash anything that is alien to the Western tradition. Define this tradition as Secular/Protestant/Christian/or Judeo-Christian depending on the audience and purpose (as Sarkozy recently told fellow heads of state, off the record, "Too many Muslims in Europe create a big problem. Thus accepting Turkey into the European Union would only make things worse" (Quatremer, 2007).
Accordingly, people may be interested in finding a Mosque near them for purposes other than praying (they can do so at http://www.themosquemap.com/home.php). They can also oppose the constructions of new Mosques close to them, as people in London have recently succeeded in doing (Perlez, 2007).
2. Intervene/Operate
h) Make it much harder to get a visa, asking for an almost impossible set of papers, fees and requirements that contradict each other, and then have idiosyncratic and ethnocentric bureaucrats apply their discerning opinion over the dossiers. There is no rush, non-citizens have no right to complain even if the processes takes some years. Keep these departments understaffed and badly paid so people do not have an incentive to process each case too rapidly. Every moment you save, may give you an excuse to deport someone or deny an application thanks to new information or new laws.
i) Militarize your borders, strengthen security at entry ports. For example, according to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security press communique (November 6, 2007):
"The Border Patrol now has roughly 15,000 agents and by the end of next year we will have more than 18,300 agents. This doubles the size of the Border Patrol under President Bush’s leadership." Furthermore, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Bureau (ICE) "continues to increase worksite enforcement operations. In Fiscal Year 2007, ICE made 863 criminal arrests and 4,077 administrative arrests for a total of 4,940 arrests."
j) Make sure to increase fines, and make the case that the applicants should be the ones paying for the red tape and charge them accordingly, but this shall not stop you of calling the applicants a fiscal charge. Make sure to make immigration bureaus profitable and keep the salaries of top officials high, they are a good place to place loyal friends and family. For example, in Fiscal Year 2007, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) "obtained more than $30 million in criminal fines, restitutions and civil judgments as a result of worksite enforcement."
k) Most importantly, start deporting people. I repeat, deport any
"deportable" individuals or imprison them for minor misdemeanors, even if you have to leave their children, who were born in your country and are thus citizens with a constitutional right to a family, without a family. Remember, they are illegal so they have no rights anyway, forget international conventions, no one is looking. So drug them if necessary (CNN/Gutierrez, 2007). Set goals for yourself e.g. 25,000 people most be deported from France in 2007 by executive decree (Chrisafis, 2007). Challenge yourself and break your own records. For an success see case realize that in the U.S., "The number of immigrants deported has risen to more than 261,000 in fiscal 2007, up from about 177,000 two years" before [last fiscal year ended on September 30th] (Gorman, 2007). In the United States, the immigrant detainee population surpassed 30,000 nationally up from about 19,700 on fiscal 2006.
l) If there are any protests, repress them:
Marching for immigrant rights? Why? They have no rights. They are illegal. What part of illegal don't you understand? Waving other countries' flags? This is not the world cup or St. Patrick's day! This is offensive and threatening. Even if unarmed, they are enemy combatants, an invading army, and so they should be treated. Children present? Well, that is how they start. Send in the army dressed as policemen and call them peace enforcers.
m) When those techniques have been normalized, you can also use them against your citizens or tourists, for example, outside of a night club in a well know street.
n) You can also use these techniques at "public" places such as the airport. Remember the wisdom of previous statesmen, when you cannot understand the language or the situation, "first shoot and then ask questions", as the Mexican President Porfirio Diaz used to say. It works so well that he was able to stay in power for more than thirty years!
4. Vacinate
o) To avoid any return to a previous state of peace, multiculturalism, and co-habitation, create hatred. Use proved xenophobic techniques (ADL, 2007) and do not prosecute those civilians and civil organizations (like the KKK) who use time-tested techniques, just try to prevent the fascists and anti-fascists from getting killed by ultra-nationalists and neo-nazis or vice versa (Barroso, 2007).
p) Condemn racism, and make sure not to sound racist, remember this is not about race but about ... the regime of law (your law). Frame any operationalization to respect the rights of another group (e.g. Affirmative Action) as unfair, racist, and discriminating against your group. Repeat ad nauseam and people will see how it makes sense.
q) A high level of success will be achieved when wild animals and pets have more rights than illegal immigrants and people come to the rescue of non-vaccinated bitting pets over trespassing immigrant gardeners, they should had not been in the country in the first case, forget the fact that you call them to work on your garden (see The Princeton Packet, 2007).
You want to get until z)? You need more specifics? Well, for that you will have to hire my expertise as a consultant. It will be expensive but it is so worth it (it may get you elecetd, furthermore the social doctor needs a job). Unfortunately, you will have to wait, because there is a long waiting list of people wanting to follow this recipe. Luckily in some months some presidential pre-candidates may be looking for a new income generating activity that may also get them some media attention and influence.
Rare (?) real-life examples of this possible future world:
The UDC and the Diffusion of Xenophobia as an Electoral Tool
by Ernesto Castaneda
On October 21st an election took place in Switzerland. Or so claims the press: I was in Lausanne, Switzerland on that day, and I had a hard time finding voting booths or any other signs of what they now call in Mexico “la fiesta de la democracia” - people in the streets, lining up to vote, fingers marked, people glued to the TV or the radio, general expectation. The Swiss friend I went to visit in Lausanne told me that many people voted by mail days before the official Election Day so the only thing left to do was to continue with every day life. So my sister, her boyfriend and I along with some international friends enjoyed the beauty of Switzerland. Still as foreigners the knowledge that UDC was getting voted as we walked the streets, made us feel less welcomed and took away some of the real beauty of the incredible landscapes in the wine region next to Lausanne and of out of the historic cities I visited.
The election generated a lot of national and international attention because of a controversial campaign run by the right wing People's Party UDC/SVP (Union Démocratique du Centre/ Schweizerische Volkspartei). During the campaign, the party either showed its leader and symbol Christoph Blocher, as my sister said "he looks like an inoffensive loving grandpa", unfortunately he seems to want to follow the career path of Jean-Marie Le Pen as one can see in another poster from his party depicting three white sheep kicking out a black sheep.
The open aim of the campaign was to mobilize people with the argument that, if elected, the UDC/SVP would change the laws so that immigrant criminals would be deported. Not a terrible idea -it is hard to be against that very particular point. Many countries do it or worse including making non-resident criminals spend their sentence in prison and then when they come out, deporting them. And in some cases, the prisoners may prefer to be in a prison at home than abroad where they may face more harassment if they are in the minority.
Maybe just to sound convincing, or maybe out of conviction and honesty, the party ran an overall xenophobic campaign against new immigrants specially from African and Muslim countries, who supposedly threaten the spirit of the country. Although once you start with one group it is hard to stop there.
The UDC even provided some free video games in which the party’s pet - a goat called Zottel- had to make sure to patrol the Swiss borders and prevent black sheep from crossing into Switzerland’s border and to prevent hands of color to obtain Swiss passports. The game was available at http://www.zottel-game.com/ one had to see it to believe how openly xenophobic the game was. But in order to avoid further scrutiny the well-programmed video games were removed by the party after winning the elections. Unfortunately there was no GAME OVER.
Opposition
Fortunately, many in Switzerland critized the UDC campaign and the Zottel game. Many blogs, mainly in swiss-german, strongly criticized the idea behind the game. Some blogs provided parodies and someone went as far as to program (a somewhat violent) videogame where a Swiss citizen (or the player) kicks Blocher out of the country (available at http://www.bkanal.ch/content/bock-buster-game/).
On a somewhat more serious note an organization called "Moutons de Garde" (guardian sheeps) has mixed the symbol of the U.N. peacekeppers, the blue helmets, with the idea of the black and white sheeps. The "blue sheeps" are Swiss citizens whose aim is to render political debates (moraly) acceptable (nous "souhaitons que les débats politiques redeviennent acceptables") and they have engaged in different actions including a petition, a Facebook group, and direct political activism (http://moutonsdegarde.ch/mdg/view.php?p=4&lang=fr).
A Multicultural, Multilingual Society
Switzerland is a federation of different independent cantons with their own languages (French, Swiss German, and Italian), governments and traditions. Throughout Switzerland many of the UDC/SVP posters were vandalized or marked with graffiti. Given their racist premises many hoped and were almost sure that the party would do badly. But the amount of attention the party was able to garner, along with the claims that the “UDC answered the reality of many Swiss people”, as one car mechanic told the Genève Tribune (10/23/2007), resulted in a landslide victory for the UDC/SVP, which extended its popularity to the French part of Switzerland, la Suisse Romande, which includes the cities of Lausanne and Geneva. This are proved decisive in the national growth of the UDC.But as Mina Bali, a Swiss working at the U.N. told the Tribue de Geneve, “It is incredible that a nationalist party got the first place in an international city like Geneva, which houses many UN and international offices and bureaucrats” (TDG 10/23/2007). Indeed, Geneva has a total population of 444,285, of which 276,168 are Swiss residents and 168,117 foreign residents in 2007 (Naef 2007), an extremely high proportion of foreigners and there were no routine problems or conflicts. This is indeed a global city (both in its cosmopolitan sense, as well as in that of Saskia Sassen).
But Geneva has been losing population due to the exit of foreign residents. Maybe because of the anti-immigrant sentiment generated in this political campaign, maybe because they cannot find jobs as some professional friends, or maybe because of other reasons, but in any case many immigrants are leaving Geneva. In 2007, 16,752 people arrived while 18,984 left - a net loss of 2,232 people. Taking into account new births, Geneva still has 1,021 people less than the previous year. And government officials are worried about this. To complicate things, there are more than 645,000 Swiss living abroad, a portion in which sent their ballots from overseas (Swissinfo 2007).
Further pointing to the complex Swiss reality, at the same time that the UDC did so well, Ricardo Lumengo, who was born in Angola and came to Switzerland as a refugee in 1982 when he was 20 years old, became the first black person elected to the national parliament.
Swiss Political System
The Swiss government has three levels: the federal, the canton, and the commune. The executive power is exercised by a Federal Council formed by seven members. The symbolic Presidency of the Council rotates amongst the members and lasts one year, while the other members are in charge of different ministries. The Federal Councilors are elected for four years by the Federal Assembly (it is common to be re-elected) and this council generally represents the support that each party has amongst the population. Thus Blocher (UDC) will likely stay in the council as a vice-president this coming year, and it would be his turn to serve as President the following year.
A Record Year (?)
The local morning newspaper claimed that participation in this election broke a record in the recent years although information from the Swiss Federal Statics Office shows otherwise, participation has been in a strong decline.
The right-wing UDC won a record number of seats (62 out of the national council’s 200). Indeed a record in terms of relative gain for a party the UDC. Although the Green party also gained much terrain. What is also true is that the UDC broke an overall campaign record in campaign spending, spending more than all the other parties together. Some of the funding sources are not very clear. It also helps that Blocher has made millions with his chemicals company.
(source Swissinfo.ch)
The President of the UDC Ueli Maurer attributes the great victory of his party to its three main policy proposals:
1) Not joining the European Union
2) Reducing taxes
3) Fighting against national security threats (Le Matin:2 10/22/2007);
A libertarian and neutral agenda, very compatible with the Swiss tradition, as well as some of the neo-liberal recipes that have swept the world.
Yet
As Swiss sociologist, and friend, Andreas Koller points out, "As for the election results: it is certainly not something that makes you proud... But, on the other hand, given the huge campaign (with as much money as all other parties together), it is actually surprising and reassuring that the national-conservative party (UDC/SVP) gained only 2 percent! And a total of about 29 percent. Something FAR AWAY from an absolute majority. In addition, I assume that many other countries have about the same 30-percent potential of "unreason." (...) Last, but not least, one should not forget that these 29 percent actually only represent less than 15 percent of the eligible Swiss voters (voter participation was only 49%). Not that I want to neglect the problem of the gains of the SVP. But I think it is not such a big deal as some of the international media see it" (Koller, personal communication 10/23/2007).
Indeed if one looks at the resulting composition of the parliament one looks at an almost perfect distribution of seats amongst the political spectrum. The advantage/risk of having a multi-party system is that more specific preferences get reflected in government.
Agenda Setting and Government Kidnapping
The problem arises when one of the radical parties, as minoritarian as it may be, gets to set the agenda, specially with exclusionary, xenophobic, ethnocentric and racist claims. It is a historical fact that despite never having a majoritarian support as a party because of a charismatic leader the Social Democrats in Germany were able to set the agenda and capture the government. Not that this will happen in Switzerland soon. But the opposition is already having a hard time controling the ambitions of Blocher and the UDC to dictatate policy.
UDC calls for DNA Tests
In a clear example of policy convergence (not to say copycat), the new UDC government has already proposed to ask for DNA exams from prospective immigrants under family reunification clauses. The genetic test would only be required from immigrants from certain countries applying to rejoin families in Switzerland, including Turkey and Kosovo. In contrast with France, in the Swiss case, the immigrants will have to pay for the test (cost estimated between CHF 600 and 1,000 or between 500 and 900 U.S. dollars as of November 18, 2007). The Tribune de Genève reports that, “The goal of DNA testing in cases of immigration applicants is to root out cases of possible fraud, such as the use of false birth certificates”(November 5th, 2007) (see entry on the proposed DNA tests in France).
Micro-Sociological Implications
What we have discussed so far mainly lies at the level of political discourse and macro-social political analysis but what happens regarding everyday interactions by people living in Switzerland? To give just one grounded example I will quote my own sister at length.
The Fight over Language: Monica's Experience
"I enrolled in the Master of Advanced Studies in Nutritional Science at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH Zürich) because I fulfilled the language requirements of the program (90% English and 10%German). It was advertised that all the lectures were going to be in English, and that German would be only used in special occasions where invited speakers would not be able to give their lectures in English. This policy has been recently implemented since the ETH is interested in becoming international and to increase its existing insertion in the Anglophone academic world. Many of the ETH researchers publish their research in American and British journals. They also use English materials in their courses."
"On the first day of classes, I arrived at my first class where there were around 60 students. I sat at the end of one of the front rows. Suddenly, the Professor started the class in German! I was quite shocked. After introducing herself, she asked if anybody had problems understanding German. My German was good enough to understand that, so I raised my hand. Few seconds later, I looked around and I realized that I was the only one who had raised a hand. So the professor asked the rest of the students whether it would be a problem to give the lecture in English. To my surprise, I heard several students shouting that they wanted the class in German. I was there all alone against all these people in my first day as a student in the ETH! After this reaction, the lecturer asked me again if it wouldn’t be possible for me to follow the class in German. And I replied that my German skills (my fourth language) were not good enough yet to follow an Immunology course. So once again, the Professor asked who was really against having the lecture in English. But interestingly this time, nobody complained. So it was decided that the class would be given in English."
"However, I could feel that there were some people in the classroom who were unhappy about the situation, maybe understandably so, since the English skills of many were not as strong and having the class in English made it so much harder for them. Swiss-German was the mother tongue of many but not all since there were also Indian, French, Canadian, American and German international students at the classes in my program; as well as students from the French and Italian-speaking Swiss regions. Many students felt it was unfair that they had to take courses in English. One of the lectures was indeed given in German because the Professor will switch to English until next year.There was another class that was given partially in German because it was also offered to bachelor students, and there were several bachelor students who were complaining that they weren’t able to understand English. And according to its own policies, the ETH could only implant lectures in English when the classes were only for Master or PHD students. So I will try to take these courses next semester."
"The same question over the language of instruction ensued in each of my eight courses, and any time a new visiting lecturer came to give a lecture. In some courses, professors would switch after every month or so in order for a specialist to cover a new section of the course syllabus.A month later after starting my classes, a new lecturer arrived and when the issue of preferred teaching-language was raised, there were a lot of hands raised when the professor asked who was against giving the lecture in English. But this time there were also many more people who were in favor of having the class in English, I was no longer the only one raising her hand. I guess that after I spoke up other people felt more confident about asking for the class to be offered in English as it was announced to be" (Monica Castaneda).
Boundary Formation
What we see in Monica’s story is that the class had divided itself along language lines. The debate about language of instruction had put into question the hegemony of Swiss-German in Zurich (see Pierre Bourdieu’s discussion on language and power). At the same time that it further marked the foreigners as such and thus reinforced social boundaries between natives and foreigners. The students I talked to seemed to be extremely conscious about these differences and tensions, especially given the very recent anti-foreigner political campaigns and electoral results. Not surprisingly the resulting friendships also happened along language lines, even when all could make an effort to talk in third neutral language. Normally, each felt more confortable speaking in the mother tongue or when not possible the available lingua franca nowadays English. The professors, researchers and industry guests were happy to lecture in English, many of their slides had already been written in English for international conferences and meetings. Yet not all the students had the same level of English and were indeed affected by English being used in class, readings and mainly exams.
Was this micro-social dynamic similar to that experienced by long time Zurich residents? Many old-time middle age Zurich citizens now see former "traditional" neighborhoods being mainly inhabited by immigrants. In relatively rare, yet very visible cases, these neighborhoods tend to be correlated with red light districts, and higher sale of drugs and consumption of alcohol (even if manily by citizens). Who benefits if instead of letting be and letting time pass until immigrants can fully incorporate into their new society, someone starts pointing that foreigners pose a threat to society?
During the years leading to the completion of the Human Genome Project, many of the scientists involved in the project, as well as concern citizens and people working on bio-ethics, warned that DNA tests could be used to deny jobs, insurance… and now, it seems, even immigration papers: a recently passed law in France would require DNA tests for certain cases of family reunification in order to prove family links.
This law is called the “Loi Hortefeux” because it was proposed by Brice Hortefeux, Minister of Immigration, Integration, National Identity and Co-Development, who also happens to be a close friend of Nicolas Sarkozy since 1976. According to the deputy Noël Mamère from the Green Party (AFP), and many others, Sarkozy intended to use this law to make good on his campaign promise of tighter immigration control, and pander to the followers of Le Pen at the far right who voted for him in the last election.
The Racist Premises of the DNA Tests
The thorniest issue in the law is the amendment proposed by the Deputy Thierry Mariani, thus called “the Mariani amendment”, which would require that DNA tests be performed as “scientific” proofs of kinship, on people applying to live in France coming from countries that lack formal civil registries or whose quality is doubtful (read: certain parts of sub-Saharan Africa).
What the media has been reluctant to discuss are the heavy racist connotations of this amendment, including the following: 1) The presupposition that immigrants are liars who aim to fool the government, 2) The prejudiced view that black Africans “all look alike”! So how would the government know that when a black person living legally in France requests that their children join him/her whether or not these are in fact their kids and not nephews, or the children of friends? This is the justification that some people in the streets use to justify the law. 3) Another of the premises is the sad fact that sometimes parents and children are willing to be away from each other and/or from their other family members as long as they find a way to migrate, and that the state should not do too much to guarantee the physical unity of migrant families.
Divided Families
While there are cases where applicants lie in order to get papers, it is sad to see that the government has chosen to generalize the bad faith of all the applicants, and does not look at the set of stringent requirements that make staying legal something close to a miracle (for a similar issue in the U.S. see Menjivar, 2006). This law and this amendment will keep families divided for longer, and increase the emotional pain that these family separations entail, since its implementation could dissuade some people from even applying or it could delay the bureaucratic process because of all the things that are to be required in order to get the test (see bellow).
While many families are divided, only a few are approved for reunification. In 2005, only 22,978 people were allowed to enter France through family reunification legal channels. And only 11,351 of them were children. So, Isabelle Monnin of the Novel Observateur asks, why would Sarkozy want to go against such strong opposition in order to stop the arrival of 11,000 children a year all of whom have parents in France? Is this really a measure of immigration control or is this just a symbolic way to pander to the followers of Le Pen without really changing much? Because of the very few people that would be directly affected by the Mariani amendment, the French Prime Minister François Fillon called this law a “detail.” This declaration caused an outrage since it recalled Le Pen’s declaration of 1987 when he described the Nazi gas chambers as a "detail of history" (BBC). The Mariani amendment indeed generated so much opposition because it stirred up memories of the Vichy Regime and its collaboration with the Nazis in the racial victimization of Jews. That is why some opponents went as far as calling the law in question the equivalent of the “final solution” for immigrants.
Former Prime Minister Villepin, talking to the media, asked for the “pure and simple” withdrawal of the Mariani amendment. He said that, "the fact of mixing genetics and immigration seems to me reprehensible in itself. This may seem something minor. But in terms of principles one should never compromise.” ("Le fait de mêler la génétique et l'immigration me paraît en soi condamnable… Ce symbole n'est pas acceptable. Cela peut paraître mineur mais ça ne l'est pas. En matière de principes, one ne transige jamais" (Le Figaro/RTL, AFP/Le Monde). Villepin contradicted his successor Fillon by saying that in terms of principles nothing is a detail. Villepin’s comment recalled the negative precedents that resulted from mixing pseudo-science and racial claims leading to Nazism.
The Bad Science behind the Tests
There have been few details about the technical application of the DNA tests following from this law, but most probably the test would not be a test for specific genes in the strict sense of the word, but just a simple eye comparison of DNA fingerprints obtained through PCR and Gel Electrophoresis (see photo). If the mother and the child in question are indeed not blood relatives, obvious differences would occur, but the differences between aunts and cousins from small tribal groups could not be as clear, thus defeating the stated purpose of the law. The public discussion has not yet addressed the scientific aspects of this test, which serves as a clear example of the role of expertise in creating authority. If the geneticist says that the people are related then they most be!
In the image, paternity test comparing the DNA fingerprints of a child (see column 2) and his TWO parents (web design). One parent does not provide enough information to confirm maternity with confidence (unless mitochondrial DNA is analyzed). Still, what would happen to parents asking for their children when their mother is deceased? (Caricature from Le Monde used under fair use).
There has been a very distinguished geneticist opposing the law, Axel Kahn, but he has spoken out against the law not on scientific terms but because of moral, civic, and ethical concerns.
Caveats of the Mariani Amendment
Because of the strong criticisms received, the test would be only applied to mothers, since there is data that shows that many men are not the biological fathers of “their children” without ever knowing it, so the proponents of the law “did not want to cause any intra-marital” problems. The test would probably be reimbursed by the state if maternity is shown, so cost would not be an issue. The test would require the intervention of a judge, and would be “voluntary” and require a written request for the test by the applicant; despite all of this, it could indeed help in reunifying more families, which would be a positive and maybe unintended consequence.
The law also calls for the approval of the National Consultative Ethics Committee, which presented the opinion that the amendment “contradicted the spirit of the French law” even before the law was voted.
The Mariani amendment was watered down in the discussions and it will undergo an experimental phase until December 31st, 2009. Nonetheless, it stayed in the law proposal.
Opposition the Law Hortefeux
Former government figures like Villepin openly criticized the Mariani amendment. But members of Sarkozy’s government did so, as well. Fadela Amara, the daughter of Algerian immigrants, said on September 9th, 2007 that she was tired of the instrumentalization of immigration for political purposes and that such an amendment was disgusting ("dégueulasse"). This created a large discussion in the media and within Sarkozy’s cabinet. Some even called for her to leave Sarkozy's government. Former Presidential candidate Segolene Royal said that someone in government has to speak French! and not use such kinds of words (so much for the left candidate). Amara said she would stay because she is developing a plan for the banlieus (poor peripheral neighborhoods).
"TOUCHE PAS À MON ADN"
On Sunday October 14th, 2007 intellectuals, politicians and artists gathered together at the Zenith in Paris to talk against the Law Hortefeux and specifically the Mariani amendment. The event was organized by SOS-Racisme, a anti-racism NGO, and the publications Charlie Hebdo (satirical) and the Libération (left). They started a petition online that has been signed by over 300,000 people, including famous personalities of French public life such as singers, writers, politicians, sportspeople and others. See the list at, a “who is who” of the left at: (http://www.touchepasamonadn.com/). The logo of the campaign is “Touche pas à mon ADN” or “Do not Touch my DNA!” which builds on a previous and well known campaign by SOS Racisme that was called “Touche pas à mon Pote” or “Do Not Touch my Friend” which was about building inter-racial solidarity against racism, hate crimes, deportation, etc.
The Zenith of Opposition
The media reported that more than 6,000 people were present at this concert arena for the event against the DNA tests. Probably even more people were present (see pictures). I found about it the day before while reading Le Monde in Parisian Café and decided to go. A couple of people had extra-free tickets that had been distributed free of charge through FNAC, and the sponsors. I was able to get in after begging for tickets since they were in high demand. (I must say that even among so many progressive people, when asking for tickets my foreign accent caused some negative reactions!)
I entered the huge place and noticed that the arena was full of many middle aged, middle class people. There was an important component of older people, as well as a large group of high school students mainly standing towards the front as if in a rock concert. There were six or seven
music acts by well known artists but they only sang one or two songs each, so it seems that few people went there for the music only. Although, the musical performances added a lot to the “collective effervescence” that Emile Durkheim would talk about. Among the performers were Balibar (pop), Renaud (rock) as well as folk, reggae, and rap performances.
Interestingly enough the majority of the attendees did not seem to be of direct immigrant origin but “French.” The few members of color in the audience were often videotaped and projected upon the large screens to show the inclusiveness of the event. Indeed very few immigrants or people of color spoke, and not one “immigrant-to-be” or member of a divided family spoke as such. All the spokespeople were established officials, politicians, intellectuals, or celebrities. The more than three- hour long program was full of music, powerful speeches and important people. I was surprised by the extent of the rally and the mobilization of resources. This was probably the best rally I have ever attended! And it was indeed a course on French civism.
Speeches and Nationalist Discourse
As François Hollande said, the amendment “institutes a discrimination between French and foreigners (one of the reference to foreigners as such), and puts genetics where it should not be” ("instaure une discrimination entre étrangers et Français, et met la génétique là où elle n'a pas sa place.”) Philipe Val, the director of the satirical publication Charlie Hebdo, said that this was “The first meeting of republican opposition to Nicolas Sarkozy. ("C'est le premier meeting d'opposition républicaine à Nicolas Sarkozy,"AFP/Le Monde 15/10/2007). One had this impression when listening to so many people from the left and so many members of the socialist party (PS), now the leaders of the opposition. Only this could explain how well the event was organized. The half of the country that did not vote for Sarkozy was there given an excuse to repudiate him.
Nonetheless, at the microphone during this event there were some supporters from the right, and former supporters of Sarkozy, such as Deputy François Goulard from the UMP the President’s party, who said that “he supported the government, but that amendment, never!” ("Je soutiens le gouvernement, mais cet amendement, je ne le voterai jamais"). He also said that the meeting was against the amendment and in favor of human rights, and not against the government ("pas à un meeting contre le gouvernement mais contre un amendement"). He also said that “human rights not only belonged to all french but also to all the men and women of this planet”. ("Il y a des choses qui nous dépassent, qui appartiennent à tous les Français, à tous les hommes et femmes de cette planète: ça s'appelle les droits de l'homme" (Le Monde 10/15/2007). And while there were some Villepinistes, from the opposing fraction to Sarko within his own party, also former supporters, who spoke in his favor during the campaign, now criticized his inaction regarding this amendment, including the writer Bernard Henri Lévy.
One of the few "organic intellectuals" who spoke was a representative of the famous French group of women from Muslim origin who react against traditional gender roles, “Ni Putes, Ni Soumises.” Saying at the rally “Ni Putes, Ni Soumises, Ni ADN” and echoing Fadela Amara, someone very close to this group and now in Sarkozy's, government, saying that the law was indeed extremely disgusting. And then she added where is the "integration"?
(Video by Ernesto Castaneda)
The Republican Ideal and the French Exceptionalism
Part of the government’s argument in favor of the DNA tests was the argument that many other countries did it. To this argument, many of the speakers say “yes, BUT NOT IN FRANCE”, and then placing France as the moral compass of the west. It is interesting to note that in analyzing the political discourses given throughout the night at the Zenith, the use of the words “Republic”, “Nation”, “History”, “Political Tradition”, “Values” were used repeatedly. To someone used to American political discourse these would have sounded as words used by conservatives in the right, interestingly enough this words were used to get back to Sarkozy, and not in an ironic way, but in strategic and also deeply felt discourse. It seemed that many people attending were so strongly opposed to the amendment not because it was "anti-foreigner" but because it was "anti-French" in spirit. A subtle but an important difference where classical political liberalism and the French historical record were more important than the ideas of comsmopolitanism or multiculturalism.
Speaker after speaker cried against the Mariniani amendment that called for the French tests because it was “anti-French”, because it went against the great republican history of France, against is tradition of giving the world the Declaration of Human Rights, speakers said that this recalled the actions of other countries (read: Germany) NOT France. Thus there was an implicit message of French superiority and of being on a moral higher ground.
Even while talking against an anti-immigration law, paradoxically the content of most speeches remained deeply nationalistic, almost chauvinistic and very ethnocentric, although a reggae singer and two rappers played, all of them black, played their music, this was a "white French" meeting. It was not the families that would be directly affected who were present but many others showing solidarity. Although the extent of the progressivism for some of the people in this monumental meeting was repudiation of the DNA clause.
As a foreigner in the audience sometimes I felt scared by the nationalistic tone of the speeches, where openness towards immigrants was to the extent that they spoke parisian French and behave like Frenchmen even if their skin was of another tone. These arguments were not spelled out but they were implied. This was something that I had a hard time conveying to people I met in the street after the meeting. The cameras did not capture this as much because these arguments were taken as evident but they constituted the major part of most speeches. Many of the participants meant well but unconsciously they had the French republican model deeply engrained (part of the collective doxa, the unquestionable, as Bourdieu would say).
At times the rally turned into a rally for “the honor of France”, a fight for its “real identity.” All of them, important issues that show the historical memory that the French people have and their consciousness about their great historical legacy of which they feel proud off and which they want to extend into the present and future, something that Sarkozy and Le Pen also claim to want to achieve. Same goals, but through different means.
Other Aspects of the Hortefeux Law
There was an article in the law that forbade undocumented migrants from living in "temporal" state housing, but after visible protests, this article was removed. Meeting with Catholic leaders who aid immigrants, the President told them that they did not have to fear that they would have to act as substitutes for the police, asking those they lodge for papers: "Vous n'êtes pas les substituts de la police ni de la justice, vous n'êtes pas obligés de demander leurs papiers aux gens que vous accueillez, si vous ne le faites pas [donner de logement et l’aide], qui le fera?" [See the related entries on this blog about migration and housing].
Nonetheless, the new law will also require that all immigrants learn French before they are granted legal residency. It will also allow for systematic gathering of official statistics about ethnic groups for the first time in France. There is also a provision in the law to put more police on the streets in order to achieve the previously set goal to deport 25,000 undocumented migrants during 2007.
The law was approved with 185 votes in favor, and 136 against, in the Senate, and 282 votes in favor, and 235 votes against, in the lower chamber (it needed 259 votes to pass).
The worst thing is that many other countries have similar laws, including the U.S. In a letter to the editor of the New York Times, a law Professor recounts of stories where adopted children of African parents were denied migration papers by U.S. authorities (Heller, 2007). Supposedly in the French case, if the parents are able to show adoption papers this would serve as a proof of paternity instead of the DNA tests. The problem rests in informal adoptions, like the guardianship of a niece of nephew after their parents die, something very common in Africa.
At the meeting at the Zenith, the Mayor of Paris Bertrand Delanoë made a good point about this saying that, “an adopted child should be loved as much as a biological child is true for the French child and also true for an immigrant child.”
In contrast to the well organized and well funded meeting at the Zenith. The weekend after, on Saturday 20, 2007, immigrant associations called for a march from Belleville to the National Assembly. This time there were more immigrants participating, a great number of them black, some people from the Maghreb, and many “French” people marched on the streets in more pro-open borders and inclusive spirit, still for the most part people kept to the groups they had originally come with: student groups, groups of friends, unions, social service organizations, collectives of sans papiers, etc.
The march was peaceful and well attended unfortunately this protest made a short paragraph in most French newspapers and then was forgotten...
The New Contentious French
Many families were present at the march, including new French families who have already adopted the language of the local contentious politics, a way to show their incorporation and their political participation.
(Videos by the author. I apologize for the quality of the second video but it is the audio that is important.In the first one the women cite things whose situation they are tired of. The meaning of the second singing is something like "Regularization for all the undocumented, it is the law we have to change, it is not them that one should kick out but Sarkozy..." ).
At this meeting one could see the traditional repertoire of contentious performances: marching, banners, chants, signs, petitions, while the populations were different its elements were very similar to those of the marches for immigrants rights in the U.S. Although, I talked to some of the people participating and because I said I lived in New York, they told me that they thought that marches like this never happen in the U.S. because "the French protest about everything" but "the Americans are not very political, and they are busy buying things and watching TV." (A wrong empirical fact, nonetheless important about understanding boundary formation). It is funny that before the start of the meeting at the Zenith there was a cartoon of Sarkozy sitting in a sofa telling people "it is funny you are here while you could be home watching a movie and eating some pizza!"
Constitutional Challenge
The opposition to this law has been extremely large. After its passage, the last resort has been to appeal to the Constitutional Council to question the constitutionality of the law. The query has been signed by many deputies of the Socialist Party (PS), the GDR (Gauche Démocratique et Républicaine) and by the President of MoDem, François Bayrou. This legal recourse looks to challenge the article 13 DNA test, and Article 63, the compilation of ethnic statistics.
The Ruling of the Constitutional Council
The Constitutional Council was created in 1958. It is not the equivalent of the Supreme Court in the United States. It is composed by 9 members. In addition any Former French Presidents are life members. The members are appointed by the President of the Republic as well as one nominated by the presidents of the two legislative chambers. The present Constitutional Council, often called the “sages” or wise men (yes, all members are male), is formed by former Presidents Valéry Giscard d’Estaing (born in 1926), Jacques Chirac (born 1932). And 9 other members two of them nominated by Chirac and all, except one, were proposed by members of the right (for full member list go here).
On November 14th, 2007, the Constitutional Committee declared that the legislative proposal regarding DNA tests included in the new immigration law was constitutional as long as the tests also respect the laws of the country of origin (very few people are clear about what is that supposed to mean). Concluding that discretionary and differential treatment depending on country of origin is NOT anti-egalitarian. While it declared that any official COMPILATION of ETHNIC STATISTICS of people living in France unconstitutional, since it violates the principles of equality espoused in the French Constitution and its declaration of human rights. Few people have bothered to point out the contradiction between these two rulings, one in favor of inequality within France and the other one accepting different administrative rules for people from different countries. Obviously this group of wise men cares more about political and ideological concerns than about philosophical coherence. So, the heinous DNA tests have been symbolically approved, although probably rendered inapplicable by so many caveats, while the law to finally gather statistical data to look empirically at issues of de facto inequality between people who are theoretically equal was disapproved by Chirac who opposed this idea throughout his 12 years as President.
References
Except otherwise stated all pictures by Ernesto Castaneda (all rights reserved). Where not indicated otherwise videos come from YouTube and Daily Motion.
AFP. Aprueba Francia exigir ADN a inmigrantes. Reforma, Octubre 24, 2007.
AFP. « Tests ADN : les députés socialistes déposent un recours devant le Conseil constitutionnel »
Le Monde. 25 Octobre 2007AFP. « Affiche éclectique contre les tests ADN au Zénith à Paris » Le Monde. Octobre 15, 2007.
Menjivar, Cecilia. 2006. “Liminal Legality: Salvadoran and Guatemalan Immigrants’ Lives in the United States.” American Journal of Sociology, 111 (4): 999-1037.
The New York Times Editorial. Pseudoscientific Bigotry in France. October 21, 2007.
.jpg)
