Immigration in France: « A refuge for all is a refuge for none », an interview with Didier Leschi

Eugénie Bastié: On the evening of Monday 23 November 2020, migrants were forcibly evacuated from a camp on the Place de la République in central Paris. What are your thoughts about these images and the widespread indignation they have caused?

Didier Leschi: We are all aware that these are difficult human situations. However, the reactions also reveal a significant degree of hypocrisy. In order to provide temporary accommodation, premises are required. Local authorities such as those in Paris are continuously forcing préfets (local officials) to beg for accomodations, while the available hotels or reception centres are full, and thus incapable of immediately absorbing the constant flow of new arrivals, especially of Afghans whose applications have been rejected by other European countries. This is occurring despite the fact that the stock of temporary accommodation has more than doubled since 2015 and new facilities are becoming available. The challenges of integrating refugees have been overlooked in the controversy over first-line reception. The 11,000 people currently in the national reception system struggle to leave it. However, access to housing falls within the remit of both local authorities and central government. I am sorry to say that Paris, like other cities that are advocates of admitting refugees, are not doing all they could to help us integrate those people. If we were able to transfer refugees more quickly from shelter facilities, this would free up space for asylum seekers, and we would be spared such disturbing images.

Some activists and NGOs claim that Europe is a « fortress ». Can Europe and France be accused of being too restrictive?

Too restrictive by what ideal standard? Europe is one of the world’s largest immigration regions. Many of its countries are coveted bubbles. In contrast to other parts of the world and even some OECD nations, countries like France have achieved social improvements that offer a rare quality of life. France allows people without an income to automatically get free access to education and healthcare. The same cannot be said of North America.

Every year, the European Union issues hundreds of thousands of new residence permits. In 2019, France alone issued 274,000 new residence permits, of which 90,000 went to students, many of whom we know will not return to their home countries, 38,000 went to workers, and over 90,000, the largest share of these residence permits, were issued for the purpose of family immigration. This last figure was even higher in the past and reached 200,000 people per year.

Europe is also much sought after by asylum seekers. It has seen over 4 million incoming asylum seekers since 2015. In 2019, some 680,000 applications were filed and 300,000 people granted the protection from a European country. Moreover, France has regained its status as one of the principal host countries for asylum seekers, with 178,000 applications in 2019. Germany is just ahead of us. While numbers of asylum applications have fallen significantly in Germany, they have continued to rise in France among certain nationalities, with few Syrians but large numbers of sub-Saharan Africans, North Africans, and people from former Eastern Bloc countries, including Albania and Georgia.

As in the early 2000s, when we were the top asylum country with 20% of European applications, we are now back at the forefront. This can be partly explained by the fact that we are the last resort for some asylum seekers whose applications have been rejected in other countries. This is particularly true for Afghans.

Classification of the main countries of origin of asylum seekers in France

Source: DGEF, French Ministry of the Interior.

« Migrant » has become the standard term used in public debate in recent years. Is it appropriate in your view?

« Migrant » has become a portmanteau word. It no longer distinguishes between those with an established right of residence, such as spouses of French nationals and asylum seekers, or even those with an employment contract enabling them to obtain a visa. The word « migrant » has therefore replaced the term « immigrant workers », which offered the benefit of indicating that people are admitted to work in our country because they contribute to our economy. This continues to be the case for key seasonal workers in farming, IT workers, doctors, etc. To classify them merely as « migrants » is to deny their inherent social utility, which we recognise. There are also those who must be given refugee status as they are being persecuted. However, in order to protect the right of asylum, it must only be granted to those who are eligible. This is a delicate task. The fact that there are more applicants than eligible parties is beyond dispute.

You talk about very rapid population expansion in Africa and other impoverished regions of the world. In your view, is migration inevitable due to this economic disparity?

Let us hope it is not inevitable. However, increasing numbers of sub-Saharan Africans are undeniably migrating to France. Not everything can be explained by economic disparities. Many leaders’ refusal or inability to use wealth wisely to build a better future for the youth or maintain quality of life for the middle classes is an equally important factor. Those who leave are not necessarily from the most destitute countries as they need money to pay for travelling. The view that such migration is inevitable is based on an assessment of these countries’ social situation, but also equally on a sense that their style of governance can never change. However, this has to change for our common good. And to achieve this, a firmer and more honest dialogue with the leaders of sending countries is undoubtedly required. As highlighted by the Pope, whose latest encyclical letter, Fratelli tutti, is a call for greater fraternity, another thing is perhaps we should not shirk pointing to the disillusion that yearning for Europe can lead to.

You say the role of technology is radically changing integration conditions by creating a permanent bond between diasporas and their countries of origin. Could you expand on this?

Developments in technology are making it easier for people to maintain ties with their home countries. On an individual level, the convenience they offer is certainly not something to be rejected. The days of queueing for a telephone box to speak to one’s family for just a few minutes at extortionate prices are far behind us. However, there is another side to this. Due to the lack of total immersion, people are taking longer to learn French. These technological developments enable people to live here, while remaining in the cultural space of their home countries. The formation of separate communities in the host country is not the only factor leading to ghettoisation. Another cause is people’s ability to continue living in synch with their country of origin. They are immersed in its background noise and cultural conventions that are often deeply at odds with our own. New technologies are therefore providing technical support for separatism.

Adding to this mediological data is the fact that rifts between home and host societies have widened. Many people coming to France are from countries where diversity has been eradicated at best by law and at worst through violence. In contrast, countries like ours are characterised by increasing diversity, the promotion of gender equality, freedom of conscience, and secularism. It is surely impossible to deny that broadcast images of protests against the caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed, and direct access to the comments of religious or political leaders have had an impact on diasporas or encouraged people to take matters into their own hands with tragic consequences. Moreover, some governments of migrants’ countries of origin use new technological tools to influence the opinions and behaviour of their expatriates. Turkey is the prime example of this.

You compare reception conditions in France with those in other European countries. Is France too generous?

Once again, a distinction must be drawn between the various types of immigration. The fact is that we are far from being the most restrictive country when it comes to family reunification. No obligations are placed on the spouses of French nationals wishing to come to France. Moreover, no conditions or time limits are imposed on family reunification for the spouses of individuals protected by the Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (Ofpra)². This is a far cry from the criteria set by the Netherlands, Germany and other countries. Finally, France and Belgium are the only countries to issue residence permits for healthcare to people arriving in France who genuinely cannot access treatment in their country of origin. This covers a broader scope than a drug simply not being available. Moreover, we fund the healthcare of undocumented migrants through State Medical Aid (AME)³, which is not limited to emergencies. In most European countries, funding is only provided for emergency care in life-threatening situations.