Sans-Papiers

Nicole Hefner

Professor Callahan-Kapoor

Politics of Health

April 14, 2017

Sans Papiers

Definition and Background

The sans-papiers, a French phrase that translated literally into English means “those without papers,” refers to the 200,000-400,000 undocumented immigrants living in France, most of which come from predominantly Muslim countries in Africa or the Middle East. Though France formerly welcomed foreigners and immigrants and has the highest number of asylum applications of any nation in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the French people have recently developed a fear and aversion to immigrants coming into their country (Chrisafis 2010). The sans-papiers, who are not legal citizens, often find that in France, certain basic rights are reserved only for French citizens. This group of people lacks the same rights as citizens to housing, employment, welfare benefits, and healthcare, and even when they do not face imminent deportation, they frequently find themselves in an in-between state where they are neither fully accepted nor rejected by French society. The large number of immigrants to France, both legal and illegal, has contributed to a “growing unease about a loss of national [French] identity” (Kanstroom 2010:91). That unease, combined with an opposition to welcoming immigrant populations perceived as unwilling to integrate into French society, has led the French government to progressively withdraw more of the sans-papiers’ rights in an effort to deter them from entering France. After the 2005 violent outbreaks among black and Arab populations in French suburbs, stricter immigration legislation was passed by former president Nicholas Sarkozy that does, in fact, result in many immigrants facing deportation.

Because of the limited success of movements to secure basic human rights for the sans-papiers, many of them have turned to self-injury or infection to try to claim basic rights. They take advantage of France’s illness clause which allows people with serious illnesses to stay in France to receive treatment if treatment is not available in their home country. The sans-papiers regularly face discrimination and xenophobia, and rather than attempt to maneuver the purposefully unaccommodating process of obtaining citizenship in France, they choose to try to better their political situations by using illness to gain sympathy from the state.

Controversy/Perspectives

The main controversy surrounding the sans-papiers is whether the French government is treating them fairly, specifically in regards to the illness clause. The illness clause was created as a humanitarian measure aimed at providing advanced medical care to illegal immigrants in France who otherwise would have been unable to obtain treatment for their serious illnesses. However, due to political circumstances in which illegal immigrants were able to find another pathway to obtain French citizenship, the clause began to encourage the sans-papiers to find ways to become or remain ill enough for the government to grant them papers to stay in France on a medical basis. Some went as far as purposefully infecting themselves with the HIV virus because they knew it was considered serious enough to warrant them an illness permit to remain in France. Rather than dedicating their time and energy to improving themselves physically, economically, and socially, the sans-papiers are inclined to limit their identity to a suffering, sick body in order to avoid deportation. Through their sicknesses, the sans-papiers appeal to the sympathy of the officials who grant them papers to stay in France. In lieu of having a systematic way to determine who will be granted papers and who will not, the futures of the sans-papiers are dependent on the benevolence and compassion of the government health officials. One might argue that the system is entirely arbitrary, as the age and appearance of the immigrants or which particular health official they are assigned to can have a great effect on their outcome. The controversy arises because on its own, the illness clause does something good for the sans-papiers by affording them medical treatment in a technologically advanced country. If the clause were eradicated, then those who were using the clause as it was intended would no longer have access to the advanced care that France offers. The dilemma is whether the illness clause is doing more good than evil by providing care to those who need it, or whether the way it favors the infirmed and excludes the able-bodied is too polarizing to be justified and undermines the well-being of the sans-papiers by encouraging poor health (Ticktin 2006).

Historical/Topical Context

Historically, France has gone through fluctuating periods of opening and closing its borders, with a general tightening of immigration laws occurring from the mid 1970s to the present day. 1974 was the first year that France had a generalized closing of borders and placed harsh controls on entry; naturally, this led to an increase in illegal immigration because there was very limited opportunity for foreigners to enter the country legally. In 1981, the Socialist party came to power in France, providing a brief lull in the anti-immigrant movement by suspending deportations that were in progress. However, the restrictive immigration movement soon recommenced, and in 1986, the Interior Minister Charles Pasqua announced his goal of zero immigration to France; he amended his goal in 1993 to specify zero illegal immigration to France. These Pasqua Laws, intending to stop the influx of immigrants from North Africa to France, created tougher visa requirements, decreased the number of visas issued, and expanded the power of the police to enforce the immigration laws. Unfortunately for the sans-papiers, these laws created more circumstances in which undocumented parents of French citizens would not be expelled from the country, but neither could they receive residency papers.

Illegal immigration gained recognition as an extremely pressing issue in France in 1996 when the sans-papiers social and political movement began to seek regularized status, or amnesty, for all immigrants lacking proper documents (Kanstroom 2010). This “powerful social movement calling for basic human rights for illegal immigrants” won the attention of the world when over 300 African immigrants occupied the St. Bernard church in Paris and demanded the right to papers for everyone and an end to deportations (Ticktin 2006:35). The protestors, including women and children, were violently evicted by the police, leading to public outrage; these people were not dangerous criminals and most believed that they did not deserve to be treated as such. Following these events, a campaign to change their labeling from “illegal immigrants” to “sans-papiers” arose as a conscious move away from an image of criminality and toward an image of people deprived of basic human rights (Ticktin 2006:35). By the next year, the sans-papiers had issued a manifesto demanding papers so they would not “be subject to the arbitrary treatment of authorities, employers, and landlords” (Kanstroom 2010:92).

Police evicting illegal immigrants from St. Bernard Church. http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/this-picture-taken-23-august-1996-shows-police-evicting-news-photo/71693882#paris-france-this-picture-taken-23-august-1996-shows-police-evicting-picture-id71693882

In 2003, the Interior Minister Nicholas Sarkozy passed even stricter regulations on illegal immigration, lengthening the waiting period before immigrants could apply for residency papers and requiring them to integrate into French society – something nearly impossible for those facing aggressive xenophobia and racism – before their papers would be granted. In 2006, Sarkozy passed another controversial immigration bill requiring migrants to sign integration contracts binding them to the “French way of life” and ending the provision allowing illegal immigrants to gain residency papers after living in France for ten years (Kanstroom 2010:98). In 2007, Sarkozy ordered that 25,000 of the sans-papiers must be expelled from the country by the end of the year. Police roundups occurred at schools and metro stations, prompting French families to hide illegal immigrants and their children from deportation (Chrisafis 2010). The current president of France, François Hollande, also believes that there is too much unwanted immigration to France, but has taken a much less extreme approach than Sarkozy and has even welcomed in thousands of refugees (Briançon 2015).

How it relates to politics of health

The topic of the sans-papiers is related to the politics of health through the way they are forced to draw on their biological citizenship in order to avoid being deported from France (Petryna 2003). As Adriana Petryna explains, biological citizenship is the idea that citizenship and medical, scientific, and legal welfare is owed as compensation to certain people because of an injured biology. By drawing on illnesses, the sans-papiers accentuate their suffering body, an apolitical entity which has become the new center of politics of citizenship. However, this action leads to a limited understanding of life because the sick must limit their humanity and identify only with their biological selves. Because of France’s humanitarian legislation like the illness clause, the sans-papiers have two choices: biological or political integrity. They can suffer from “exploitation, exclusion, and poverty,” or they can suffer from illness (Ticktin 2006:35). Ticktin also notes that there are different configurations of bodily integrity. He mentions a patient who stole the identity of a friend who had died of AIDS in order to get French papers and legal recognition. “Paradoxically,” Ticktin says, “his dignity was not recognized in the sense of his unique, individual self; he preferred to give up [his] identity to get legal recognition as someone else” (Ticktin 2006:41). Thus, a compromised biological life has become equated with a compromised political life, and if immigrants to France want to stay in the country, they are forced to compromise biologically in order to survive politically.

Bibliography

Briançon, Pierre. “Hollande’s refugee policy divides French right.” POLITICO. September 15, 2015. Accessed April 14, 2017. http://www.politico.eu/article/europe-refugee-crisis-hollande-refugee-policy-divides-french-right-paris/

Chrisafis, Angelique. “Crackdown on ‘sans papiers.’” The Guardian. November 16, 2010. Accessed April 14, 2017. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/nov/16/france-immigration-police-roundups

Kanstroom, Emily B. 2010. “Sans-papiers, sans recourse? Challenging Recent Immigration Laws in France.” Boston College International & Comparative Law Review 33, no.1 (Winter2010 2010): 87-105. Index to Legal Periodicals & Books Full Text (H.W. Wilson), EBSCOhost (accessed April 14, 2017).

Petryna, Adriana. “Biological Citizenship: The Science and Politics of Chernobyl-Exposed Populations.” Osiris, 2nd Series, 19 (2004): 250-65. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3655243.

Ticktin, Miriam. “Where ethics and politics meet: The violence of humanitarianism in France.” American Ethnologist, Vol. 33, No. 1 (2006): 33-49.