With Macron in the Élysée, what’s next for migration in France?

Emmanuel Macron of his En Marche! party won handily in Sunday’s runoff election, defeating far-right Marine Le Pen (formerly of Front National) with a margin of 66% to 34%, among people who voted for either candidate. The number of abstentions, blank or null votes was also significant, making up around 33% of registered voters. (Read our interview on the abstention debate here.)

FrenchElectionResults

Within our previous analyses, we noted that Macron does not suggest many changes to the migration system, and did not campaign as heavily on the topic as his opponent. Now that Macron will be president of France, what should people interested in migration be watching for?

How will Macron draw people with high education or special skills to France?

In his campaign proposals on immigration, Macron promises to introduce new types of visas for professionals, scientists, and creators while streamlining existing procedures to make it easier for Masters students, artists, entrepreneurs and other highly qualified people to come to France. He even took to youtube to invite American scientists to immigrate to France to fight against climate change.

But will he have a legislature willing to extend working rights to people who immigrate for these purposes? Will they be amenable to creating new visas? And will any highly-skilled people already in the country but lacking a visa be able to apply for such benefits?

Will Macron move to detain all people seeking asylum?

Among Macron’s promises on immigration is the pledge to reduce the time for people seeking asylum to receive decisions on their applications (which also presumably reduces the time for deportations. ) He suggests that detention is the best way to speed up the process. As we explained previously, European law is pretty solidly against universal detention of people seeking asylum.

Detaining all people seeking asylum (including, presumably, children) so that their applications can be handled more quickly might infringe on international law, and Macron may be called upon to give a different justification for such a policy, or to restrict it to certain types of people (such as, e.g., people considered flight risks or threats to public security.)

It will be interesting to see if Macron comes up against European law on asylum detention if and when he attempts to reform the asylum system.

Will he face opposition from both the right and the left?

Finally, it is very much worth watching France in the run-up to their parliamentary elections in June to see whether the energy stirred up in this contentious election campaign dissipates or builds. On the right, Marine Le Pen’s base is no doubt gratified by her best result ever and a respectably solid number of supporters that has been growing in recent years. Many may have realized that there is a pool of abstainers as well as plenty of smaller parties on the right that could be potentially persuaded to join a broad-based movement based on opposition to immigration and national identity. Will Le Pen now be able to build a movement outside of the Front National and persuade voters across the right to build a unified and vocal opposition?

On the other side, many of the the 33% of people who abstained or voted blank or null are probably supporters of Jean-Luc Mélenchon and will present an additional layer of opposition to Macron’s centrist policies. With the traditional socialist party facing a historic defeat in the first round, and the far-left represented by Mélenchon’s Unsubmissive France coming off an election high, will there be space for the left to come together to oppose both Macron’s neo-liberal policies and the growing influence of the far-right? Will the mainstream socialists be absorbed by En Marche, or Unsubmissive France?

These questions will probably play out over the next few years, but we’ll get our first clues when France goes to the polls once again in June.

 

Sources and Further Reading
Official Election Results 2017, French Ministry of Interior (French)
Results of the Second Round, Ipsos France (French)
Macron v. Le Pen on Migration, Asylum, and Integration. Migration Voter.
Macron’s Campaign Platform on Immigration, En Marche (French).
Macron’s Message to American Scientists, Youtube, May. 2017.
Cover Image via Laurie Shaull on Flickr, http://bit.ly/2pxHscc (CC by-SA 2.0)
Advertisements

INTERVIEW: John Mullen on the French Left and an alternative to fighting over abstention

The French presidential election is only days away and for many on the French left, the discussion is less about whether to vote for Marine Le Pen or Emmanuel Macron, but whether or not to vote at all.  A survey among members of Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s organization showing that two-thirds intended to cast a blank vote or abstain sent panic through Europe- could Marine Le Pen end up the president of France because of indifference to Macron? Here at Migration Voter, we are somewhat biased towards voting, so we wanted to look into the question more deeply to see what we were missing and whether the press had been simplifying the view of supporters of Mélenchon and others who are opposed to Macron.

John Mullen, a historian, and activist on the French anti-capitalist left was kind enough to take some time to explain the debate and give us his unique take on what’s next for the divided French left. You can read more of Mullen on his blog.

____________________________________________________

There is currently a huge discussion on the French left over whether to support Emmanuel Macron or to abstain from voting entirely. Can you sum up for us what’s happening?

There’s a sort of generalized panic on the Left. Although we’ve known for months that it was very likely Marine Le Pen would make it to the second round, there’s been no preparation about what to do and what sort of slogans would pull people together in the event that she made it. Now there’s lots of very unfraternal debate going on.

Macron represents for working people exactly the type of policies that have allowed Le Pen to build up support. Year after year of redundancies, encouraging Islamophobia and reducing union rights have led to this situation where large sections of the population, especially the poorer parts, distrust the establishment completely and are therefore prepared to vote for someone who is essentially a fascist. And so the left is stuck in a situation where both candidates are pretty horrible and there is the tactical question of what to do.

What’s the downside of tactically voting for Macron?

Well, it’s tremendously important to see this from a collective point of view. A lot of the debate has been very individualistic. ‘I would feel dreadful if I abstained!’ ‘I would feel so filthy if I voted for Macron’, and that’s just the wrong question. The question is what campaign will allow the interests of working people and minorities to be moved forward. So I do not campaign to vote Macron, but I also do not campaign for abstention. This question is dividing people so much that the most important thing to do is to find slogans that will bring people together, and a whole number of unions have come up with “Not a Single Vote for Le Pen.” I think that’s a good slogan. .. We’re not campaigning for a vote for Macron, but we are campaigning for no votes for Le Pen and leaving the question of abstention open.

What about those who say that if enough people abstain, Le Pen will end up in the Élysée Palace by default?

I think the important thing to remember is that politics is not arithmetic. All of the Left organizations who’ve called for a vote for Macron have disappeared from the debate for these two weeks because it’s all been summed up by being for or against Macron.  The Left organizations who are fighting Le Pen but not calling for a vote for Macron have, in my opinion, a great advantage, because they are showing the world, and particular the people who are tempted by Le Pen, that Le Pen is not the only opposition to the free-market neoliberal policies that Macron represents. In fact, not campaigning for a vote for Macron actually makes Le Pen’s job harder.

So the strategy is, in a way, to make a point to the people who might be tempted to vote Le Pen, by providing an alternative to neo-liberal policies outside of Le Pen?

I think that the Insubordinate France movement is the reason that Le Pen got 21% and not 27% in the first round. Because the radical left program was able to pull people away from Le Pen in key areas. For example, among young adults and among unemployed people, Melenchon got more than Le Pen. And these are historically very strong areas for Le Pen. So, those of us around Mélenchon’s campaign are particularly furious with the campaign going on against Mélenchon, which suggests that he doesn’t care about fascism and so on.

Mélenchon’s immigration policies were by far the most favorable to migrants and refugees. But now we’re faced with Macron versus Le Pen, Macron continuing the status quo or going slightly stricter while increasing skilled migration, whereas Le Pen wants to do a lot to restrict migration, closing the borders, eradicating the possibility of seeking asylum from within the country, increasing police and border guards, and making other changes that would significantly impact people who immigrate and people of color. To not vote Macron because of economic issues and allow in Le Pen – do you think that is pushing economic issues and opposition to neo-liberalism above the safety of immigrants and people of color?

That sounds like a leading question.

Oh, it is!

I must admit I don’t know much about Macron’s immigration policies. I know something of his attitude towards racism, and interestingly enough, almost for accidental reasons, he has been a sort of modernizing wing of the right wing of the socialist party, who isn’t interested in rapidly whipping up Islamophobia, like Manuel Valls was. And Macron even said the other week that colonialism was a crime against humanity, it was absolutely stunning to hear a right-wing socialist leader say that! So he’s trying to renew and modernize a certain section of the discourse around human rights issues and racial equality issues because France has been very backward on that.

Obviously, the whole society is absolutely soaked in racism, but I don’t think it’s possible to separate out the economic opposition to Macron from the questions about racism, where Macron is not the major factor. I think it’s true that one of the reasons that Le Pen has grown so much is because of the disastrous attitude of almost the entire French left on Islamophobia.

So for example, counter-terrorism policies that have had a disparate impact on people of color- by pushing such policies the socialists have pushed people towards the right?

I think so, but even more, the direct Islamophobia. For example, last year we had a campaign by right-wing mayors who passed bye-laws to stop Muslim women from wearing full body swimsuits on beaches, and they were publicly applauded by the socialist prime minister.

Really? That’s surprising. We did see Macron in the debate agreeing that what Muslim women wear on the beach is a public order issue.

To be just to everyone concerned, Mélenchon was not very good on that either. He said we have to denounce both the right wing mayors who stop people from wearing what they want and the people who are selling burkinis because they want to push an Islamic fundamentalist agenda. Which is nonsense?

I’d like to take a moment to talk about the international scene. The conversation in France is reminiscent of the conversation on the Left in the US. Many people who supported Sanders felt it would be nearly as bad to vote for Clinton as Trump, Trump ended up winning and installing policies that both people who voted for Sanders and Clinton are totally appalled by, and the two sides still haven’t really come together. Is this a warning for the Left in France, or are the two situations incomparable?

I’m not convinced that Trump won because leftists were not enthusiastic enough about Clinton…  I would say that we’ve seen this before in France. In 2002 Jean-Marie Le Pen got through to the second round and almost the entire left supported the conservative Jacques Chirac against him, and we discovered that this total unity in the ballot box did not put a significant brake on the building of the fascist party in France. And I think we’re obliged to understand that it’s the long-term building of a national, broadly based anti-fascist campaign that can make a difference. And what we need to be looking at in any given political situation is what will help to build a radical left alternative that is active and exciting and going out there supporting strikes and anti-racist demos and demos to defend hospitals, etc., getting really involved in everyday life, and also involved in a national permanent anti-fascist campaign, which doesn’t exist in France. Today the working class is paying for the lack of that campaign, in my opinion.

Final question. Did you read Yanis Varoufakis’ endorsement of Macron?

Yes, I was horrified!

He wrote, “Is Emmanuel Macron worse, from the left’s point of view, then Jacques Chirac in 2002? If this isn’t the case, then why do certain leaders from the left today refuse to support Macron against Le Pen? For me, it’s a veritable mystery.” How do you respond to that?

The thing is that since 2002 in many elections- legislative, regionals and so on- we’ve had often had this huge pressure. ‘Oh, you must vote for the right against the fascists.’ And the result is, 20 years later, the fascists are stronger than ever. But what is interesting today is that when Jean-Luc Mélenchon had a consultation of 240,000 members of his organization, only a third wanted to vote for Macron. That’s not just because they’ve all gone mad. It’s because it is clear to a lot of people that Macron’s politics are the sort that will make fascism stronger. Although people are very frightened in case she wins, many are still favoring abstention.Although it must be said, lots of people who are in favor of abstention will change their mind on Saturday night. Because the pressure is huge.

I wondered whether it would be the opposite- that lots of people who were considering voting would end up getting turned off and staying home.

I don’t think so, the pressure on the television, in the press, on social media, in the workplace is huge, it’s absolutely stunning. And I remember in 2002 there was a huge amount of pressure, even though at the end Chirac got 80%!

I’m not campaigning for abstention because people are scared and I understand that. But I certainly can’t campaign for Macron because he doesn’t represent in any way a future that can cut the grass under fascism. I’m campaigning for no vote for the fascists, and get involved in left-wing politics.

Sources and Further Reading
Results of the Consultation on the Election. La France Insoumise (French).
A Radical Departure? Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s party on migration and asylum. Migration Voter.
Macron v. Le Pen on immigration, asylum and integration. Migration Voter.
Emmanuel Macron calling colonialism a crime against humanity in interview. (Video) (French)
Manuel Valls speaking in favor of the burkini ban. La Provence (French), Aug. 2016.
Macron came to Greece’s aid during our crisis. The French left should back him. Yanis Varoufakis op-ed in The Guardian, May 2017.
Image via Jeanne Menjoulet on Flickr, http://bit.ly/2pd9Vmz (CC by 2.0)

Macron v. Le Pen on Immigration, Asylum and Integration

After lots of excitement in the final weeks leading up to the French election, Emmanuel Macron and Marine Le Pen will proceed to the runoff, a result that was widely predicted and yet produced significant surprise when it actually came to be, given the current distrust in the accuracy of polls.

When it comes to immigration, the differences between the top two candidates are significant, although they are not as diametrically opposed to one another as, say, Le Pen and Jean-Luc Melenchon. While Le Pen offers a vision of a dramatically altered immigration regime for France, Macron essentially makes some measured tweaks to the status quo, focused on making the country a more attractive immigration destination for certain types of people and making the asylum process more efficient. Let’s see where the candidates come down on some of the big questions surrounding immigration, asylum, and integration.

Immigration: Invite more students and skilled labor, or reduce across the board?

Le Pen’s overall approach to migration is restrictive, although she doesn’t eradicate it totally as she has suggested in some speeches. She promises to reduce legal immigration to a total of 10,000 people per year, and change the law to restrict family reunification and acquisition of citizenship through marriage or birth in France. She also wants to crack down on irregular as well as EU immigration by leaving the Schengen zone and reestablishing borders, while bolstering border forces and customs agents.

Macron does not get into many specifics about his intentions on all forms of legal immigration, leaving us to assume that he wants to maintain the law as it stands on issues like the acquisition of citizenship and family reunification. (In fact, he asserts that “fantasies” about family reunification are overblown: only 12,000 received family reunification visas in 2015, and of these the majority received them under international rather than domestic legal commitments.)

Instead, Macron focuses on students and other types of “knowledge” migration. He would introduce new types of visas for professionals, scientists, and creators while streamlining existing procedures to make it easier for Masters students, artists, entrepreneurs and other highly qualified people to come to France.  Once they get there, he also wants to make it easier for them to access the labor market.

Asylum: Incredibly restricted, or restricted?

Both Le Pen and Macron in some way want to bolster the existing asylum regime to make it faster (and easier to deport people who do not receive asylum.) Le Pen would recruit 6,000 new border officers over five years, alter the asylum system to only take place in French consulates but not on French territory, and expel everyone else. (As we have noted, as stated these two last points likely violate French domestic and international obligations.)

Macron advocates for a “dignified” system that is nevertheless “inflexible” with people who are not entitled to remain. This inflexibility is reflected in a much faster decision process: decisions on asylum applications should be reached in 8 weeks (it currently averages around 11 months) and judgments on appeals should take 6-8 weeks. In this same proposal, Macron implies (without stating outright) that he prefers people seeking asylum to remain in detention to help speed up the process.

Having the applicants on site greatly reduces the processing time (removal of unavailability and sickness, which involves one quarter of the cases, removal of travel costs) and eliminates the time and notification disputes.

This notion could be problematic under European and international law, so here we need a little detour to briefly discuss the legality of mass detention of people seeking asylum.

As the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) lays out in their Detention Guidelines, detention is an extraordinary measure that must be proscribed by law and justified by some legitimate purpose, not merely for convenience in speeding up asylum application proceedings.

Detention can only be exceptionally resorted to for a legitimate purpose. Without such a purpose, detention will be considered arbitrary, even if entry was illegal.

The Council of Europe concurs, saying in a recommendation on the subject of detention that people seeking asylum, although non-citizens, are protected by the European Convention on Human Rights: “no one shall be deprived of his liberty save in exceptional cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law, as stipulated by Article 5.1.b. and f. of the European Convention on Human Rights.”

A recent case at the European Court of Justice (2016) reiterates these principles and applies them directly to EU member states like France, narrowing the scope of justification for the detention of people seeking asylum to cases where the individual him or herself (and not just his or her status) presents a danger to public order or national security. Below, part of the Court’s ruling from JN v. Staatssecretaris voor Veiligheid en Justitie:

“…keeping an applicant in detention under point (e) of the first subparagraph of Article 8(3) of Directive 2013/33 is, in view of the requirement of necessity, justified on the ground of a threat to national security or public order only if the applicant’s individual conduct represents a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat, affecting a fundamental interest of society or the internal or external security of the Member State concerned.”

Detaining all people seeking asylum (including, presumably, children) so that their applications can be handled more quickly might infringe on international law, and Macron may be called upon to give a different justification for such a policy, or to restrict it to certain types of people (such as, e.g., people considered flight risks or threats to public security.)

Integration: Everybody just speak French

One place where Le Pen and Macron both concur is on the need of newcomers and nationals to learn French. Macron would encourage this by giving every newcomer to France the “entitlement” to learn French to the level of B1. In practical terms though, this isn’t so much a right as a requirement, since he proposes making this language acquisition a condition of a residence permit.

Le Pen rejects the concepts of multiculturalism and prefers the standard of “assimilation” over integration. To this end, she wants to strengthen ties with French-speaking communities across the world, ensure that French is spoken in universities, and “ensure primary schools spend half their teaching time on teaching spoken and written French.”

An imbalance in the candidates’ focus

In sum, the major difference between Le Pen and Macron is their focus. Le Pen has made restricting immigration and asylum one of the cornerstones of her campaign, while Macron is far more focused on economic and social considerations. Will his lack of focus cost him at the polls? Or will French people reject the kinds of radical, across the board changes that Le Pen is running on? We will find out in two weeks.

Sources and Further Reading
Marine Le Pen’s 144 Presidential Commitments (English) (PDF)
Emmanuel Macron’s Immigration and Asylum Proposals (French)
Detention Guidelines. UNCHR, 2012.
Rec(2003)5 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on measures of detention of asylum seeker. Council of Europe, 2003.
J. N. v Staatssecretaris voor Veiligheid en Justitie Judgment, Court of Justice of the European Union, 2016.
Detention of Asylum Seekers: The First CJEU Judgment -Steve Peers on EU Law Analysis Blog.
Images: Macron via Ville de Nevers on Flickr, http://bit.ly/2plFT1E, (CC by NC-SA-2.0), Le Pen via Blandine Le Cain http://bit.ly/2qa7K4Q (CC by 2.0)

A radical departure? Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s Party on Migration and Asylum

With mere days until the first round of the French presidential election, the polls have evened out to the extent that it looks a four-way race (within the margin of error), with centrist Emmanuel Macron taking a narrow lead and closely followed by far-right Marine Le Pen, center-right Francois Fillon, and far-left Jean-Luc Mélenchon. Sunday’s vote will most likely narrow down the race to two candidates, who will face off in a runoff election two weeks later.

There is an upside to the fact that the election is so wide open: practically the entire range of possible views on migration are represented! This is unusual, especially in comparison to the more common scene: candidates who say the same thing on migration policy in different ways, while heavily favoring the status quo.

We’ve already summarized where the major candidates stand on migration and asylum, and examined Le Pen more closely, as she has campaigned continuously and heavily on the theme of restricting immigration. But far-left candidate Jean-Luc Mélenchon deserves a closer look as well. He and his brand-new party, Unsubmissive France, have been steadily gaining in the run-up to the election, and his proposals on immigration would present as much of a departure from current French policy as Le Pen’s.

The Business of Xenophobia

In Unsubmissive France’s in-depth explanation of their migration policy, (not written by Mélenchon himself, we should note) the authors offer an anti-capitalist critique of the European migration crisis. The European Union, by creating a migration policy based on borders and security have incentivized both the exploitation of migrants and the fear of them, they write.

“…[S]ecurity policies lead to the development of a “business” of fear and xenophobia by giving the transnationals of the security industry the opportunity to benefit from a new financial windfall at European level. These policies keep migrants in a state of permanent insecurity, in particular encouraging them to put their available work force of employers who want to benefit from exploitable labor, and place them at an inability to meet their most basic rights.”

Given this diagnosis of the problem, the party proposes numerous EU-wide policies that would solve it: work for peace and avoid military deployments, end the imposition of unfair trade deals that destabilize other countries and regions, work on adequate development and climate change policy that will make home countries more livable, and people less ready to leave them for Europe.

These policies have the advantage of being unique among French candidates and speaking to larger global and economic issues. A major downside is that they are not policies that can be implemented by Mélenchon if elected. He can work to promote these views at the European level, but as one member state, even an influential one, he cannot meaningfully promise voters the ability to enact an entirely new EU security or trade policy (and cannot accomplish these by threatening to leave.) In that sense, these proposals are unrealistic, but give an idea of the general worldview of the party: anti-capitalist, pacifist, labor-oriented.

Unraveling migration laws and trade agreements

The party goes on to elaborate a plan that would fundamentally alter the legal situation of migrants in France, from acquisition of citizenship to family reunification to asylum. Many of the proposals aim to erase restrictions now existing, while others propose new laws or policies.

For instance, the party calls for France to:

  • Decriminalize illegal residence and end detention of immigrants, especially children
  • Break with European directives and repeal the successive laws that aimed to restrict the right of asylum in France,
  • End free trade agreements and replace with protectionist solidarity

In effect, Melenchon is calling for “amnesty” for undocumented migrants and for authorities to stop enforcing immigration laws. This could, theoretically, be achieved but would require the dismantling of an entire system created to apprehend, detain, and deport undocumented migrants, which employs many people and is connected to numerous criminal and civil code provisions. It would no doubt create some upheaval and be difficult to get past the legislature.

As for the idea to break with European directives, this could be less tricky, depending on how it is operated. Many European directives applying to asylum regulate “minimum standards” for the asylum process in member states. In other words, they regulate the least the state can do in certain situation but do not prevent that they do more. In fact, they deliberately allow for this possibility. For instance, the 2013 EU Asylum Directive in article 5 states “Member States may introduce or retain more favourable standards on procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, insofar as those standards are compatible with this Directive.” So if Melenchon “breaks” with EU directives in a way that offer more protection to asylum seekers, it will probably not be a legal problem at the European level.

Ending free trade agreements unilaterally, on the other hand, will. The EU generally negotiates as a block on trade agreements and is currently implementing deals with numerous countries and regions, such as one with West Africa, East Africa, and Canada. Could France withdraw from these and replace them with “solidarity” or development schemes?

The answer is probably no, unless they withdraw from the EU as Britain plans to do. Trade policy is an area that is firmly within the scope of exclusive EU competences- meaning only the European Commission can negotiate trade deals with other countries or regions, and individual member states can’t alter these or exit them. This also applies to foreign direct investment. So without withdrawing from the EU customs union more generally, which as Brexit has shown is no small undertaking, France will probably not easily extricate itself from EU trade policy.

Granting More Rights

Unsubmissive France has more in their program than just repealing laws and treaties. They also have some positive legal proposals with ranging levels of realism:

  • Restore jus soli citizenship rights for people born in France
  • Allow asylum seekers to work while they wait for their cases to be reviewed
  • Allow for “flexible” return scenarious, with fluidity between France and other countries and ability to return elsewhere without losing residence rights

“Our collective mission is to respect the human dignity of migrants and their fundamental right to family life,” Unsubmissive France writes, and their policy proposals support this migrant-centered mission and present new ideas that make France more welcoming both to new immigrants and for people already living in France who are not citizens. 

The introduction of jus soli citizenship would make France the first country in Europe to have an US-style citizenship law, wherein being born in France entitles a child to automatic citizenship. This idea, in combination with decriminalization of undocumented migrants, would mean that multi-generation families without residence rights would be a thing of the past. This proposal would represent an extension of the form of jus soli citizenship already in place under the French civil code, which was detailed in our article on Le Pen (who, in contrast, wishes to eradicate Jus soli citizenship.)

The priority of workers rights and the value that UF places on work is visible from policies granting work permission to asylum seekers and people who wish to return to other countries for temporary periods to work. These promises are a little vague, and one can’t help but wonder whether proposals like these would encounter resistance from powerful French labor unions. But as with many of these proposals: its usually easier under the law to give new rights than to take them away.

Radical, and Sometimes Unrealistic

Overall,  Melenchon’s party proposes radical changes to the status of migrant under the French system that could be difficult to get through the legislature, but overall comport with their own constitution and international commitments. They propose ideas that would be a major change from how things are done now, but do not necessarily break with French values as embodied in the constitution- in many cases they just extend them further. 

Where UF’s plans are weakest are when they refer to EU-wide activities, like trade. Its not impossible for France to follow Britain out of the EU in order not to be bound by EU-wide trade agreements and other commitments, but this would make it far more difficult too simultaneously influence EU policy on distribution of asylum seekers or military engagements in other countries. And organizing a “Frexit” referendum would require Melenchon to spend valuable political capital that could otherwise be used to reorganize immigration law in the way he proposes.

For pro-immigrant voters, Melenchon’s policies have lots of appeal. But voters will have to weigh this against the overwhelming ambitiousness of UF’s plans, to consider whether one candidate can really achieve so many massive changes at the same time without setting priorities.

Sources and Further Reading
Respect Migrants, Regulate the Causes of Migration. L’Avenir en Commun, Migration Program of Unsubmissive France (in French.)
How France’s Presidential Election could break- or make- the EU. The Guardian. (April 2017)
DIRECTIVE 2013/32/EU (Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection). Official Journal of the European Union. (2013)
The EU’s Bilateral Trade and Investment Agreements- Where are we? European Commission (2013).
Trade- overview. European Commission website.
What is Trade Policy? European Commission website.
Le Pen’s Promises on Immigration and Asylum: A Closer Look. Migration Voter (April 2017)
Cover image via Pierre-Selim on Flickr, http://bit.ly/2pYjgzr. (CC by-SA 2.0)

Holocaust revisionist ‘gaffes’ hide policies that target both Jews and Muslims

US White House press secretary Sean Spicer has been the target of a media firestorm since his unfortunate remarks at a press briefing last week comparing Assad to Hitler, with Hitler coming out favorably. 

“We didn’t use chemical weapons in World War Two. You had someone as despicable as Hitler who didn’t even sink to using chemical weapons”…. “I think when you come to sarin gas, he was not using the gas on his own people the same way that Assad is doing.”

(He later apologized.)

The remarks were clearly inaccurate, given that Hitler indeed used chemical weapons and deployed them against his own people. But whether or not Spicer was aware of that and simply misspoke, or is poorly informed on the history surrounding World War II, it provoked us at Migration Voter to reflect on recent similar “gaffes” from far-right politicians regarding the Holocaust.

For instance, Front National’s Le Pen said during an event with Le Figaro in April:

I think France isn’t responsible for the Vel d’Hiv…. I think that, in general, if there are people responsible, it is those who were in power at the time. It is not France.”

Vel d’Hiv is the shorthand for an event that occurred during the Holocaust when 13,152 French Jews were rounded up by French police at the direction of the Nazis and sent to Auschwitz, where they were murdered. France has taken responsibility for the atrocity in the past, but Le Pen implied this was hurting French pride, saying “France has been mired in people’s minds for years.”

And Germany’s far-right Euroskeptic party Alternative für Deutschland attracted a great deal of negative press following a speech in January by state leader of Thuringia Björn Höcke in which he discussed Germany’s dealing with their role in the Holocaust, referring to the Memorial to the Murdered Jews in central Berlin as “a monument of shame.”

“We Germans… are the only people in the world who have planted a monument of shame in the heart of their capital city.” “We do not need any more dead rites in this country. … We no longer need hollow phrases in this country, we need a living culture of remembrance, which brings us first and foremost into contact with the great achievements of our ancestors.”

One of the reasons why the press has seized on these comments is because they supposedly give the lie to the strong stances these parties have each taken against anti-Semitism. These promises of being pro-Jewish and against forms of anti-Semitism have been coupled with a focus on casting Muslims, especially Muslim immigrants, as a threat both to Jews and to the nations in general.

  • Marine Le Pen of the Front National has promised numerous actions to target what she calls “Islamic fundamentalism”, proposing policies targeting mosques and Muslims (such as banning the hijab.) On the other hand, she has made conscious efforts to reach out to the Jewish community, banning anti-Semitic members of her party and sending FN party secretary Nicolas Bay on a goodwill trip to Israel. While there, Bay was interviewed by Haaretz (article behind paywall, but see Breitbart), where he made FN’s position clear: “[French Jews] understand that we’re the only ones who are clearly pointing to the source of the anti-Semitic attacks – the Islamists. Marine Le Pen has already said that the National Front is French Jewish citizens’ shield against these attacks.”
  • AfD takes a similarly strong stance against Muslims and immigrants from Muslim majority countries, stating in their program that “Islam does not belong to Germany” and introducing numerous policies against Muslim religious dress and immigration to Germany, while stating “ The AfD does not concur with the view which regards the criticism of Islam as islamophobic or being derogatory.” They have also spoken out often against anti-Semitism, however. For instance, in a press release in 2016 their Federal Councilor wrote, “The thought of what many of the Muslim immigrants bring along is characterized by anti-Semitism and the rejection of Western values…. Anti-Semitism must have no place in Germany. Many Muslims are still unaware of this and represent a danger to our values and our community.”

In short, despite statements that could be construed as Holocaust revisionism, the officials of the Front National and AfD have consistently been outspoken against anti-Semitism, claiming that their policies, by excluding Muslims and fighting “Islamism”, will be the best safeguard for Jews in their countries.

The complication with this argument, that the press has so far failed to discuss as far as we know, is that a large number of the policies aimed at excluding Muslim religious practices and Muslim immigrants would inevitably also target Jews, as well as other religious minority groups. 

Policies Targeting the Muslim Community that would affect the Jewish Community

Front National

Le Pen, for instance, promises to abolish dual citizenship (see presidential commitment number 27) for non-European holders of two passports. While this would no doubt affect a large population of French people with dual citizenship from Muslim-majority countries, she has stated that it would apply to Israelis as well. (Note, however, that we doubt this policy can go through as worded.)

In another example, Le Pen promises under the banner “Eradicate Terror and Break Up Islamic Fundamentalist Networks” that she will “ban foreign funding of places of worship and their personnel.” Although she explicitly mentions Islam in the title, her language clearly indicates (“places of worship”) this would apply to synagogues and Jewish religious activities (as well as other religious groups, presumably.)

Even more obviously, in her plan “to defend French unity and the national identity” Le Pen proposes constitutional and policy changes that would certainly apply to Jews, Muslims, and any other minority group.

Capture

It is difficult to parse what consequences these changes might have for religious minorities, but it would seem to change their constitutional status and ability to retain their own culture, if it differs from the majority culture. Commitment number 97 is particularly interesting, given Le Pen’s comments on France’s role in the Holocaust.

Additionally, Le Pen and FN have advocated for the elimination of any special religious dietary options in French public schools. In a 2014 interview, Le Pen outlined her position on the issue.

“We will accept no religious requirements in the school lunch menus,” Mrs. Le Pen told RTL radio. “There is no reason for religion [dietary options] to enter into the public sphere.”

This would eliminate any halal but also any kosher options. Therefore, if something banned by both Islam and Judaism – such as pork – was on the menu for that day, then pork is what Muslim and Jewish students would also be served. 

Alternative für Deutschland

In zeroing in on policies they hope will fortify and promote German “high culture” (Leitkultur) and move away from multiculturalism, AfD also promotes ideas that would harm German Jews as collateral damage in their fight against Muslims. For instance, in their platform (pg. 46), they state that German culture is composed of three main sources: Christianity, “scientific and humanistic culture” and Roman law, and that multiculturalism poses “a serious threat to social peace and the survival of the nation-state as a cultural unit”. Judaism clearly lies outside of their three main pillars of German society- does it also form a threat that must be protected against?

Capture

Under the section “End foreign financing of mosques” there are some additional provisions that would be problematic for the Jewish community. AfD calls for a ban on foreign financing of mosques, the banning of any language other than German spoke during religious services, and for imams to get government permission before preaching in Germany. It is difficult to see how these laws could comport with the German constitution generally, but if they would they would necessarily have to apply to all religious groups. This would disproportionately impact Jewish communities as it would ban foreign (such as Israeli or American) donations to synagogues, ban speaking Hebrew, and require visiting rabbis to get permission. German Christian congregations are primarily German-funded, speak primarily German, and are led primarily by German priests, necessarily making the impact of such policies far stricter on religious minorities and immigrant groups.

Again, its worth noting that many of these policies, as stated in their party program, are completely in contradiction with German domestic law and European Union law. However, whether or not they can be achieved, they allow insight into the stated aims and goals of the party.

Why analyze “gaffes” when the policies are clear?

Like with Sean Spicer’s remarks, the Holocaust revisionist statements by Le Pen and Höcke sparked minor scandals and caused many people to ask: were these accidental gaffes, or intentional anti-Semitic messages to voters?

In the case of the FN and AfD, it isn’t necessary to get at the innermost hearts and minds of the party elite via their speeches, because we have access to their direct, stated goals and programs.

If voters are worried about anti-Semitism in populist parties out of concern for its implications for the Jewish community if these parties were to come to power, it is very clearly worth understanding that many of the policies that are meant to target Muslims will harshly affect Jews as well as other minority religious groups, especially those with numerous co-religionists in other countries. Laws restricting the ability to dress a certain way, eat a certain diet or connect with (and fundraise from) people in other countries will evenly impact any person of faith connected to a minority religious group.

Voters who are concerned about anti-Semitism because of the historical context of what happens when a minority religious group is demonized and cast as a threat to the people and their national identity do not need to look too far to see that these parties already do precisely this with Muslims. For some people, that’s part of their appeal. For others, it may be a good reason to weigh their vote carefully.

 

Sources and Further Reading
Sean Spicer apologizes for gaffe” The Guardian, April 2017
Le Pen reopens old wounds” Reuters, April 2017
For Le Pen, France is not responsible for Vel’d’Hiv” Le Figaro, April 2017 (in French)
Vel’d’Hiv Roundup, Wikipedia.org
Chirac admits to France’s Atrocities During WW2 (video), Associated Press (1995)
Transcript of Höcke’s Speech in Dresden, Der Taggespiegel, (Jan. 2017) (in German)
144 Presidential Commitments (PDF), Front National 2017
‘We Just Want to Preserve Our Identity – Like Israel and Trump,’ Le Pen Party Official Tells Haaretz.” Haaretz (Jan. 2017)
French populists visit Israel to build relations“. Breitbart (Jan. 2017)
Manifesto for Germany- AFD party program (PDF), AFD 2017
Pazderski: Many immigrants bring along their anti-Semitic worldview. AFD Press Release (June 2016)
Le Pen Calls to Ban Special Dietary Restrictions, The Telegraph, (April 2014)
Cover image: Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe in Berlin. Via Olly Coffey on Flickr, http://bit.ly/2nY8ahi (CC by-NC 2.0)

Le Pen’s Promises on Citizenship and Asylum: A Closer Look

By Christian Jorgensen

Leading French presidential candidate for the far-right Front National party Marine Le Pen is running on a platform that she says will “free France”, and she has made 144-commitments that she promises will do just that. There are three that revolve around the topics of citizenship and asylum that deserve a closer look into what their impact on migrants and policy could be.

Promise 28: To return to the original spirit of the right of asylum which, furthermore, will only be granted after the filing of an application in French Embassies or Consulates in the countries of origin, or bordering countries.

In promise 28 of her 144 Presidential Commitments, Le Pen advocates a “return to the original spirit of asylum.” Expanding on that, she hopes to change the refugee application process, to only accept asylum applications from outside of France: in French embassies or consulates in the countries of origin, or in bordering countries. Looking at the 1951 Refugee convention, of which France is founding member, and French domestic law, Le Pen’s “return” may not be as easy to implement as she and the Front National may think.

Foremost, the Refugee Convention builds on Article 14 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)which recognises the right of individuals to seek asylum from persecution. Building on this right, The Refugee Convention of 1951 defines a refugee thusly:

”As a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951 and owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.”

The key point here that Le Pen should be aware of is that a refugee is an individual who has been forced to flee his or her country of origin and most likely cannot return home or is afraid to do so. Le Pen’s proposal to require asylum to be requested in countries of origin is completely contrary to what the law states about asylum.  If an individual is forced to flee out of fear for their life, it is very unlikely that they will be able to request asylum at a French embassy in their own country.

Going deeper one can look at France’s own constitutional law on the issue. French law dating back to the preamble to the constitution of 27 October 1947, “[a]ny man persecuted in virtue of his actions in favor of liberty may claim the right of asylum upon the territories of the Republic.” This was again strengthened in 1993 in a report by the Constitutional Council, “asylum is a [French] constitutional right for persons who qualify for it” (emphasis mine.) Furthermore, the Constitutional Council found that asylum applicants have the right to reside in France until their asylum request has been processed and decided upon, and those who qualify for asylum must be allowed to stay in France. Le Pen’s promise requiring asylum seekers to file their requests overseas contradicts not only international law but French constitutional law as well.

Additionally, there is some confusion in the language she chooses to use. In response to her claim “to return to the original spirit of asylum,” what does she exactly mean? In 1951, as the United Nations led by France and the other major world powers sat at the table, they drafted the 1951 Refugee Convention to create a set of rules that address the refugee issue that had been created by WWII. Thus, France along with the other UN leaders created the original spirit of asylum. This spirit was one that emphasized the principle of non-refoulement, which asserts that a refugee should not be returned to a country where they face serious threats to their life or freedom. One could argue that Le Pen’s plan to return to the original spirit is completely contrary to what the original spirit of what modern asylum law is, perhaps she would like to return to the days of cathedral sanctuary?

Through a legal lens it is highly unlikely that promise 28 will be able to be kept entirely, as there are many aspects of international and French law that Le Pen seems to disregard.

Promise 27 To abolish jus soli (right of the soil): it will only be possible to acquire French nationality by filiation or naturalisation, the conditions for which will be tightened. To abolish dual nationality for non-Europeans.

Le Pen has made her 27th commitment to completely change the system in which French nationality is acquired and change the rules for all individuals who currently hold dual-citizenship.  With the jus soli legislation of the current French Civil Code, French citizenship can be obtained by individuals born in France in four ways:

  1. At age 18 if individual has held French residency for five years since the age 11;
  2. Between the ages of 16 and 18 upon request by the child and if the individual has been a resident of France for at least 5 years since age 11
  3. Between the ages of 13 and 16 upon the request of the child’s parents and if the individual has been a resident of France for at least 5 years since age 8.
  4. Immediately at birth, if the child is stateless

Now, per Le Pen and the Front National leaders, they want to abolish all of it. First it should be noted that to keep this promise Le Pen would need to put forth an amendment to the current French Civil Code and get this approved by the French National Assembly. With the current makeup of the French National Assembly, which is controlled by the Socialists, it is very unlikely that such a measure would pass without much contention.

The real question is the legality of the denial of jus soli citizenship for those born in France who would otherwise be born stateless. Is this legal, considering that jus soli is a safeguard against statelessness? There is an international treaty, the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness that may lead to Le Pen violating numerous areas of international law. It should first be noted that France has signed the 1961 convention but has yet to ratify it. However, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which is considered by many states and international bodies to be customary international law (see ICJ, Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Case), states that being a signatory alone, “creates an obligation to refrain, in good faith, from acts that would defeat the object and the purpose of the treaty.” Therefore, as a signatory to the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, France is bound to not purposefully do anything that violates the 1961 convention, which eliminating jus soli citizenship at birth for stateless individuals arguably would. It could violate Article 1(1) and Article 1(4) of the 1961 convention. Article 1(1), the first and most important article, binds states to grant citizenship to persons, otherwise stateless, born in their territory.  This may be in any matter they seem fit within their national law, but a path to citizenship must be available to those stateless individuals born on their territory. Article 1(4) requires states to give nationality to a person, otherwise stateless, who is legally precluded from assuming his/her birth of nationality.  This could extend for example to individuals born to Jordanian national single mothers to receive French citizenship, since Jordanian citizenship cannot be maternally inherited.

The last part of Le Pen’s 27th promise is that dual-citizenship would be removed from all Non-European French-naturalized-citizens.  She explains further, this would allow naturalized French citizens with dual-citizenship in other EU countries and even non-EU European countries such as Russia to keep their dual-citizenship but would require naturalized French citizens such as French-Israelis or French-Americans to choose one citizenship over the other. The inclusion of Russia begs the question of who is implied by “European” in Le Pen’s definition. Russia is not in the EU, but is in the Council of Europe and continental Europe- as are Turkey and Azerbaijan. Would this mean that all Turkish and Azerbaijani dual-citizens would be able to keep their dual status as well?

Without clarification (if she, for instance, just means EU members plus Russia), Le Pen’s ad-hoc definition of European could arguably fall under UDHR Article 15 , which states that no one may be arbitrarily deprived of his or her nationality. (Although not a binding legal treaty, many provisions of UDHR have achieved status of international customary law, and this is one of them). The UN has addressed the issue of deprivation leading to statelessness and have found for it be in violation of international human rights law (UN HRC report).

Additionally, this is not something Le Pen can unilaterally enact. To keep this promise Le Pen would have to call on the National Assembly to add additional reasons for citizen deprivation, which is dictated by Article 25 of the French Civil Code and currently only allow for deprivation of citizenship because of criminal and treasonous acts against the French Republic and not because of the state or region where an individual has additional citizenship.

Promise 31 To combat jihadi networks: stripping of French nationality, expulsion and banning re-entry into the country for any person with dual nationality linked to a jihadi organisation. To apply Article 411-4 of the Penal Code on passing intelligence to the enemy and to place any individual with French nationality, with links to a foreign organisation promoting hostile activities or aggression against France and the French people, in preventive custody. To draw up a list of such organisations.

Promise 31 is one of the few similarities between Le Pen and current French President Francois Hollande, who earlier in 2016 tried to add a similar provision to French Nationality Law.  However, Le Pen would like to deprive French nationality to all individuals with connections to “Jihadi” organizations.  French Civil Code under Article 25 would allow for deprivation of citizenship for French citizens and dual nationals who carried out terrorist attacks, but it has only been acted on a few times and the courts are very reluctant to deprive individuals of their French citizenship. Based on the court’s history of deprivation Le Pen might have a much harder time with carrying out deprivation even further.  Currently, Article 25 states that an individual who has been sentenced for committing a crime against the state may constitute legal reason for deprivation of citizenship, however, this doesn’t extend to someone who is suspected of terrorist activity or suspected to have connections to terrorist organizations.  Le Pen would have to further define what she defines as a connection to such an organization.  Is it having cousins belonging to terrorist cell? Is it indirectly fundraising for an organization determined to be a terrorist organization, whether one consciously knows it? Additionally, does this only apply to Islamist terrorist organisations, as using the term jihad implies, and not apply to terrorist organizations on the far left, or right, or terrorist organizations with a Western Religious Ideology such as Catholic or Protestant Christianity?

There is another problem with Le Pen’s vague wording, in that depriving someone’s citizenship for ill-defined connection with an organization could violate the freedom of association and legal privacy of life promised by the French Constitution. For Le Pen to keep true to her promise in this regard, she and the Front National must make this promise a great deal more specific for it to have a chance of becoming French legal practice.

Conclusion
Overall vagueness, disregard for existing law, and feasibility all seem to be reoccurring issues with Le Pen’s promises on migration and citizenship. It is one thing to make policy promises and another to navigate the pathway to successful policy implementation and this is something Le Pen and Front National should keep in mind.

READ MORE
1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
French Civil Code
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
Ways to French Citizenship
More on VCLT and why it is customary international law
Marine Le Pen’s 144 Commitments (in English)
The Refugee Convention of 1951
Preamble to the Constitution of 27 October 1947
More on Statelessness
ICJ Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros
More on Le Pen and only dual-european nationals (video)
Image via Pietro Piupparco a flickr (cc By-SA 2.0) http://bit.ly/2nTYNKq

Unsubmissive, apolitical, revolutionary: the diverse migration views of the French presidential candidates

The French presidential race is just around the corner (April 23rd, to be exact) and the strongest performers couldn’t be more divided on the topic of immigration. Here’s our sum up of where the top five stand on migration and asylum.

To read about how the French election works, read our handy election explainer!


Marine Le Pen – Front National

imageedit_11_8581682719

I want to put an end to immigration, that’s clear.

Since the start of her campaign, far-right Front National candidate and current forerunner Marine Le Pen has argued for “one culture and one language.” Thus, simplifying her immigration policy.  Le Pen calls for France to leave the Schengen zone and increasing the requirements to become a French national- eradicating so-called jus soli citizenship, and dual citizenship for non-Europeans. Additionally, Le Pen says that her immigration policy will reduce annual legal immigration into France by 80% , to about 10,000 individuals per year. Le Pen advocates the continuing of asylum applications overseas in French embassies and countries of origin, but states that many of the current migrants in France requesting asylum are illegal (undocumented) immigrants. She thus advocates a swift deportation policy and makes it impossible to legalize their situation. For immigrants who commit crimes, she suggests establishing bilateral treaties that allow people convicted in France to serve out their sentences in their countries of origin.


Emmanuel Macron – En Marche!

imageedit_9_7827606301

The European Union cannot accept on its soil all those who are in search of a better life.

Former banker and finance minister Emmanuel Macron is the great question mark in the campaign- the leader of a brand new political party, he’s never held an elected post but is nevertheless steadily polling among the top two along with Le Pen and is likely (at this point) to make it to the runoff. His political stance generally rejects simple categorizations of left and right, but his immigration policy takes a relatively standard center-right line. He says the EU must continue to accept its “fair share” of refugees, while ensuring anyone not entitled to asylum is promptly deported, with decisions being handed down within 8 weeks of arrival. He also expects immigrants to integrate into local communities and introduces policies aimed at increasing integration, such as mandatory (funded) language courses. Finally, he wishes to make France more attractive for desirable types of migrants (desirable to Macron at least) such as researchers, students, investors, and artists.


François Fillon- Les Republicains

imageedit_5_8469689078

Our demography is one of the most dynamic in Europe so that, in contrast to most of our European neighbors, we do not need immigration to support our growth.

François Fillon is the candidate of the center-right Republicans, once thought to be a strong contender but now under fire constantly following a scandal involving alleged payments made to his wife (“Penelopegate”). Facing calls to step down, he defiantly remains in the race and can’t be counted out. Regarding his immigration policy, he is barely to the left of the Front National, calling for legal immigration to France to be reduced “to the bare minimum.” To this end, he proposes strict limits on family reunification and even ethnic quotas for various regions to avoid concentration of communities in the same municipalities. To the extent that EU standards conflict with his proposals, he wants to renegotiate. He would also significantly reduce benefits for migrants, including healthcare, limiting it to minors and emergency treatment. He also calls for restoring detention for asylum seekers, and would have decisions handed down within four months. Finally, he wants to restrict citizenship to those immigrants who have shown themselves to be “clearly assimilated”, and allow for citizenship applications to be opposed by the state in cases of doubt, especially, he says, in the case of children of undocumented immigrants.


Benoit Hamon- Parti Socialiste

imageedit_3_7006205659

The bulk of international migration is not on a South North Axis but a South-South axis. I will be working on both.

Benoit Hamon represents the French Socialist party (parti socialiste), whose currently reigning president Hollande declined to run for re-election. Hamon is the minister of education, and its fair to say that migration comprises a relatively minor part of a wide-ranging program,  focused on reforming labor, the economy, and the justice system. His migration proposals focus mainly on the European level. He calls for a reform of the Dublin regulation based on “welcome and solidarity” and proposes the creation of a humanitarian visa for refugee reception. Further, he endorses “fluidification” of labor migration (presumably making it easier for travel in and out of France for labor purposes.)


Jean Luc Melenchon- La France Insoumise

imageedit_7_5997101280

Turn off the causes of their departure one after the other.

Jean-Luc Melenchon’s  has argued that the immigrants that are currently here are not going anywhere, “Once people are there, what do you want to do? Reject them to the sea? No, it’s absolutely impossible.” As a result, his party presents a radical departure for the immigration system: decriminalizing undocumented migration, allowing more flexible work migration and easier acquisition of both residence rights and citizenship. The party also advocates standardizing asylum procedures across France and distributing asylum seekers equally across the country, and giving people who seek asylum the right to work while they await a decision.

In terms of restriction, Melenchon advocates a policy targeting the reasons that people leave in the first place. In a sense, Melenchon’s immigration policies are much more a preventative immigration type of foreign policy, suggestive of increasing foreign development aid. In his 2016 book “Le Choix de l’insoumission” outlines his position, “If we do not want people to come, it is better that they do not leave… We must stop believing that people leave for pleasure. So turn off the causes of their departure one after the other.” 

READ MORE
Candidate Programs: Le Pen, Macron, Fillon, Hamon, Melenchon
Penelopegate casts dark shadow over Fillon’s presidential prospects” (Jan. 2017) The Guardian.
Mélenchon, J., & Endeweld, M. (2016). Le choix de l’insoumission (1st ed.). Paris: Éditions du Seuil.
Analysis: The Far Right’s Coalition Conundrum (MV)
(Cover image via Mutualité Française on flickr, (CC BY-NC 2.0)

The Far-Right’s Coalition Conundrum

As elections approach in the Netherlands, France and Germany, people interested in immigration issues are no doubt focused on the chances of the far-right parties, whose platforms focus explicitly on reducing flows of immigrants and refugees. The Dutch Partij voor de Vrijheid (PVV) has promised to reduce immigration of Muslims, leave the European Union, and strengthen borders. The Front National‘s (FN) Marine Le Pen has similarly proposed a Brexit-like referendum to leave the European Union and opposes immigration of refugees and EU migrants into France. And Germany’s Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) calls for closing German borders to Europe and revamping the law to reduce asylum.

All three of these parties have seen major increases in popularity in their home countries, with both PVV and FN leading in some polls, while AfD, although losing a bit of support, is still making a very strong showing considering the relative newness of their party and their position in comparison to more established national parties such as the Greens. As a result, some are saying that, after Brexit and Donald Trump’s victory in the US, Europe should be prepared for a big upset. Continue reading