Lately, further to the September 11 attacks and resulting speeches about the dangers of immigration, Islam, etc…, we saw on one hand the collapse of the « tolerant » politics implemented in countries of recent immigration - like Northern European countries, and on the other hand the strengthening of integration policies in countries of ancient immigration - like France. Combining into some strange marriage a « politically correct » left wing and a right wing nourished to the American « model », the idea that « affirmative action » could offer solutions for the integration of Europeans of non-EU origin made a triumphant entry on the continent. However this instrument of social engineering does not make any sense in the European context; in fact no more than it makes in the US where it was originally invented with a precise aim: to integrate millions of African-Americans, descendants of slavery.

Let's get things clear: in our European countries there have been policies of affirmative action for a long time already, mostly towards disabled people. This aspect, as well as its « invention » in the US for the use of integrating descendants of slaves, indicates the limits of its legitimacy and therefore efficiency (such a tool must be seen as legitimate otherwise it generates oppositions, and leads to the opposite result: rejection of beneficiaries who appear more and more as being privileged without due cause). Affirmative action aims at compensating, by means of a collective action (increased social services, privileged access to education, employment…), a major social handicap, affecting a specific group in a collective and sustainable way. This is the case indeed with Afro-Americans who were « imported » by force to the USA, where during almost 3 centuries they supported slavery and then strong segregation (the latter being still a current practice in the South of the US). First of all let’s state the fact that in the last decades the situation of immigrants in Western countries, even though sometimes difficult, has absolutely nothing to do with the traumas endured by generations of African-Americans: they were not taken by force, not sold to merchants and then to landowners, their off-springs run no risk to be enslaved, and last but not least, there is no legal nor factual « apartheid » in Europe.

The other group in the United States who can legitimately claim such collective trauma are the native Americans (Indians), who were practically exterminated by the Europeans and then by their American descendants, deprived from their territories, and finally whose offsprings end up penned up into ghettos (reservations).

In Europe (and in the US), no human group of migrant origin can claim such a mass and trans-generation trauma.

Well in the United States, in the 70's and 80's, as a result of the growing influence of the "politically correct" attitude, this instrument first used to cure a specific problem - that of the African Americans’ integration, was gradually used by virtually any ethnic or social group feeling disadvantaged or simply minoritarian and therefore claiming to be « bullied » by the laws of the majority. The American system made a big mistake not envisaging other ways to deal with these various claims; first because by extending affirmative action to all sorts of ethnical/social minorities, it diluted the impact on Afro-Americans; and then because it nourished any growing resentment among the majority of the population (who in the end can no longer make the difference between legitimate or illegitimate affirmative action). Out of a very focused instrument of social engineering, the United States made a "politically correct catch-all" system in an attempt to calm down their growing social and ethnical tensions.

In Europe, no ethnical group matches the conditions required to legitimate any affirmative action. Attempting to implement such policies despite all would on the one hand trigger a process of outbidding on the part of all groups claiming characteristics similar to those benefiting from them; and the other hand, it would reinforce the political rise of extreme tendencies. Europe has a certain number of laws of non-discrimination applying to hiring procedures, and to accessing public or private services. It has a unique system of public schools that guarantees access to education for all the children living on its territory. Europe hosts wide-ranging confessional-school systems that enable to educate along some common rules those whose religion incite to prefer these systems. Europe only has to enforce these laws properly in each of our States; and there will be no further need to adopt new and illegitimate instruments.

When it comes to integrating descendants of immigrants, the main problem in Europe (mostly in its Western part) lies in the fact that generations aged 50 and more hold almost entirely their hand on the political, communicational, cultural, scientific,… system. Whether of European or of non-European origin, younger generations have no access to the commands. This is precisely the problem…