One time, it’s “the French”, another, “public opinion”… Since the government decided to bring back a bill on immigration, each camp claims broad popular support in favor of his theses and his demands. Some – on the right – want to demonstrate that there can be no question of anything other than firmness. Others – on the left – believe that we must encourage reception and integration rather than repressive measures. The former accuse the latter of angelism and denial of reality, the latter suspecting the former of racism and bitterness. Everyone is paralyzed by what they imagine to be the expectations of their electorate and by what they could reproach them for if they deviate too much from their values. Between the two, the executive oscillates, hesitates. One step forward, one step back. A turn of the screw, a more humanist measure. One day, he believes he can rely on a majority of French people to carry a text “at the same time”, the next day, he steps back because the material reveals the fractures of Renaissance sympathizers coming from diverse backgrounds.
To try to reassure themselves while examination of the bill must resume in the Senate at the beginning of November, political leaders are clinging to public opinion which “speaks the truth”. However, it sends contradictory messages, thereby maintaining confusion about the decisions to be made. The opinion measurements which follow one another at a frantic pace do not resemble each other, or even outright contradict each other. Last May, Le Figaro, based on an Odoxa Backbone Consulting survey, title: “Immigration: the French largely support the proposals formulated by LR”. But looking a little closer, the same survey shows that government measures are having almost equal success. Another example: in June, according to an Ifop Fiducial survey for Sud Radio, 65% of those questioned consider that our country already has many foreigners and that it is not desirable to welcome additional immigrants but, according to the same survey, a clear majority of French people (60%) believe that it is France’s duty to welcome migrants fleeing war and poverty.
Red line or wait? Conflicting polls
The most striking example concerns the regularization of workers in an illegal situation in professions in shortage. According to an Elabe poll for BFMTV on September 20, 55% of French people say they are in favor of this measure in the immigration bill. A week earlier, to the question asked by CSA for CNews “Should we regularize all illegal foreigners employed in professions in shortage?”, 55% of respondents answered no. This contradictory result, undoubtedly fueled by the use of the words “all” and “illegal” in the second item, could have no importance if it were not a source of very concrete arbitrations. On this specific subject, the government is thus convinced of being supported by the French and is tempted to pass in force, despite opposition from the right. Conversely, part of the latter has made this provision a “red line” which could lead it to reject the entire text, including the more repressive provisions that it and its electorate nevertheless demand.
By trying to stick to what is going on in the minds of the French, elected officials end up losing their minds. Because, in this area in particular, public opinion is complex and full of contradictions. First difficulty, talking about immigration does not mean discussing one subject, but a multitude. Recent arrivals, old immigration, integration… Depending on whether we are talking about one or the other, the positions of the same person can vary. Adélaïde Zulfikarpasic, general director of BVA, author of a note for the Jean-Jaurès Foundation“Immigration, this great taboo (of the left)”, perceived this in his investigation: “The same individual can think different things. He can find, for example, that there is a problem with “integration of old immigration, but wanting to reach out to people in difficulty today.”
Traditional divisions, political and electoral, are also impacted by others, more social and societal, which confuse the deciphering of public opinion. “The theme multiplies, it is difficult to circumscribe. It is not only economic and social as at one time, it joins that of the veil, of identity, of flows… The limits of what is ‘tolerance’ or ‘intolerance’, ‘racism’ or ‘anti-racism’ are also much more vague than a few decades ago. It is more difficult to perceive which way things are leaning”, summarizes Yvan Gastaut, historian and responsible for conferences at the Côte d’Azur University.
Political divisions less effective than yesterday
For the geographer Christophe Guilluy, author of The Dispossessed (Flammarion), the dividing line on immigration today is much more social than political. “The ordinary majority, the working classes, have been explaining to us for twenty-five years that there is a problem with migratory flows and that they should be regulated. This affects modest backgrounds because they are the most concerned. The question is “is that of the relationship with others, not of the ‘racist little white guy’. People don’t want to become a minority where they are.” A social vision that goes far beyond the right/left electoral map. The long-term trends measured by the BVA/Jean-Jaurès survey attest to this: since 2018, the idea that there are too many immigrants in France has grown significantly among left-wing sympathizers (+ 21 points, at 48%). The feeling has even become the majority at La France insoumise (51%) and at EELV (50%). “Many people express a feeling of injustice, not to say abandonment,” writes Adélaïde Zulfikarpasic.
His conclusion joins the work of Augustin Landier and David Thesmar in their book, The Price of our Values (Flammarion). To explore the link between views on immigration and feelings of dispossession or downgrading, the two economists carried out a small experiment by asking the following question: “Are you in favor of bringing in immigrants to occupy jobs in agriculture, personal services or catering?” Depending on whether it was specified – or not – that economic studies show that the presence of immigrant workers does not create unemployment or a drop in wages, the distribution of responses was very different. “When we reduce the cost on local workers (here, by emphasizing the consensus of economic experts), support for a more open migration policy strengthens,” the authors conclude.
Feeling as much as experience
Developing a policy in this context is all the less easy since, in public opinion, immigration is a subject of feelings, stereotypes and prejudices as much as of experience and precise data. Who thinks, for example, when drafting a bill, that the typical immigrant is not a young man but also, and 52%, a woman? Nobody, the feeling wins as it permeates the minds. “It is true that it is sometimes a matter of fear. But it is not because we live in an immigration-free zone that we are not capable of thinking about the world in which we live. And, moreover, if a migratory flow were to arrive, the most modest know that they would be the first to be affected, because they would be unable to move, to circumvent the school map…”, continues Christophe Guilluy.
Faced with the complexity of the subject, politicians hesitate, wonder, procrastinate. Should we really give so much importance to a theme which, in all surveys, does not appear at the top of the French people’s concerns, but comes after purchasing power, health, social protection, even security? Or should we, on the contrary and in order not to disappoint, be martial with “flow regulation”, “referral” and “100% effective OQTF”? “Politicians are constantly wondering how public opinion will react. They are more into saying than doing. For example, in 1974, it was important to say that we were closing the borders, even if we did not do so. didn’t really do it”, continues Yvan Gastaut.
From now on, while these symbolic gestures are no longer enough to satisfy an increasingly tense public opinion, the temptation is great to refer the decision to the “French” themselves. With his “great debate on national identity” in 2009, Nicolas Sarkozy tried it. By introducing the theme of immigration into the great post-yellow vest debate or by recently evoking the possibility of resorting to a referendum, Emmanuel Macron seems to give in to the same temptation. Before the next turnaround?