Introduction

Each change of government in France tends to entail a modification of the preceding immigration legislation. Contrary to what they usually claim, however, governments rarely abrogate all the former legislation. From the onset of the 1990s to the middle of the decade, France found itself in a series of harsh positions regarding the control of immigration. This led to the Right's enactment of two controversial regulations, which were subject to considerable public debate: the Pasqua Law and the Debré Laws. The next leftwing government tried to be more open regarding entry conditions for immigrants, particularly when it came to constitutionally protected categories such as asylum seekers and refugees and the pursuit of ‘the right to a normal life’. At the same time, the government aimed to devise more effective controls on illegal immigration by means of the 1998 RESEDA Law, also known as the Chevènement Law, which, like previous legislations, was named after the Minister of Interior at the time. However, to ‘depoliticise’ the stake of illegal immigration by making the phenomenon less visible, this law introduced case-by-case legalisation. With these measures, the government did not yet obtain unanimity from either the Right or its own Left side. The subsequent rightwing political power tried to curb the perceived failures of this law, which had not anticipated a surge in asylum seekers, and thus sought to emphasise more controls over illegal immigration.

What would come then – three laws in only four years enacted by the same political party – must be seen as a rationalisation process in migration control. There is a real coherence within the three laws, as has been underscored by opponents (UCIJ 2007a). Their principal aim is to diminish streams of asylum seekers and family reunification, and to recover a high rate of economic migration, namely, 50 per cent by 2012 (Mariani 2007; Hortefeux 2007). Some say that the main reason is to take advantage of migrant workers depending on what – or who – the economic situation calls for. However, whereas its European counterparts see populations declining, France – with a not inimical fertility rate of 1.9 children per woman – should not face big demographic distortions in the labour market. This is evidenced by the high unemployment rate and the fact that migration flows remain considerable (Court of Auditors 2004; Centre of Strategic Analysis 2006).