I think this topic deserves its own thread. [url=http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Sarkozy+immigration+policy+called+ra... is in the news today for its recent 'crackdown' on irregular migrants. Sarkozy is targeting foreign-born Roma and forcibly deporting them:
"The policy of dismantling illegal camps has taken an ugly turn," said Jean-Pierre Grand, a lawmaker from Sarkozy's majority UMP party, after police rounding up Gypsies were seen separating men from women and children.
Grand used the loaded term "rafle" -meaning "a roundup" -to describe the raids, implicitly linking them to France's wartime detention of Jewish citizens.
However, Sarkozy is also targeting foreign-born citizens who have committed crimes, seeking to strip them of their citizenship:
The crackdown on illegal Gypsy campsites comes alongside planned measures to strip some foreign-born criminals of their citizenship, after the government made an explicit link between immigration and crime.
Policies in 'developed' nations in respect of migrants (irregular or not) are extremely linked to political considerations. Anti-migrant sentiment is one that is easily drummed up, with a host of ills being attributed to migration, such as crime, economic downturns, cultural loss etc. It is rare that a state will come right out and admit their policies are based on xenophobia...though it certainly happens from time to time. Nonetheless, very rarely are the stated justifications actually legitimate, nor do the policies themselves actually solve the 'problems' they claim they are set up to.
It is my position that 'developed' nations stick together on this issue, and do not overly criticise one another on their migration policies, because to do so would open them up to criticism when it comes to their own migration policies. These policies, which deny rights to non-citizens, restrict citizenship, yet encourage temporary migration, are all about exploiting labour.
What do you think about the decidely complex issue of citizenship and immigration policies?