Deportations are not about obtaining citizenship but the right to stay. Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
The right is in favour of stricter laws. Why? They have in mind that Europe has to expect a much stronger flow of immigrants towards Europe in the coming decades. It's a way to "control" immigration. How do you feel about this? Do you think that immigration does not need to be limited or controlled in any way? This is not a suggestive question. I simply wonder...
"Deportations are not about obtaining citizenship but the right to stay." -
Hmm. If someone doesn't have citizenship, he may not stay as if he had. In what way aren't deportations about citizenship? French citizens don't get deported.
People who live in France without citizenship or EU membership have the right to stay for a limited period of time. If they seek asylum or want to immigrate, they must follow the rules. If these rules get tighter, well, you can of course debate that and propose other solutions or advice politicians not to worry about immigration and just welcome everyone. I simply don't think it's all that easy.
Also, the number of people to be deported is an important aspect of Sarkozy's policies. The law in UK and France are similar, the number of illegals are, too, yet one has set an aim of 4000 deportation while France has set an aim of 26 000.
Legally, it is not compulsory to be a French citizen or have asylum to remain in France, thankfully. Family, parents, employees, are allowed to. And of course, many want to get nationality, yet are deported before they are able to ask for it. The laws are so tough, that Sarkozy's family are allowed to get around it.
Compare the French situation with those of Italy and Spain - who gave papers to all those living in the country - or the US - where much fewer, relative to the number of illegals, are deported.
Finally, the idea that "they are all gonna come and invade us" is using Le Pen's discourse, not anything based on any reality. There is no overwhelming mass of Africans wanting to come to France, like there was no overwhelming immigration from Eastern Europe when these countries joined.
Which didn't prevent the "pragmatic" Sarkozy to deport people to Romania at the end of 2006, a week before they'd be allowed to come back... Reaching his aimed number, appearing tough on immigrant so as to get the racist vote was very important. Indeed, these ugly deportation policies are not implemented because of an actual fear of the effects of immigration, but so as to bait the Le Pen vote. Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
My wife (herself the daughter of two immigrants) has a cousin who dated for years a Paraguayan over two continents. That is SERIOUS relationship -years despite living thousands of kilometers apart.
One day he decided that he would be the one to make the move, come to France and marry her. A heartbreaking one since he has two children from a previous wedding. But apparently he made the move just too late, and the law was made massively harsher just before they got married in August 2006. He won't have his citizenship for years yet, and any lengthy return to Paraguay to meet his family would set back the clock.
It serves no societal purpose but, hey, Sarko needed to make it clear that he had fully embraced the Le Pen agenda in order to deliver on the most worthy goal of the universe: getting his demented ego into the Elysée palace.
This man is hardly an uneducated burden too: he has a PhD. But his field is social work, so I guess he'd count as unwanted in our new neo-liberal France. Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi
Now, when you look at this situation, there seems to be little that this man can do since the rules have changed. He cannot have his French citizenship anytime soon. I don't know 'these people' ;) but would moving to Paraguay be an option for the couple? What would her status be there? - I mean no one forces them to stay in France, either. If the French government is incompetent enough to show PhDs the door or simply to not welcome them in - nothing should hold them back, and he should seek his career in Paraguay and be together with his children, too.
I don't support these strange policies but all that can be done at this point is: draw the logical consequences. If France 'doesn't work', emigration is always another option.
Then, he wouldn't have custody of his children anyway.
And she has recently had breast cancer (despite being just 29). She is apparently fine now, but still with treatment. But I guess she'll want to stay in a country that has one of the best health systems. Paraguay is a poor and terribly unequal society. Not necessarily the dream place to live in.
Still, she did consider it for a while. Now even he has his friends here and I don't think it would happen. I guess what stopped them really was that it takes a brave person to choose Paraguay over France when you are used to having a thousand things we don't really notice anymore. We are spoilt brats. Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi
Much more problematic, I know a couple of a Moroccan and a French. They married two years ago, now have a kid, but things aren't going along so well anymore between them. Getting a divorce is impossible, though ; the woman would have to leave France, and parents living in two different countries can be a bit harsh for raising a kid. (Not mentioning the legal difficulties that would come from determining who is legal guardian). At least there isn't one beating on the other - there have been cases where a battered wife leaving her husband was then deported...
I read many mixed couples from Copenhagen were now living in Sweden, because it was the only way they could live together - what kind of pragmatic solution produces those absurdities ? Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
So a three-week trip to the Netherlands might be the solution to your friends' problem...
This has caused considerable consternation among certain unsavoury Danish politicians, because you're right, we do have rather a lot of couples living in Malmö (although not all of them for that reason - the undervalued SKK makes having an income in DKK and expenses in SKK a financially attractive proposition in its own right. Plus, houses are cheaper in Sweden because they haven't had a neolib government to Ponzify them for quite as long).
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
Oh, I do, I do. But the fact that France is still a nice place to be also puts into perspective the hardship of obtaining citizenship in the first place.
While I don't agree with these odd immigration policies, I believe that IF there is a need to control or limit immigration which I assume is there, at least to some degree, the better way to go would be to accept the status quo, hand out papers to those who are already here (as linca explained got done in Spain) and tighten regulations for those who newly arrive. That way there won't be any bad surprise later. It is inhumane to welcome people into the country and later drop, i.e. deport them.
To not grant citizenship to foreigners upon marrying a French citizen - is VERY bizarre to say the least.
Well, since these deportations take place, I'd still be interested in figures of torture and killings those deported actually experience... because much of the hardship actually seems to be the lower standard of living that awaits them. It sounds (is) right wing rhetoric. I've actually had to adjust before... but it still isn't a matter of life or death, like when linca is comparing the situation to the deportation of German Jews back to Germany in WWII.
It is a pity that the underlying "standard of living" argument somehow discredits the more serious concerns with regards to systematic deportations.
Your friends have decided to remain in France, and I wish them all the best; he'll have his citizenship, as you say, and hopefully, she's healed for good.
As for the matter of life and death, right now every few months people die, trying to escape the police that come to arrest them - do these people think being deported is a matter of life and death ? (Note that not having the proper papers to live in France is not a felony, in France). The known unknown number is that of thousands who die trying to cross the Mediterranean Sea - a less absurdly harsh policy, giving hope of actual migration, would also result in fewer such deaths. The unknown is that of statistics on what happens to the deported : the French state is not interested in them, and for a volunteer organisation, following up on thousands of people in a hundred countries, many of them not caring so much about human rights and free speech, isn't easy.
Deportations is not only a life and death matter (and I was not comparing the current deportation with those of the second world war, just pointing out the absurdity of saying "you can't deport people back to their own country") : making sure there are thousands of illegals in France is quite useful for those employers that rely on immigrant labor (mostly agriculture, food and house building - strangely, those people are traditionally UMP voters), and also has a cost in terms of unreceived taxes on that undeclared labor - which could be useful to fill the coffers of the Sécurité Sociale. More worrying, thanks to denunciations of parents that had come to register their kids for schools, and arrests of parents that were taking up their children after school, now they may stop sending those children to school... Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
Not all die. So there is still a very significant number who try to come to Europe but there are no exact figures, neither this way nor with regards to their forced return except the number of those actually deported (because these numbers are LePen voters' delight...).
Fact is this debate lacks facts - no matter who it is who is not going after these figures or who is deliberately withholding them.
What also strikes me is that you say that people (everyone?) has the right to stay in France (no citizenship needed? no Green card? no visa?) - and then, you talk of thousands of illegals in France.
So, again, it seems that you and I lack facts.
An unfair law that serves no purposes should be repealed even for one death.
Legally, some categories of immigrants have the right to remain in France and thus to get papers (Carte de séjour) without asking for the French citizenship. Ill people who could be healed if sent back to their country, family of people who have the right to stay in France (because the right to live with one's family is a human right) ; usually, foreign employees have no limit to their visas... But even for those being illegally in France, forcefully deporting them requires more arguments than simply wanting to appease racists. Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
I DON'T KNOW whether it is necessary.
"Family of people who have the right to stay in France (because the right to live with ones family is a human right)" - Sure.
What I mean is that the deleterious effects of the policy are established, even if some of the problems are not fully quantified. So the debate should be about the need to control or limit immigration ; and even if such a need were "proven" (which will have to depend on a whole lot of assumption about what is "good" for a country), whether the policies being applied are not overly harsh. Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
I wonder, is it really so that these projections of (I exaggerate) millions of Africans wanting to come to Europe are a myth? It's not only about immigration that currently takes place but also about what is yet to come. Are these arguments really only used by far right extremists?
"it is not compulsory to be a French citizen or have asylum to remain in France, thankfully."
How is this in the UK? Apparently I have no idea about the "right to stay" in France. I've heard of cases a few years ago where people came to France (and had family in France), worked here for three or four months and then had to return to their country where they stayed a certain time before returning to France again. So, there must be some law limiting the duration of stay in France (??).
According to what you say above, "immigration" seems 'easy' since everyone may remain in France. All this sounds a lot like double standards (not yours but French authorities applying two measures...).
What may be worse than the deportation per se are these grey zones - of having a right to stay on one hand and fiercely implemented 'rules'(?) for deportation on the other. The ambiguity is 'inhumane' in that it causes fear and creates an agonising sense of insecurity.
The US relies heavily on their illegal immigrants for cheap labour. Deportations aren't of primary concern there, rather the precarious situation of these illegal immigrants.
