Why give yourself so much trouble with respectable proclamations but so far from the field?
By Yves Montenay.
The global migration pact, which Emmanuel Macron is scheduled to sign in Marrakesh on December 11, triggered violent populist reactions in France and Belgium.
This document is the very model of the job well done: overview of the main principles, statement of the main problems of application, allusion to the problems on the ground. But we can not help but find it a bit abstract and have a somewhat idealized approach to immigration.
This idealized approach provoked indignant reactions from those who have a sordid view of immigration, fear conspiracies to liberalize it and deprive States of all control. There is no such thing in this text which deals with the living conditions of migrants. As for the famous article 17, its affirmation of the positive consequences of immigration can shock those who are convinced of the contrary, but it is out of the legal and moral scope of the UN to block a free debate on this subject.
On the other hand one can doubt the usefulness of this text which does not change the glances on the immigration, nor the reality on the ground.
Here are two examples.
The growing qualifications of migrants have not changed their view
Whatever their number, there is a contrast between a humanitarian view that pushes to welcome a maximum and a utilitarian view for whom "It is obvious that the arrival of unqualified people will only create assistants who will weigh on the economy and society, idleness being the mother of all trafficking, even violence."
But reality shows us that these two opposing points of view are unaware that a large proportion of migrants are qualified, or even highly qualified, doctors for example, and who choose exile either because the labor market in their country is reserved for clans they do not belong to, either because they suffer from a lack of social, religious or political freedom. In short, individuals who are destined to be neither assistants nor victims.
This issue has long been known as the brain drain, sometimes referred to as "Plunder of our human wealth" by the North, while the leaders are of course in the South. France benefits less than otherssince his very administrative view of immigration (mainly family reunification) prevents the entry of qualified people, who are going elsewhere to our great detriment.
Those who come to France (a good half of the total) usually do it regularly, have a job sometimes found before departure and go unnoticed on arrival. In general, we are content to cite with horror global figures of immigration without going into detail. Similarly, it is estimated that unskilled workers are unemployable while firms also lack such labor.
The problem is not immigration itself, but its procedures and the effectiveness of reception, both qualitative (the first contacts are heavy) and technical (linguistic and professional development). For this last point, we should be inspired by the Germans. As far as the procedures are concerned, my readers know that I am in favor of giving entrepreneurs the power of initiative in this area, so that the newcomers have a job and an individualized follow-up.
Denounce the trafficking of human beings, yes but …
Trafficking in human beings has become one of the great global resources of mafia groups, perhaps higher in Africa than the sums brewed by drug or arms trafficking. These actors have the means to buy all the complicities, be they those of the various armed groups which reign in Libya that those (shush!) Important interlocutors in the governments of the countries of departure, and in all their police hierarchy.
These countries can thus receive with one hand the help of Europe, either for the development or for the control of migrations from their countries, and with the other hand that of the mafia groups which push them to do the same. reverse.
And these groups also have their "commercial services" approaching possible candidates for immigration: "if you went to Europe, you would become the support of your family remained on the spot (or you escape a life mediocre, or in disregard of better placed). It's expensive ? Yes, but you have a house, a business. You can sell them. Otherwise, collect money around you, you will easily repay it once in Europe.
What can this text solemnly vote in New York?
So why this text?
Why then give yourself so much trouble with respectable proclamations but so far from the field?
First, there is a bureaucratic mechanism: UN officials are well paid and have to prove that they are doing important things.
There is of course also a certain vision of the world: it is difficult not to sign this text, and more or less charitable organizations can then rely on him to attack the States of arrival or (preferably in my opinion ) of departure. There will be good trials, but will that change the problem on the ground? The precedent of innumerable texts in favor of the Palestinians leaves us skeptical.
On the Web