News headlines have been awash today with claims that French President Emmanuel Macron “granted” citizenship to the migrant from Mali who miraculously saved a baby from falling four storeys by climbing from balcony to balcony and rescuing the child.
News services from BBC to The Daily Beast to the Evening Standard to CNN all reported that Mamoudou Gassama will be made a French citizen, as conferred by Macron on May 28.
But, like a lot of reporting on migration and citizenship, the details show another story, French journalist Agnes Poirier told me via Twitter.
“First, he [Gassama] will be given legal papers of residency which he didn’t have, and then he may apply to French citizenship which will be granted,” Poirier said.
It sounds like I’m splitting hairs, but the difference between this, and the automatic ‘conferring of citizenship’ is important.
First, too many of us tend to assume that heads of state – whether it be the French president or the U.S. one – have these kinds of sweeping powers, to be able to grant citizenship on a whim much like a king would do. (But that’s another issue altogether).
Second, people know so little of what a migration/immigration/naturalization process actually looks like.
This is where the teaching component of journalism is important. Many people will never move to another country.
What they know of immigration procedures is limited and all too often is seen through the filter of politicians. And many politicians who focus on immigration aren’t keen to represent the process as it actually is, but will highlight abuses, overstate trends, and sometimes outright lie.
This is where it’s critical for journalists to understand immigration terms and explain them clearly to their readers.
There is a difference between getting the legal right to stay in a country – whether it’s called a ‘green card,’ ‘permanent residency,’ or ‘indefinite leave to remain’ – and securing ‘citizenship.’
In a world where migration and immigration is a major flashpoint in political debates, it’s necessary to have an informed electorate who can confidently say they have more than a cursory comprehension of the system.
Am I an expert on French immigration and naturalization? No. But I’ve recently gone through the French immigration process myself to get a residence permit. I’ve gone through the UK immigration process. I’ve gone through the Canadian process, several times. And I’ve researched dozens more, due to possible moves due to new jobs.
So I can tell you, terminology matters. It’s the difference between a two-year stay and indefinite leave. It’s the difference between being able to reside only, and being able to reside AND work without constantly worrying about immigration officials knocking on your door. It’s the difference between being able to reside in-country for an unspecified amount of time, and being able to vote in elections.
Words matter. And news stories on migration and immigration need to reflect that.
News services from BBC to The Daily Beast to the Evening Standard to CNN all reported that Mamoudou Gassama will be made a French citizen, as conferred by Macron on May 28.
But, like a lot of reporting on migration and citizenship, the details show another story, French journalist Agnes Poirier told me via Twitter.
“First, he [Gassama] will be given legal papers of residency which he didn’t have, and then he may apply to French citizenship which will be granted,” Poirier said.
It sounds like I’m splitting hairs, but the difference between this, and the automatic ‘conferring of citizenship’ is important.
First, too many of us tend to assume that heads of state – whether it be the French president or the U.S. one – have these kinds of sweeping powers, to be able to grant citizenship on a whim much like a king would do. (But that’s another issue altogether).
Second, people know so little of what a migration/immigration/naturalization process actually looks like.
This is where the teaching component of journalism is important. Many people will never move to another country.
What they know of immigration procedures is limited and all too often is seen through the filter of politicians. And many politicians who focus on immigration aren’t keen to represent the process as it actually is, but will highlight abuses, overstate trends, and sometimes outright lie.
This is where it’s critical for journalists to understand immigration terms and explain them clearly to their readers.
There is a difference between getting the legal right to stay in a country – whether it’s called a ‘green card,’ ‘permanent residency,’ or ‘indefinite leave to remain’ – and securing ‘citizenship.’
In a world where migration and immigration is a major flashpoint in political debates, it’s necessary to have an informed electorate who can confidently say they have more than a cursory comprehension of the system.
Am I an expert on French immigration and naturalization? No. But I’ve recently gone through the French immigration process myself to get a residence permit. I’ve gone through the UK immigration process. I’ve gone through the Canadian process, several times. And I’ve researched dozens more, due to possible moves due to new jobs.
So I can tell you, terminology matters. It’s the difference between a two-year stay and indefinite leave. It’s the difference between being able to reside only, and being able to reside AND work without constantly worrying about immigration officials knocking on your door. It’s the difference between being able to reside in-country for an unspecified amount of time, and being able to vote in elections.
Words matter. And news stories on migration and immigration need to reflect that.
