Sarkozy Threatens Immigrants

[Wraith]

PARIS — President Nicolas Sarkozy said Friday that he wants to revoke the French citizenship of immigrants who put the lives of police officers in danger as part of a "national war" on delinquency.

In a speech in Grenoble, the site of recent urban unrest, Sarkozy said that the current list of causes for revoking French nationality would be reevaluated and "rights and benefits" accorded to illegal immigrants would be reviewed.

Meanwhile, a video posted on the Internet showing riot police roughly rousting African immigrant squatters, including one visibly pregnant woman, from an encampment at a housing project prompted shocked reactions around the country.

The video shot by a member of a housing-rights organization shows police wearing leg protection pulling women, some with babies on their backs, and in one case dragging a woman across the ground with her infant trailing behind in the dirt.

No one was injured in the July 21 operation in La Courneuve, a suburb northeast of Paris, local officials said, but human rights advocates denounced the "brutal evacuation" of some 200 people.

Family Planning, an international women's health group, issued a statement saying it was "scandalized, shocked, outraged and even sickened by the conditions" of the mass evacuation of women and children.

MRAP, a leading human rights group, said people in the video had all been expelled from previous housing and provided with no long-term solutions.

The squatters physically resisted, "attaching themselves to each other, lying down, sometimes kicking and hitting police," the government of the Seine-Saint-Denis region around La Corneuve said.

The evacuation was handled "according to legal procedures and rules in such circumstances," and no one was injured, it said in a statement.

The French president, a former interior minister, has projected a law-and-order image, and named a former police official as prefect, the highest state authority, for the region around Grenoble after youths and police clashed this month at a housing project that is home to many immigrants.

Two days ago, Sarkozy ordered the expulsion of Gypsies living in France illegally, saying their camps should be "systematically evacuated." That order came after police clashed this month with Gypsies, known as Roma, in the Loire Valley following the shooting death of a youth fleeing police.

The pronouncement caused special outrage because Sarkozy singled out a particular ethnic group in a country official that's official blind to ethnic origins.

Sarkozy said he wants immigration laws changed to make it easier to expel people "for reasons of public order."

Sarkozy traveled to Grenoble Friday for the induction ceremony of a new prefect, Eric Le Douaron, and used the occasion to announce a new get-tough approach to delinquency that notably hits hard on immigrants who disobey the law.

"French nationality should be earned. One must know how to be worthy of it," the president said. French nationality should be revoked "from any person of foreign origin who voluntarily threatens the life of a police officer" or other public authority, he said.

The violence outside Grenoble, in the southeast, was triggered by the police killing of a resident fleeing after an armed robbery at a casino. Officials said some youths fired on police in the ensuing unrest.

Tensions have simmered in heavily immigrant projects around France since nationwide riots in 2005.

Human rights organizations joined political rivals to denounce Sarkozy's decision to target French of immigrant origin.

"The xenophobia of Nicolas Sarkozy threatens democracy," the League of Human Rights said. For the conservative leader's main rival, the Socialist Party, "There are rules that are valid for all French ... You are French or you are not French."

Many claimed that Sarkozy, plummeting in the polls, was using law-and-order and immigration issues to gain backing from deeply conservative swaths of the population and the minority far-right.

Source

There are several issues with Sarkozy's strongly anti-immigration stance that come up in the article, but the one I'm most interested in is the threat to revoke citizenship for immigrant criminals. The different treatment for people based on whether or not they got their citizenship through birth seems patently unfair, and I'm not really sure about the idea of revoking citizenship as a punishment either.

[Nessus]

Along similar lines,

PARIS (AFP) - – France's interior minister Sunday proposed extra tough measures against foreign-born criminals, widening controversial crime-fighting proposals that critics have branded a vote-grabbing strategy.
Interior Minister Brice Hortefeux proposed to strip French nationality from foreign-born residents for human trafficking and female genital mutilation, adding to a list of offences cited by President Nicolas Sarkozy on Friday.
They were the latest measures in Sarkozy's declared "war on crime" targeting offenders from foreign minorities.
The leader of the main opposition Socialist Party, Martine Aubry, on Sunday accused Hortefeux and Sarkozy of an approach "that harms France and its values by selective laws that are as iniquitous as they are unconstitutional."
Hortefeux, who had already threatened to strip a Muslim man of his French nationality for polygamy, said "loss of nationality must be allowed... also in cases of female circumcision, human-trafficking or acts of serious delinquency," in comments published Sunday by the newspaper Le Parisien.
GAMS, French a group campaigning against female genital mutilation -- which is practised in certain African communities in France -- said Hortefeux's proposal was symbolically important but that French nationals were rarely among those charged for it.
Struggling in the opinion polls after his government was implicated in a financial scandal and following recent violent unrest in immigrant districts, Sarkozy on Friday announced a headline-grabbing package of security measures.
He vowed to strip foreign-born individuals of their French nationality if they attack police or public officials and to review the public services provided to undocumented immigrants, such as healthcare and schooling.
On Wednesday Hortefeux also threatened to expel foreign Roma minorities who commit crimes and to tear down hundreds of illegal Roma camps.
Tensions run high between French police and locals in deprived suburban districts with high populations of immigrant descent who struggle to integrate and find work. Sarkozy on Friday explicitly linked immigration and crime.
"We are suffering the consequences of 50 years of insufficiently regulated immigration which has led to a failure of integration," he said.
Aubry insisted in a statement: "We will not let foreigners be stigmatised, nor French people of immigrant descent, nor travellers, as the president of the republic and his majority have shamefully done."
Analysts said Sarkozy's security drive was a strategy to position himself for a reelection battle in 2012, consolidating his voting base as the far-right National Front is considered to be gaining support.
With little room for manoeuvre on jobs and the economy, Sarkozy "is pulling the second lever: security and immigration," political scientist Roland Cayrol told AFP.
Another political expert, Stephane Rozes, said Sarkozy's "short-term aim is to regain control of the political news agenda after a long period when he has lost his grip on it."
Sarkozy has suffered in recent weeks from a scandal over alleged conflicts of interest and illegal party funding, linked to the fortune of France's richest woman, L'Oreal cosmetics heiress Liliane Bettencourt.
The scandal has implicated Labour Minister Eric Woerth, embarrassing Sarkozy just as his government pushes forward a sensitive pensions reform plan, due to be voted in parliament in September.
Sarkozy's law-and-order drive has sparked renewed accusations from opponents that he has swerved to the right to distract from his political woes.
The spokesman for the Socialists, Benoit Hamon, told AFP on Friday that Sarkozy "is overwhelmed by the crime situation, swamped by the failure of his simplistic policies" and fishing for far-right votes.

[Hazir]

Source

There are several issues with Sarkozy's strongly anti-immigration stance that come up in the article, but the one I'm most interested in is the threat to revoke citizenship for immigrant criminals. The different treatment for people based on whether or not they got their citizenship through birth seems patently unfair, and I'm not really sure about the idea of revoking citizenship as a punishment either.

There is a small but significant difference; it's not too difficult to figure out which group he is talking about. And that group happens to consist of north africans who besides their french citizenship have the citizenship of another country. This dual citizenship is turned against them with this threath because it would legally be possible to strip them of their citizenship without making them stateless.

It is also why you can't threathen 'natives' with taking away their citizenship, because it would turn them stateless.

[termite]

So they lose their citizenship, what then? If they have renounced the citizenship of their birth country then they will become stateless refugee's and possibly end up back in France.

How does the EU view this sort of thing? (the proposed stripping of citizenship as a punishment).

[Dreadnaught]

To be honest, doesn't the US do stuff like this sometimes for a narrow group of crimes? Mainly treason or Nazism? I recall that guy who was deported back to Germany last year after living here for half a century. But not sure if he lost his citizenship.

But taking a step back, this is also a complete waste of resources -- if they don't want large numbers of immigrants in France who may potentially do this stuff, they should effectively manage their borders. Because any group of people will have some criminals, whether they are native born or immigrants. Giving large numbers of people actual citizenship and then assuming they will all be angels is inevitably going to lead to buyer's remorse.

[Wraith]

I don't think the US can do this stuff unless there's fraud involved in gaining the citizenship. "Unlawful procurement of citizenship" I think is a valid reason to remove citizenship.

[Dreadnaught]

True, but I'm pretty sure we also strip citizenship in instances of treason, right?

[Draco]

Why doesn't he just say it, he wants Arabs/Muslims/Africans out of the country.

How does the EU view this sort of thing? (the proposed stripping of citizenship as a punishment).

I doubt they'll care since France and co is the EU.

[Hazir]

So they lose their citizenship, what then? If they have renounced the citizenship of their birth country then they will become stateless refugee's and possibly end up back in France.

How does the EU view this sort of thing? (the proposed stripping of citizenship as a punishment).

The countries south of the Med generally don't allow renouncing citizenship. And since we're really mostly talking about north africans statelessness is not going to happen.

I don't think the EU thinks very much about this as citizenship is a national affair. The only requirement as far as the EU is concerned is that people do not become stateless.

[Hazir]

To be honest, doesn't the US do stuff like this sometimes for a narrow group of crimes? Mainly treason or Nazism? I recall that guy who was deported back to Germany last year after living here for half a century. But not sure if he lost his citizenship.

But taking a step back, this is also a complete waste of resources -- if they don't want large numbers of immigrants in France who may potentially do this stuff, they should effectively manage their borders. Because any group of people will have some criminals, whether they are native born or immigrants. Giving large numbers of people actual citizenship and then assuming they will all be angels is inevitably going to lead to buyer's remorse.

Actually execution is quite feasible; you commit a violent crime, the police arrests you, you are tried and if convicted the judge strips you of your citizenship and orders your deportation (probably after you have served time in prison).

The question is not if France can do it, but if it should do it.

[Flixy]

To me it seems very unfair to punish foreign born and native people differently for the exact same crime.

[Loki]

There is a small but significant difference; it's not too difficult to figure out which group he is talking about. And that group happens to consist of north africans who besides their french citizenship have the citizenship of another country. This dual citizenship is turned against them with this threath because it would legally be possible to strip them of their citizenship without making them stateless.

It is also why you can't threathen 'natives' with taking away their citizenship, because it would turn them stateless.

If they had half a brain, they would give up their Algerian/Moroccan citizenship.

[Flixy]

They can't.

[Loki]

They can't.

Why not? You just go to the relevant embassy and renounce your citizenship...

[Flixy]

The relevant government in question doesn't accept it and still recognises you as their citizen. Now what?

[Hazir]

The nature of migration to Europe is very different from the nature of migration to the US (maybe I should say was). People keep very close ties to their home countries and besides the fact that the country of origin doesn't recognize the act of renouncing one's citizenship it very often also deprives the people we are talking about of property rights. That makes people reluctant to fully move out of the reach of the home country.

At the end of the day I am not certain if there is really 'unequal treatment' for 'equal cases' because the 'native' has only one nationality and the 'immigrant' has more than one.

[wiggin]

You don't think American immigrants keep close ties to their home countries? Also - 'natives' have only one nationality? I know plenty of second and third generation (or even more) Americans who would beg to differ.

[Loki]

You don't think American immigrants keep close ties to their home countries? Also - 'natives' have only one nationality? I know plenty of second and third generation (or even more) Americans who would beg to differ.

He actually has a point. Historically, immigrants to the US kept little contact with their homelands (air travel didn't exist, other kind of travel was overly expensive, the methods of communication were slow and expensive, and getting access to foreign news was not easy), which was also helped by the large distance between where the immigrants came from and the US. Obviously it doesn't apply to recent immigrants to the US, who are mostly from Latin America, can travel there fairly cheaply, can access foreign news easily, and can keep in touch with people in their homeland without any trouble.

[wiggin]

I think plenty of turn-of-the century European immigrants to the US would disagree. How many people still consider themselves 'Irish' or 'Italian' or 'Greek' or whatever when their grandparents were born in the US? What about people who send/sent their children to 'Chinese school' or taught them Yiddish or sent money back to the family in the old country? Certainly travel back and forth didn't happen and communication was sparse, but that hardly means they weren't tied pretty damn closely to their country of origin - even after generations in the US.

[Loki]

I think plenty of turn-of-the century European immigrants to the US would disagree. How many people still consider themselves 'Irish' or 'Italian' or 'Greek' or whatever when their grandparents were born in the US? What about people who send/sent their children to 'Chinese school' or taught them Yiddish or sent money back to the family in the old country? Certainly travel back and forth didn't happen and communication was sparse, but that hardly means they weren't tied pretty damn closely to their country of origin - even after generations in the US.

They can claim to be whatever they want to look cool to their friends or colleagues, but they have virtually no connection to their homelands. How many of those "Irish" or "Italians" have ever been to Ireland or Italy, know anything about the politics in those countries, or even speak the language? And sure, some people tried to preserve their culture, but they're far from the norm. Most also failed, with the third generation rarely knowing the language or keeping the culture of their grandparents.

[wiggin]

Most second generation Americans speak the 'home country' language - some third generation as well (and speaking 'Irish' isn't particularly hard in America). Plenty of them follow something far more important than politics in their countries of origin - sports (and let's be honest, until recently no one filed absentee ballots even if it was theoretically possible given the difficulties of communication and getting political news from across the ocean). Obviously assimilation happens with time, but secondary identities persist, perhaps because they are so well tolerated - IMO that's one of the best things about America.

The point is we're not even really talking 3rd generation here, we're talking first generation (presumably 2nd and 3rd generations would be natural French citizens and thus would not be affected by this proposed law). First generation Americans most definitely did (and do) have very strong connections to their homelands. In fact, I would argue the opposite, at least with France. In the US, secondary national/ethnic/religious/etc. identity has been the norm since the country was founded, and the 'melting pot' metaphor might be better described as a 'mosaic' of identities. In contrast, France forces French identity above all else and is extremely intolerant of secondary identities. Don't you find it likely then that at least in outward manifestation the immigrant identity as having two nationalities might be more prominent in the US than France?

[Hazir]

You don't think American immigrants keep close ties to their home countries? Also - 'natives' have only one nationality? I know plenty of second and third generation (or even more) Americans who would beg to differ.

Well, that could be explained by the simple fact that America used to be a nation of immigrants anyway, Europe's situation untill the 1960's was profoundly different. It has a tradition of emigration not immigration.

And NO, even if some of your more recent immigrants keep closer ties with their home countries, you can't compare it to how 'our' immigrants keep in touch. For starters because most of them did not even have the intention - originally - to stay longer than a couple of years. That created a pattern of people keeping their homes in their countries of origin and typically they will go their every year for a 4-6 week vacation, vacations that very often are used to pick out candidates for marriage for their children. That is not quite the same as checking the news from back home on the net and buying your food at some ethnic store.

[Hazir]

He actually has a point. Historically, immigrants to the US kept little contact with their homelands (air travel didn't exist, other kind of travel was overly expensive, the methods of communication were slow and expensive, and getting access to foreign news was not easy), which was also helped by the large distance between where the immigrants came from and the US. Obviously it doesn't apply to recent immigrants to the US, who are mostly from Latin America, can travel there fairly cheaply, can access foreign news easily, and can keep in touch with people in their homeland without any trouble.

Right, though I think that a lot of your illegal immigrants even today can't keep in touch with their home country like a French Moroccan in Paris can and does.

[Hazir]

Most second generation Americans speak the 'home country' language - some third generation as well (and speaking 'Irish' isn't particularly hard in America). Plenty of them follow something far more important than politics in their countries of origin - sports (and let's be honest, until recently no one filed absentee ballots even if it was theoretically possible given the difficulties of communication and getting political news from across the ocean). Obviously assimilation happens with time, but secondary identities persist, perhaps because they are so well tolerated - IMO that's one of the best things about America.

The point is we're not even really talking 3rd generation here, we're talking first generation (presumably 2nd and 3rd generations would be natural French citizens and thus would not be affected by this proposed law). First generation Americans most definitely did (and do) have very strong connections to their homelands. In fact, I would argue the opposite, at least with France. In the US, secondary national/ethnic/religious/etc. identity has been the norm since the country was founded, and the 'melting pot' metaphor might be better described as a 'mosaic' of identities. In contrast, France forces French identity above all else and is extremely intolerant of secondary identities. Don't you find it likely then that at least in outward manifestation the immigrant identity as having two nationalities might be more prominent in the US than France?

I can only laugh at such nonsense. Typical drivel of somebody who thinks he knows about European immigration because he knows american immigration and has been to Europe a couple of times.

The different situations have got next to nothing to do with a willingness of people to accept eachother's culture or not. It is about the fact that in the US as an immigrant you have the choice to adapt or starve. In Europe there is nothing as stark or as demanding as that and it is exactly that why politicians are trying to make up for the lack of a natural process of adaption.

Sarkozy is 100% if he talks about 50 years of mismanagement of immigration, because that is exactly what we are facing. One can have serious questions about his solutions, but not about his analysis.

Finally, you assumption that only the first generation would be hit by a law like that is not correct; the citizenship of any person with a second citizenship can be legally taken away of that person. And again it shows you don't understand what you are talking about, it is hardly first-generation immigrants that are causing the problems this is a reaction to.

[wiggin]

And NO, even if some of your more recent immigrants keep closer ties with their home countries, you can't compare it to how 'our' immigrants keep in touch. For starters because most of them did not even have the intention - originally - to stay longer than a couple of years. That created a pattern of people keeping their homes in their countries of origin and typically they will go their every year for a 4-6 week vacation, vacations that very often are used to pick out candidates for marriage for their children. That is not quite the same as checking the news from back home on the net and buying your food at some ethnic store.

I still don't understand - this is pretty common behavior for immigrants to the US as well, especially from the Middle East or Asia. I'd say many if not most of the immigrants from India, Pakistan, and S. Korea (at the very least) will set up arranged marriages from 'back home'.

Honestly, I think you just don't have the information you think you do. That's fine - I'm willing to bow to your expertise on Dutch (and possibly European) immigration, but you characterization of American immigrants as not having close ties with their home countries is just laughable.

The different situations have got next to nothing to do with a willingness of people to accept eachother's culture or not. It is about the fact that in the US as an immigrant you have the choice to adapt or starve. In Europe there is nothing as stark or as demanding as that and it is exactly that why politicians are trying to make up for the lack of a natural process of adaption.

I think you're wrong about this. France in particular has has this attitude for more than two centuries, back when they had a quite limited immigrant population. An immigrant or outsider in France 2 centuries ago didn't have a nice social safety net either.

Finally, you assumption that only the first generation would be hit by a law like that is not correct; the citizenship of any person with a second citizenship can be legally taken away of that person. And again it shows you don't understand what you are talking about, it is hardly first-generation immigrants that are causing the problems this is a reaction to.

I'll admit I am not certain about this part - my understanding had been that 2nd generation immigrants has jus soli rights to French citizenship provided some conditions were met (varying ages of majority, depending). As a result, why would the jus soli citizenship of one Frenchman differ from another? If they do, then I would argue the law is even more discriminatory, but that's neither here nor there.

Anyways, this is a side point - I'm happy to agree you have more knowledge and expertise of European immigration, and didn't really want to get into the fight over this law. I just also think your characterization of American immigrants is simply incorrect and not likely to explain the differences in the way they are treated.