“Terrorism and Restrictionism: Their Impact on European Immigration Policies”
A talk by Patrick Weil with comments by Mark Krikorian
May 8, 2003
The Nixon Center, Washington DC
At a luncheon Thursday, Patrick Weil, Director of France’s National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS) assessed the state of immigration policies in Europe with an eye towards the growing Muslim community. Weil was instrumental in the creation of the current European laws and policies concerning immigration and is currently a professor of law and politics at the Sorbonne in addition to his role as the Director of CNRS. Mark Krikorian, director of the Center for Immigration Studies, commented on his remarks from a US perspective. Dr. Robert Leiken, director of the Immigration and National Security program at the Nixon Center, moderated the discussion.
Immigration, Security, and Restrictionism
Patrick Weil began by explaining that terrorism and restrictionism were issues in Europe long before September 11. He singled out the rise of populist movements championing restrictive immigration policies during the 1990’s in France, Austria, and Italy to show that for several years there has been a popular concern about the impact of immigration. Weil also noted that the Europeans have experience dealing with a terrorism that is strictly domestic in nature, such as Spain’s separatist group ETA or the Real IRA in Northern Ireland.
Still, Weil argued that 9/11 did engender a system-wide reassessment of the way Europe views its immigrant populations. Although the EU had agreed in the 1999 Amsterdam Treaty to arrive at a common immigration policy by 2004, the disparate needs of member states have retarded if not blocked the achievement of a common policy. Some states of the EU see legal immigration as a way to help mitigate their declining native populations, while others are experiencing population increases and see no need for a policy so conducive to immigration. At the same time, Weil noted, some states feel that the admission of skilled and unskilled workers can help fill needed jobs, while other states worry about the prospects of an infusion of immigrant families relying on the support of one working adult.
Weil stressed that Europe is focusing now on immigrants’ duties as well as their rights. As the immigrants honor these duties, such as respecting the law, eliminating hate speech, learning the language, customs, and habits of their new home, they are rewarded with rights. He explained that a beneficial side effect is that the European cultures often give the immigrants greater freedoms and equal rights (notably women’s rights) which are unavailable in their native countries.
Weil noted that France is the only country where the restrictionists are outside the government, but in many other countries rightist populist movements are able to influence policy from the inside owing to their popular strength. Even in countries where the right is not a viable political entity, the fear of the growth of rightist movements leads governments to espouse restrictive policies. In the UK this has manifested itself in limits on asylum seekers, supported by Tony Blair, while in Germany the issue is family reunification.
With regard to France, 9/11 did not influence immigration and security since the French had been fighting Muslim terrorists since the bombings of the Paris Metro system in 1995. Weil advocated a policy of greater controls and enforcement to deal with security concerns, remarking that France has increased the number of legal migrants and students without sacrificing security. For example, he said France uses a modified US model of sponsorship to determine the entry of students. Paris has also reduced the number of institutions accredited to provide sponsorship to a few hundred as opposed to thousands in the United States. Also, the student must first be vetted by the sponsoring institution and the local French consulate; then after the visa is granted the local police must be contacted to renew the visa each year. The goal is to increase security without attacking civil liberties or discouraging immigration, he concluded.
Weil suggested that the social roots of terrorism spring in part from immigration policies. He advocated cooperation between the immigration and development communities to allow immigrants and guest workers to maintain links to the home country, which he believed would help mitigate feelings of isolation and potential radicalization. In the US and EU, the attitudes of the governments are not favorable to this circulation of immigrants between their native and adoptive countries because of security concerns. If return were assured, Weil argued, then skilled workers would return periodically to their countries of origin to help develop business, social, and governmental institutions rather than staying in their new country for fear of not being able to renew a visa or permit.
US- European Differences
Mark Krikorian argued that immigration policy was a larger problem in Europe than in the US. In Europe, he said, much of the immigration is driven by asylum seekers under the jurisdiction of the Geneva Convention and thus out of the hands of national governments. the Geneva Convention dictates that governments must hear the claims of asylum seekers, which puts pressure on already thinly stretched institutions.
In Krikorian’s view, integration was also more difficult for the Europeans because insular communities were more prevalent in Europe. In such communities many different types of Muslims (Turks, South Asians, Africans, Persians, and Arabs) remain together whereas in the US the Muslim community is more heterogeneous. One participant also questioned Europe’s ability to integrate evangelical Muslims whose concern for religion trumped all concerns for their adoptive nation.
Krikorian disputed Weil’s argument about easing travel to immigrant’s home countries and simplifying procedures for guest workers. He pointed out that guest workers never really return home because a large majority of them remain on after their permits expire. He also cautioned against assuming that skilled workers desired to return to their native countries; he suggested immigrants are often “modernized” by their experience in the US and Europe and no longer feel at home in their native countries.
Robert Leiken
suggested that security measures can reduce terrorist infiltration through
immigration. According to Leiken, Europeans stress that human intelligence
sources and the penetration of terrorist groups are more vital than
restrictionist immigration policies which may never the less be advisable for
other reasons. Leiken added that the US does not face a serious asylum crisis
because illegal immigration is easy, whereas in Europe illegal immigration is
more difficult (in part because of I.D. cards) and bogus asylum claims are more
prevalent. Leiken also questioned whether asylum polices are immutable and out
of the control of the EU and the US. He pointed out that Germany successfully
tightened its asylum policies in the 1993 in the face of similar fraudulent
requests for asylum.
This Program Brief was prepared by Nixon Center Staff Member Steven Brooke.
