It is a book that deserves to be read, because it is born from serious work and because it provokes a real political debate. Guillaume Larrivé, former advisor to Nicolas Sarkozy and Brice Hortefeux, former deputy for Yonne, who today chairs the La France Demain institute, the Republicans’ think tank, publishes Immigration (Editions de l’Observatoire). The president of the socialist group in the Assembly Boris Vallaud looked at it closely, to find criticism, but not only that. And the author takes up his pen here to respond, and thus maintain a beautiful French controversy.
Vallaud: “French identity is the universality of human rights”
The pen is alert, the style pleasant, and the author does not lack talent, without convincing of the accuracy of a demonstration whose conclusion is guessed from the introduction. Guillaume Larrivé calls us to follow Péguy’s invitation: “We must always say what we see. Above all, we must always, which is more difficult, see what we see”, without succeeding himself to see immigrants, continually made invisible in a work which, although entitled Immigration in the plural, ultimately only treats them in the singular. However, in politics, the singular is always suspect, and essentialization does not serve the purpose of demonstration here. The author ultimately only sees what he wants to see. Statistics, which never speak for themselves, here take the place of rumor and quickly of truth.
A “wave” would therefore drown our “identity”. The metaphor suffers from a double simplification. The “wave” is an assessment that is perfectly refutable on a statistical level; as for identity, its narrow definition only consists of serving the author’s thesis, who gives in, without overcoming it, to the impoverished dilemma of integration or assimilation. The veneration of “our great men” as a measure of perfect integration or the dream of an allegiance removed from its origins is part of a mysticism which has nothing to do with the history of France. Ultimately, the author has little faith in republican universalism while remaining closely confined within a national framework which no longer corresponds either to the era or to the nature of migrations. I believe in the integrating power of this republican universalism.
When he does not give in to prejudices, the author gives in to caricature and rewriting. What is immigration not responsible for, he who sees it as one of the causes of “the collapse of daily public services, such as public transport, hospitals or even schools”? What history does he rely on when asserting that “it had been easy for France to assimilate, over the years, foreign families from other European countries”, forgetting how much violence, racism, stigmatization have punctuated the centuries, ignoring the Marseille Vespers against the Italians? Above all, ignoring, missing the truth, the beautiful stories of these French people who came from across the Mediterranean and who joined the best of France. The use of the word “immigrationist” is enough to indict these men and women who help others. Turning humanity into betrayal grows no cause, and it is regrettable that the author gives in to this ease. The statement brings to mind Rousseau’s maxim: “Domination itself is servile when it depends on opinion; because you depend on the prejudices of those whom you govern through prejudices.”
However, I agree with Guillaume Larrivé in noting a lack of “government” in our migration policy. His chronicle of recent decades on the subject is learned and instructive. I agree with him to note that this subject bothers the French and that it deserves the first attention. But the restoration of State authority and the restoration of good order to the great mess of migration policy will not go through a series of constitutional reforms which will be so many proclamations which will result, ultimately, in administrative harassment and a police hunt with no real effects other than the exhaustion of everyone, foreigners, police, courts, administrations, French men and women. Immigration is a challenge that calls for an ambitious inclusion policy based on learning the language and values of the Republic, on regularization through work but also on a “population” policy consubstantial with the ideal of Diversity. False evidence can only give rise to false solutions.
I ultimately reject the central thesis of this essay, which opposes the rights of the citizen to the rights of man. Saying that “there could no longer be any guarantee of our freedoms […] if an extensive conception of human rights prevailed over the rights of citizens, to the point that the community of citizens, that is to say France, had to give way to the rights of foreigners” is a matter of a disastrous sophism French identity is the universality of human rights, and therefore of citizens, inseparably.
Larrivé: “Immigration is no longer an opportunity for France”
Mea maxima culpa. I humbly admit: being on the left, like Boris Vallaud, is beyond my abilities. Not that I have never thought of adorning myself, in turn, with an advantageous Jauresian beard. But it must be tiring to pretend to carry with you, everywhere, Beauty, Good and Virtue united under the faded banner of the Socialist Party. We dream of ourselves as heroes of humanity, but it is rather the Kantians, such as Péguy unmasked them, that we end up resembling: these people have “clean hands, but they do not have hands “.
Because finally, the creed friend Boris’ universalist would be absolutely magnificent if it were not contradicted by a slight detail: reality. I advise everyone to try it out, in a very simple way: take the metro, at the blue hour, towards the Porte de la Chapelle. This easily accessible experience is quite far from the diverse and inclusive wonders dreamed of by Comrade Mélenchon’s auxiliaries.
If I wrote this fourth book, it is by refusing to give in to these two twin passions of immigrationism and identitarianism. I first combat the first, which falsely imagines that a France open to all winds will soon be the paradise of constructed otherness. But I do not want to give in to the second, who terribly fears that our country will disappear in the apocalypse of destroyed identity. It is as a determined patriot, and not as a depressive nationalist, that I do not apologize for being French, European and Western. Better: I claim the right to want to remain so, because I love France like a treasure to be preserved. And I am in no way defeatist: the history of France is not over, because political commitment has this power, that of freedom which offers hope.
But before you can, you still have to see, know, and want. See, first of all, that immigration has not been governed for half a century: my book demonstrates this collective failure and I thank Boris Vallaud for elegantly notifying me of this. Knowing, then, how much immigration has accelerated since the start of the millennium is no longer an opportunity for France. It has brought immense tensions into our country – economic, social, territorial, security, but also and above all cultural, of which political Islam is the worst peril. I prove it, beyond intuitions, by analyzing the facts. Wanting, finally: this is now the most difficult, given the crisis of political power, that is to say the incapacity to deliberate rationally and to truly decide.
This book will not be useless, I hope, if it helps to offer the French people a thoughtful and realistic path of action. In opposition for twelve years now, the Republican right must prepare to govern, as seriously as possible. With others, in reserve for the Republic, I try to work on it. Because it shapes the face that France will have for decades to come, the new immigration policy will be at the heart of our project. So that this policy of co-optation and assimilation can occur, we propose to define a new constitutional framework, but also and above all to lead immense operational efforts – at the national level first, as well as within the framework of cooperation active with other European nations.
The moment will quickly come when the hour of decision will ring. It is up to us to build, from now on, the conditions for a new political offer. It presupposes a sincere desire to come together, to add up the millions of our compatriots who want France to remain France, faithful to its art of civilized living, its taste for freedom and its vocation for power. It requires, just as much, an ability to command, which can restore healthy direction of the State, combining a strategic president and a solid government, capable of exercising power without pretending. Will our generation be able to thwart the announced scenarios? Our twenties, our thirties will be what we make of them.
.