These readings and their exploration of citizenship and immigration were not only interesting and also made me reflect on the current discussions concerning immigration. I was drawn to Camiscioli’s argument in particular. She argues that the French immigration policy was fundamentally a bio-political project driven by a ‘demographic crisis’ and ‘pronatalist’ anxieties, where immigrants were evaluated as ‘reproductive value’ rather than just labor power. Most of the literature and political debates now seem to be on the opposite, with countries such as France and the UK aiming to supposedly ‘protect’ the ‘biology’ of their countries. She continues, highlighting how this ‘assimilation’ inevitably bled into a sterilization project, moving the act of reproduction from the private sphere to the public in order for its ‘development’. The irony, as Camiscioli points out, is that the state desperately wanted these foreigners to assimilate, yet they simultaneously feared that the very process of “assimilation” would lead the second generation to adopt the same ‘voluntary sterility’ seen in the French population.
Reinecke, however, when looking at British migration policies from the 1800’s-1900’s highlights its restrictive nature to protect the countries industrial development. Reinecke claims that before this period, the British state was largely indifferent to the movement of people and that it was only with the rise of more burocracy that concerns shifted. We see this manifest in Britain through the “Coloured Alien Seamen Order” of 1925, which weaponized the lack of documentation to strip British subjects of their rights, effectively importing racialized colonial hierarchies into the domestic sphere.
These readings were interesting and helped me see the historical echo’s that brought todays political climate regarding biology, citizenship and migration. With political parties such as Reform UK on the rise I am seeing similar rhetoric and phrases which Camiscioli highlights across her text. Is there a way forward, away from these harmful views? Or is this a historical cycle repeating itself?