What do you think?
Rate this book
The Politics of Immigration in France, Britain, and the United States: A Comparative Study
This book argues that although labour market needs have been an important element in the development of immigration policy, they have been filtered through a political process, the politics of immigration. The book explores the relation between policy and politics in France, the UK, and the US.
- GenresPolitics
346 pages, Hardcover
First published May 14, 2014
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
Currently Reading
September 21, 20166. Thus, what has been referred to as “embedded liberalism” in the legal and political systems— values that protect individual and collective rights— makes it difficult to pass legislation that restricts immigration, and makes it even more difficult to enforce legislation that has actually been passed.
13. The most explicit process seems to be the French Jacobin model, which has often been misunderstood as a coherent government program for integration. In fact, it has been more of an orientation— what one scholar has called a “public philosophy”—of how public policy should be used. The details of this orientation have become more explicit as its assumptions have been challenged by the most recent waves of immigration. In principle, collective ethnic and religious identities are recognized by the French State only for very limited purposes (the official religious councils, for example). The French State does not officially engage in “positive discrimination” in order to advance the fortunes of groups to remedy past discrimination, and French law does not permit the census to count those who are defined as “minorities.”
13. French scholars have sometimes compared this model with the more anarchic American multicultural approach. 36 The American multicultural model has been frequently defined as the public recognition of collective identities as a basis for public policy, which is strongly linked to widespread ethnic lobbying. Indeed, as it emerged from the civil rights movement of the 1960s, public protection and financial support for a variety of ethnic, religious, and even language expressions have been widespread. This pattern is in marked contrast with the orientations of French policy, but also with the more Jacobin “Americanization” approach of the early part of the twentieth century, which left far less room for public support for diversity. The ideal of the United States as a “nation of nations” is a recent phenomenon, dating more or less from the period around World War II. During most of the nineteenth century there seemed to be a sense among social and political leaders of something increasingly “American.” Basically, this ref lected a more widespread attitude about the nature of American homogeneity and the basis of American citizenship that endured until the last decade of the nineteenth century.
The Race Relations Act of 1965 in the UK provided an institutional base for integration, based on antidiscrimination policy that was agreed to by both major political parties. 40 By 1968, antidiscrimination policy had been combined with a multicultural approach to education, and it was disconnected from considerations of immigration control, inf luenced by a parallel movement in the United States. 41 All the New Commonwealth immigrants were regarded as racially different from those who arrived from the Old Commonwealth of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, but, in contrast to France, their treatment was embedded in a policy framework that focused on instruments to combat discrimination, and on support for pluralism and multiculturalism.
73. French social scientists often argue that the French political culture of republicanism produces a low level of racism because it delegitimizes the salience of ascribed characteristics in public life, hence facilitating integration of racial minorities. In contrast, my analysis suggests that republicanism has a contradictory impact: it delegitimizes one form of racism, but also strengthens another by drawing a clear distinction between those who share this universalistic culture (citizens) and those who do not (immigrants). This boundary is reinforced by traditional anti-Muslim feelings found in Christian France, by a lasting historical construction of French culture as superior, and by a caste-like relationship of the French with members of their former colonies.
56. Although Chevènement claimed to maintain toughness with “humanitarian f lexibility,” the Right opposition argued that these changes were “irresponsible” and would lead to “profound destabilization of French society.” Just before the vote, Jean-Louis Debré complimented his colleagues on the Right for having “forced the government to emerge from its ambiguity on immigration.”
13. The most explicit process seems to be the French Jacobin model, which has often been misunderstood as a coherent government program for integration. In fact, it has been more of an orientation— what one scholar has called a “public philosophy”—of how public policy should be used. The details of this orientation have become more explicit as its assumptions have been challenged by the most recent waves of immigration. In principle, collective ethnic and religious identities are recognized by the French State only for very limited purposes (the official religious councils, for example). The French State does not officially engage in “positive discrimination” in order to advance the fortunes of groups to remedy past discrimination, and French law does not permit the census to count those who are defined as “minorities.”
13. French scholars have sometimes compared this model with the more anarchic American multicultural approach. 36 The American multicultural model has been frequently defined as the public recognition of collective identities as a basis for public policy, which is strongly linked to widespread ethnic lobbying. Indeed, as it emerged from the civil rights movement of the 1960s, public protection and financial support for a variety of ethnic, religious, and even language expressions have been widespread. This pattern is in marked contrast with the orientations of French policy, but also with the more Jacobin “Americanization” approach of the early part of the twentieth century, which left far less room for public support for diversity. The ideal of the United States as a “nation of nations” is a recent phenomenon, dating more or less from the period around World War II. During most of the nineteenth century there seemed to be a sense among social and political leaders of something increasingly “American.” Basically, this ref lected a more widespread attitude about the nature of American homogeneity and the basis of American citizenship that endured until the last decade of the nineteenth century.
The Race Relations Act of 1965 in the UK provided an institutional base for integration, based on antidiscrimination policy that was agreed to by both major political parties. 40 By 1968, antidiscrimination policy had been combined with a multicultural approach to education, and it was disconnected from considerations of immigration control, inf luenced by a parallel movement in the United States. 41 All the New Commonwealth immigrants were regarded as racially different from those who arrived from the Old Commonwealth of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, but, in contrast to France, their treatment was embedded in a policy framework that focused on instruments to combat discrimination, and on support for pluralism and multiculturalism.
73. French social scientists often argue that the French political culture of republicanism produces a low level of racism because it delegitimizes the salience of ascribed characteristics in public life, hence facilitating integration of racial minorities. In contrast, my analysis suggests that republicanism has a contradictory impact: it delegitimizes one form of racism, but also strengthens another by drawing a clear distinction between those who share this universalistic culture (citizens) and those who do not (immigrants). This boundary is reinforced by traditional anti-Muslim feelings found in Christian France, by a lasting historical construction of French culture as superior, and by a caste-like relationship of the French with members of their former colonies.
56. Although Chevènement claimed to maintain toughness with “humanitarian f lexibility,” the Right opposition argued that these changes were “irresponsible” and would lead to “profound destabilization of French society.” Just before the vote, Jean-Louis Debré complimented his colleagues on the Right for having “forced the government to emerge from its ambiguity on immigration.”
November 4, 2012
Read it for my class on international migration. It's a really good resource if you need information on immigration policy in France, Britain, and the United States. It's clear and thorough. But my version (second edition) had a couple typos, and I wouldn't recommend it for anything other than research.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews