What is your assessment of the Ministry of Immigration and National Identity, two and a half years after its creation?
In 2007, when the creation of this ministry was announced, a group of eight historians, including myself, resigned from the scientific council of the Cité de l'immigration. In the history of France, the discourse on national identity has always served to stigmatize the foreigner. At the time, Brice Hortefeux accused us of making a trial of intent: the ministry had not yet implemented anything. But it is clear that our fears have been realized. It multiplies expulsions, places children in detention centers; a crime of solidarity is created... France was the first nation to proclaim a right of asylum. A whole part of its history is being trampled underfoot.

Does this new ministry mark a break with what was done previously?
Rather a radicalization. The Pasqua laws had already sounded the charge of a new national-security policy, but the creation of this new ministry made it much more effective. Now, all administrations related to immigration are placed under the supervision of a single ministry. This is particularly serious in the case of asylum seekers. Under Vichy, the Ministry of the Interior handed over refugees to the Nazis. That is why after the war, the issue of the right of asylum was entrusted to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. At the same time, naturalizations on a case-by-case basis, prefecture by prefecture, risk breaking the principle of equality.

Can the launch of the debate on national identity lead to further excesses?
We reject the idea that Eric Besson "launched" this debate. It is rather the reactivation of a nationalist drift. The expression "national identity" was put into circulation by the National Front in the 1980s. In itself, this expression is not a bad word, but in the French case, it has xenophobic political connotations because it has always been linked to a rejection of immigration. In 2007, the Ministry of Immigration was created to transfer part of the FN electorate to the majority.

Why did the debate quickly refocus on the issue of Islam?
It is not possible to define one's identity without pointing the finger at those who are not part of it. It is the "them and us". Talking about national identity is to designate the other, the foreigner. After the Italian anarchist at the beginning of the 20th century or the Russian communist in the 1930s, it is the image of the Muslim terrorist that prevails. We can no longer talk about foreigners as we did in the 1930s. The purpose of this "national debate" is to familiarize the French with references that were considered shocking yesterday. In the 1980s, my generation was appalled by the Pétainist overtones of Le Pen's discourse. Since then, the process of acculturation has done its work. We are being accustomed to words contrary to the values of human rights.

To this is added the denunciation of "gray marriages" by Eric Besson, or the debate on the wearing of the burqa. Why focus on ultra-minority practices?
All this happens at the same time, it is no coincidence. I see a "fait-diversification" of politics: taking exceptional cases and considering them as significant to stigmatize an entire community. And this ministry reinforces these associations of ideas.

With this identity theme, Nicolas Sarkozy wanted to seduce the popular categories. Why this calculation?
At the end of the 19th century, the privileged used nationalism to break a class logic. There has always been a working-class fraction sensitive to the discourse of national pride - especially among workers on the verge of downgrading. In difficulty on the economic front, and after reaffirming that he would not touch the tax shield, Nicolas Sarkozy has every interest in talking about something else. He therefore emphasizes the security theme. But the social question is resurfacing. Today, it is difficult to make the electorate believe that the main problem is national identity. It worked in the 1930s, on the eve of a world war, but we are living today the longest period of peace the country has known for centuries. That is why the security discourse has shifted from the army to the police. The glorification of action against delinquency has replaced that of war action - with, in the background, the idea that it is the Muslims who "mess things up" in the suburbs.

Should we refuse the debate, as requested by the petition "We will not debate" launched on the Mediapart site (36,000 signatures to date)?
This debate is an empty shell, it is made to entertain the gallery. We cannot debate within the framework proposed by Eric Besson. His site censors certain participations and diverts others by only taking up a few sentences. It is a scandalous drift of the concept of debate. Our collective wishes to shift the debate to our questions. Including this one: what is the purpose of this ministry? We will question all political parties: they must clearly position themselves. We will publish their answers shortly.

Find this article on lesinrocks.com