France to Immigrants: You Must Learn French

The Local, October 12, 2011

France said on Wednesday it was tightening immigration rules to require would-be citizens to provide written proof that they speak enough French to manage their daily lives.

Announced in the government’s official gazette, the new rules require candidates for citizenship to “prove knowledge of the French language consistent with understanding the essential points needed to manage daily life.”

Candidates previously had their language skills tested in interviews with government officials, but will now be required to provide evidence of French-language skills “by producing a diploma or certificate delivered by a state-recognised organism.”

The new rules take effect in January.

Quoting an interior ministry estimate, business newspaper Les Echos reported on Wednesday that about one million foreigners living in France did not speak French.

It said the French government was growing increasingly concerned over the issue and was spending €60 million ($83 million) to promoteFrench-language skills and integration among immigrants.

France grants citizenship to about 100,000 candidates every year, according to official figures.

Topics:

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Anonymous

    Nonetheless, many immigrants from the former French colonies in Africa already speak French, and so this provision will not keep them out. It’s just not enough.

  • Anonymous

    The headlines should read, “France To Immigrants: You Must LEAVE France”.

    All else is just blather, changing nothing. The suicide pact of all White nations will continue unless we do something about it NOW! We have waited too long as it is.

  • Rhialto

    Another example of dealing with symptoms rather than causes. There is no sane reason why millions of immigrants of any type are being admitted to overpopulated France and being granted citizenship. Their French language deficiencies are minor compared to their social deficiencies.

  • Dave

    Boundaries are good, but lets be clear about our agenda. We don’t want the nonwhites to assimilate; we don’t want them present in our countries at all. If I hear another conservative use the word “assimilation” I think I’m going to heave. Assimilation=race mixing, displacement. For those non-white immigrants who happen to already be present in the U.S. or Europe, they might as well keep to themselves, retain familiar customs, and speak their own languages. Racial separation within a country is the next best thing to racial separation among different countries.

  • ghw

    “All else is just blather, changing nothing.”

    …………….

    Exactly. Most immigrants from the French colonies the “francophone” world — already speak French, so this new regulation changes exactly NOTHING. It’s just a minor sop to look like the government is doing something about it. It is just window dressing.

    The French place far too much emphasis on language — while RACE is completely taboo, not even to be mentioned by respectable people.

    And the silly notion persists that anyone who SPEAKS French can BE French. Utter nonsense! But that idea forms their national policy.

    ==================

    Dave wrote:

    Boundaries are good, but lets be clear about our agenda: We don’t want the nonwhites to assimilate; we don’t want them present in our countries at all.

    Assimilation=race mixing, displacement. Those non-white immigrants who are already be present in the U.S. or Europe, [should] keep to themselves, retain familiar customs, and speak their own languages. Racial separation within a country is the next best thing to racial separation among different countries.”

    …………………………….

    I agree, Dave. But this is exactly what the French want and demand (or at least the French government does). Assimilation has been formal French policy since at least the late 1800s, when there was a large national debate about this.

    Assimilation of foreigners remains the official French goal. Formerly, it worked well when the imigrants were white Europeans who came from neighboring countries. They were absorbed and fit in easily. Now it is an entirely different story! Alien races are coming from every part of the earth. The French fail to see that assimilation means also the destruction and replacement of their nation.

    However — to those who have been educated under the Marxist yoke, this means nothing, as they have been taught all their lives that – “we are all the same” and that all humans are interchangeable. So what’s the difference? No big deal!

    It comes down to the fundamental question that underlies this whole debate: Is nationality a matter merely of citizenship, a mere piece of paper, Or is a matter of blood, soil, heritage, and history? The Germans say the lattter; the French say the former. And that was one of the reasons for the massive ideological conflicts that tore apart the 20th Century. To the French, ANYONE can be French — even if it means the extinction of their own people. They don’t see the madness in that. They recognize no ties whatsoever based based on blood, which they consider kind of nazi, and thus forbidden thought.

    I might add that with someone like Sarkozy at the helm, a descendent of immigrants himself, this open-door policy is hardly surprising.

  • Bud

    Will they actually throw people out because of this? I doubt it. This isn’t about dealing with the symptoms at all, it’s about keeping the same basic policy of allowing third-world immigration while mollifying the French public with fake programs that pretend you can impose a few rules and it will overcome the realities of race. It’s the “Multiculturalism is bad, but multi-racialism is good” tack. This is a program aimed at the French people, not immigrants, and aimed at neutering the anti-immigration right and their parties, not at solving the problems diversity brings. As someone has already said, many immigrants already know French and most will learn enough to pass a simple test within a few years after arriving.

    The retreat from multiculturalism does represent a setback for the white-hating left, but so far it mostly just means a shift in PR.

  • Eva

    The requirement to learn French is not, as the editor implies, and impediment to immigration, but instead, to citizenship.

    In response to Rhialto – France is not overpopulated, but underpopulated, as is the rest of Europe. Because the populations are not replacing themselves European countries must permit immigration and their governments must work to assimilate Moslem populations. The only alternative is that some day over-populated Africa will press into Europe, created a much worse situation.

  • Istvan

    7 — Eva wrote at 10:59 PM on October 14:

    In response to Rhialto – France is not overpopulated, but underpopulated, as is the rest of Europe. Because the populations are not replacing themselves European countries must permit immigration and their governments must work to assimilate Moslem populations. The only alternative is that some day over-populated Africa will press into Europe, created a much worse situation.

    A smaller, stable, homogenious population would be fine, so the immigrant ARE NOT needed. As for an invasion from Africa: Europe has the weapons to fend off any African invasion, the Africans do not have the technology. Unfortunately the Europeans do not have the will to use their weapons to save themselves.

    If Italy, for instance, started sinking “refugee” boats the boats would learn to avoid Italian waters. Quite simple, really.

  • Fred from France

    7 — Eva The requirement to learn French is not, as the editor implies, and impediment to immigration, but instead, to citizenship.

    Indeed. It changes nothing relating to immigration rules. Nevertheless, those measures are useful to limit the number of Muslim mail-order brides since many “French” North Africans marry a more submissive and younger girl from the “bled” (home country), who can barely spell her name and cannot work, rather than a Muslim girl from France.

  • Kenelm Digby

    Eva,

    Europe is most definitely NOT underpopulated.Any rational analysis of population density across the European continent (not including Russia) will show you that typical population densities for European states are high in the extreme as compared to densities found in Africa or America for example – in fact Europe is more densely packed than China.

    We have the absurd examples of nations such as the Netherlands (largely land reclaimed from the North Sea), with an ultra high density of population taking in immigrants and of tiny little Denmark, a peninsula of land accepting mass third world immigration.

    Food and natural resources in Europe are strained and only accommodated by imports.

    Furthermore the area known as the EU is characterised by unemployment on a mass scale.In Spain this reaches 20%+ of the working population and 50% of those under 26.

    A wave of African immigration will be a disaster.The wave of muslim immigration into France in the 1960s is equally a disaster.It is plain that they will never be assimilated and will ultimately wreck France.

  • ghw

    7 — Eva wrote:

    “The requirement to learn French is not, as the editor implies, an impediment to immigration, but instead, to citizenship.”

    That is correct. I agree. It will not affect immigration, legal or illegal.

    “In response to Rhialto – France is not overpopulated, but underpopulated.”

    Again, you are right. France is not (by European standards) a densely populated country, unlike the countries around it — (England, Holland, Italy). There is plenty of land and open space in France, because the French do not reproduce themselves adequately. They have not done so for the past couple of centuries. It is far from over-populated.

    “Because the populations are not replacing themselves European countries must permit immigration and their governments must work to assimilate Moslem populations. The only alternative is that some day over-populated Africa will press into Europe, created a much worse situation. “

    Well, that is what is happening right now! The hordes of teeming Africa are crowding in (plus the Arab world and Asia). I disagree that permitting immigration is the only alternative.

    The government could have innovative programs to encourage families to have more children. Alternatively, they could reduce services and adjust to a lesser population. Surely, having one train every 15 minutes instead of one train every 7 minutes is really not so bad after all. That’s not a hardship.

  • Anonymous

    4 — Dave at 9:25 PM on October 14:

    EXACTLY! I feel the same way. Try calling one of those “conservative” talk shows and voice this sentiment and they will call you a racist, Nazi, K, and a hater and hang up! I tried it before.

    They are as bad as the libtards when it comes to race and they are WORSE in the sense that Whites seem to “think” that the Republicans and their mouth pieces are on our side, thereby leading them down the primrose lane when it concerns immigration and race. We ALL “want the same thing” (the American dream) as they tell us, no matter what their race is…They see no connection whatsoever of nonwhite immigration, Civil Rights, (which they take credit for, btw) also desegregation, etc. and the downfall of our nation and race. That is how STUPID and deceitful they really are.

    Why do we listen to the lying man’s solutions when they created the problem in the first place?

  • Bud

    France is not overpopulated, but underpopulated, as is the rest of Europe.

    Yet they have the largest populations in their histories.

    Because the populations are not replacing themselves European countries must permit immigration and their governments must work to assimilate Moslem populations.

    Yeah, sometimes you have to destroy a village in order to save it. Among the many things wrong with this idea: Presumably the MUST means economically, but is there any proof that mass immigration significantly improves France’s economy? I would guess that it doesn’t, particularly with the sort of social welfare net they have there. But even if it did, save it for whom and what? Is there any reason to believe that that the Muslim population can be “assimilated” particularly when they become a majority in a region. Experience would seem to indicate no. But the biggest error in this sort of thought is that it is a particularly stupid and dangerous Ponzi scheme: Immigrants grow old, too, at which point you’ll presumably have to import new immigrants to cover the old. Of course, that probably won’t happen because both the economy and the society will have long since collapsed and people barely surviving have a much different view on foreigners moving in to their neighborhood.

    It’s often said that deficit spending is immoral because you are living beyond your means today and immorally passing the bill on to your children. Immigration for reasons of propping up the social welfare schemes are both culturally and economically immorally passing the bill on to your children. And this particular bill may include some very harsh penalties indeed; it is by no means outrageous to suggest it might include harsh oppression up to mass murder. Aging populations are caused by the advances in medical science and unless you are willing to liquidate the elderly Brave New World style no population Ponzi scheme is going to alleviate the problem in the long run.

    The only alternative is that some day over-populated Africa will press into Europe, created a much worse situation.

    No machine guns in Europe, no atomic bombs? Populations don’t press, not these days, defense is a matter of pushing buttons, not swinging swords. Those who support genocide against whites by colonization like to pretend that mass migration is a natural phenomenon, like a hurricane, but it’s not – it’s a policy. The movement of non-whites into Europe is no more “natural” than the movement of the Nazis into Poland was. It’s a pity that today’s French leaders weren’t in Poland in 1942, they could have educated the Poles on the need to assimilate the new immigrants.

  • A Swain

    7 — Eva wrote at 10:59 PM on October 14:

    “The requirement to learn French is not, as the editor implies, and impediment to immigration, but instead, to citizenship.

    In response to Rhialto – France is not overpopulated, but underpopulated, as is the rest of Europe.”

    Well then, Ms cleverclogs Eva, please be so kind as to list the countries concerned, their geographical sizes and existing population ratios, not forgetting the racial ratios too.

    1. Now, when you are done providing that info, please enlighten us why there are so many millions of native Europeans unemployed in the face of the alleged need for perpetual Third World immigration.

    2. Perhaps you could then enlighten us also as to why successive traitorous Western governments are forcibly outsourcing to the Third World at least 70% of all jobs originating and available in Europe and her enclaves.

    3. Why over 80% of jobs in Britain, for example, have gone to immigrants not necessarily skilled at all or merely semi-skilled? My guess is that the same picture is also emerging in the rest of Europe.

    4. Please explain how Europe managed to become one of the most advanced civilizations in the history of the world including when common disease mechanisms now controlled and/or eliminated, were totally rampant at various junctures in her history, killing off large swathes of native White populations across that continent and leaving pockets of sparsely populated areas throughout?

    5. Would you agree that whole swathes of Africa or Haiti, for example, due to population depletion as result of famine, malnutrition, AIDS and natural disasters, could be doing with a dose of protracted mass invasion from say, the White, Indian, Oriental and/or Arab worlds?

    Well!

    “Because the populations are not replacing themselves European countries must permit immigration and their governments must work to assimilate Moslem populations.”

    Poppycock! In fact, downright lies.

    Firstly, what governments should be doing is enacting programmes encouraging increased birth rates amongst the indigenous peoples thus reversing the shrinkage trend by incorporating, for instance, meaningful tax reductions and special privileges like free higher educational opportunities and private transport availability to and from education establishments, for the offspring of those who co-operate with the scheme. These are only some examples of possible incentives.

    Secondly, there is no necessity to invite mass immigration into a territory when the issuing of temporary work permits will plug any supposed gaps for the time being until suitable numbers of indigenous peoples have obtained the necessary qualifications to fill the job vacancies their own homelands generate.

    “The only alternative is that some day over-populated Africa will press into Europe, created a much worse situation.”

    You obviously can’t see the stupidity of your above statement, can you?

    Let me give you a clue!

    It’s already happening. Whole cities AND towns across Europe are already majority non-White of which African sub-Saharans also consitute considerable numbers.

    Pray, tell us too how ‘assimilating’ Muslim invaders, half of whose populations actively resist assimilation, might stem any future invasion of sub-Saharan Africans into Europe which is what you’ve declared in this statement of yours? Well!!!!

    Your rationale and logic on this subject is deeply flawed to the point of being non-existent. Furthermore, it is a damning indictment of the contemporary intelligence quota level of the moronic Marxist Liberal ruling elite.

    Your ilk have got to be removed from power urgently before you succeed in genociding hundreds of millions of innocent people from out their own native homelands.

  • white advocate – Canada

    They might want to re-consider the emphasis on the French language. It seems almost desperate the way they cling to the language as if they’ve got nothing else left to hold on to. French was an important language in the past but it has become a minor language and probably not worth bothering with in the long run. The important languages are English, Spanish, Arabic, and Mandarin. French could be phased out over a fifty year period.

    The French are proud of their republic based on enlightenment values. From that perspective, a national debate about which language to use should be welcomed. Any language will do so why not pick a more useful one?

  • Anonymous

    Eva the anti White racist who wrote “In response to Rhialto – France is not overpopulated, but underpopulated, as is the rest of Europe.””

    I don’t know about the rest of Europe, but even the government of England claims that England is over populated. Our government reckons that the optimum population of England should be 40 million. We are at 60 million and growing.

    England has never gotten over the food rationing of the 2 world wars. World War 2 rationing continued right up to about 1960.

    England is not self sufficient in food. That is a big concern of the forward planners in government, how will England feed itself if it cannot import food from the rest of the world?

    Whenever White legal aliens married to native English people apply for a government job they are told that “there is massive unemployment in England and we must reserve government jobs for the native English.”

    But of course government offices are filled with right off the plane non White immigrants who can barely speak understandable English.

    Our government claims that England is overpopulated by 1/3 of optimum. But every day the planes from Africa, Pakistan, Bangladesh, India and Asia unload hordes of immigrants who are welcomed with lifelong benefit and or government jobs.

    Europe did quite well a thousand years ago when it had a very small population. I believe England has only about 1 million the year of the Norman conquest.

    The black death killed off one third of the population of Europe.

    It was after the black death that Europe created the Renaissance, modern industry and science and conquered the world.

    More resources for fewer people had something to do with that.

  • allovertheplace

    If the Muslims start learning French then there will be more interracial births. Part of the plan.

  • A Swain

    15 — white advocate – Canada wrote at 3:26 PM on October 15:

    Your remarks regarding the French language could well be construed as a grevious insult to those whose native tongue the language happens to be. To belittle another ethnicity’s language is to also belittle the ethnicity to whom it attaches.

    French belongs to the long established family of European languages like Spanish and English. The latter two are totally alien and should not even be flourishing in Europe let alone accepted in it.

    Alien languages permitted to take root in one’s homeland denotes a country in the process of losing control of its own landmass, lineage, heritage, language, spiritualism, culture, traditions and ultimately, its future.

  • white advocate – Canada

    #18 A Swain – I was using the same logic that the white race replacers use. They come up with many reasons why France should be unconcerned about its ethnic and racial makeup. So I came up with reasons why France should get rid of its language too. Come to think of it, why not get rid of the name France at the same time. France derives from the Frankish tribe that took over when the Romans fell back. There is nothing Frankish about the immigration coming in. Why not re-name the country Rainbowland, using words from a suitable language of course?

  • Fred from France

    Why not re-name the country Rainbowland, using words from a suitable language of course?

    That new name already exists. “La république métissée” (mixed-race republic) is widely used in leftspeak.