Family and immigration

Cet article s'intéresse aux politiques publiques d'intégration destinées à inculquer aux familles migrantes les « valeurs de la République ». Après avoir rappelé les grandes étapes de la régle-mentation de l'immigration familiale, nous montrerons comment celle-ci s'est peu à peu impo-sée comme un problème public, à la faveur d'un changement d'appréhension des femmes de l'immigration, elles-mêmes perçues comme les principales victimes de la famille « tradition-nelle ». Enfi n, nous nous intéresserons aux discours publics qui ont accompagné la mise en place du Contrat d'accueil et d'intégration (CAI) et du Contrat d'accueil et d'intégration pour la famille (CAIF) ainsi qu'aux formations civiques qui en constituent l'élément essentiel. En dépit des restrictions qui lui sont apportées, l'immigration familiale demeure l'un des princi-paux modes d'immigration légale dans un grand nombre de pays européens [1]. Protégée par les conventions internationales, notamment par la Convention européenne de sauvegarde des droits de l'homme et des libertés fondamentales du 4 novembre 1950, qui pose le principe selon lequel « toute personne a droit au respect de sa vie privée et familiale », la migration en raison des liens familiaux n'en est pas moins devenue une vive préoccupation des États européens. En France, le droit « de vivre une vie normale » pour les étrangers est érigé en principe constitutionnel en 1993 avec la promulgation de la loi du 24 août de la même année. Cette loi instaure la procédure du regroupement familial jusqu'alors régi par des décrets. Malgré la reconnaissance du droit de vivre en famille, les réformes qui se sont succédé, particulièrement dans la dernière décennie, ont considérablement complexifi é les procédures relatives à l'immigration familiale, qu'il s'agisse des mariages binationaux ou des procédures de regroupement familial en tant que telles. Alors que la vie familiale fut un temps perçue comme un élément essentiel pour l'intégration des

‘We are starting our life twice’: the use of the ‘Surinder Singh route’ from the UK

Following the introduction of stricter immigration rules by the British government in July 2012, in particular the minimum income rules and related documentary requirements for non-EEA spouses and partners, as well as harsh regulations regarding adult dependent relatives, many British citizens wishing to be reunited with their family members have sought alternative legal routes. In particular they have used what is known as the ‘Surinder Singh route’ (SS route), originally based on a  European Court of Justice ruling in the case of R v Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Surinder Singh ex parte Secretary of State for the Home Department, [1992] 3 CMLR 358 EC. Through  exercising their  free movement rights by living in another Member State, they can utilise rights of family reunification under EU law  and after having established a period of residence and family life of at least three months in that MS, they can with their non-EU family members to the UK.

Little is known about those who have used the SS route or are contemplating doing so  and the ways that moving their residence impacts on their lives. The paper will firstly summarise the legal background and secondly  explore the rationale for using the SS route and the  outcomes of those who have who have already moved to another EU country and expectations of those  who are considering doing so. The empirical data largely draw on a small scale study of nineteen families  with UK citizens overwhelmingly having at least an undergraduate degree and with spouses from a wide range of countries, including 4 from the US.

This is an introduction to an interview conducted with me by Richard Marshall for 3AM Magazine.  Please follow the link below for the full interview.

'The questions that are most interesting are ones about how our duties or obligations change when we have different sorts of interaction with people in different countries, and what this says about our domestic obligations as well. If moving a factory to a poor country will help people who are much less well off than those in the sending country, is that a sufficient reason to do it? If poorer countries are better able to compete in the global market and so become wealthier by taking advantage of labor and safety standards that are close to those that countries like the U.S. had in the mid to late 19th Century, when the U.S. was rapidly industrializing, is this morally problematic?' 'What can be required of immigrants once they are admitted? In most cases I'd say that we cannot ask any more of them then we ask of citizens – that they be law abiding, and that they try their best to engage in reciprocal fairness. The view is in conflict with arguments from people like David Miller or Noah Pickus (among others), that societies can and should require certain sorts of actions from immigrants.'