Full Text

PDF 675k

Share via email

Anne Volery: Can you walk us through the context of 1996?

1 The Saint-Bernard undocumented immigrants’ movement began on March 18, 1996, with the occupation of the church (...)

Anzoumane Sissoko: That was the period when Interior Minister Jean-Louis Debré was taking a harder line. There were many comrades who could neither be granted legal status nor be deported because they were part of families with school-age children. These families rose up and launched a series of occupations: first the Saint-Ambroise Church, then the Cartoucherie de Vincennes, the Halle Pajol, the 18th arrondissement town hall, and, finally, the Saint-Bernard Church, where they remained for about two months.¹ Most of the occupiers were families with women and children because the men were working. At the time, I was working, but I went to Saint-Bernard to meet them.

2 A collective is a form of activist self-organization that has no legal status. The colle (...)

The movement galvanized people who were in this situation: the struggle of undocumented migrants was born at Saint-Bernard. Collectives² sprang up all over the place. Then these collectives formed the National Coordination of Undocumented Migrants. People came from Marseille, Lille, Rennes, and other parts of France.

A. V.: To your knowledge, before Saint-Bernard, were there already organized collectives of undocumented migrants?

A. S.: When I arrived in 1993, there were no collectives of undocumented migrants. There had been movements that led to regularizations, but they were led by associations or unions that helped undocumented migrants working at companies like Renault, Peugeot, and so on.

The 1996 undocumented migrants’ movement sparked a mobilization; it raised public awareness and continued from there. The following year, the left returned to power and issued the Chevènement circular, which was intended to allow for regularizations. Many people submitted applications, but only half were regularized. The movement continued; there were demonstrations of 20,000 to 30,000 people in the streets of Paris, and the left kept up the pressure on the Socialist Party. Despite this, in 1998, the government established the “10-year residency” rule as the basis for legalization.

3 For more on the history, operations, and actions of CSP 75, see Anne Volery (...)

The struggle continued until 2000 with occupations and demonstrations, and it gained new momentum with the occupation of the Basilica of Saint-Denis in 2002. That’s where I began my activism. All undocumented immigrants from the Île-de-France region went to the Basilica of Saint-Denis. Some came from Marseille or Lille to join us. At the time, Claude Guéant was Sarkozy’s chief of staff and Minister of the Interior. He met with us, along with Patrick Gaubert, president of the International League Against Racism and Anti-Semitism (L’ICRA). The mobilization was massive, and the prefecture couldn’t handle it. As a result, they decided to tell us that everyone had to go to the prefecture in their place of residence and submit their application to the prefecture with which they were registered. That’s how they broke the movement’s momentum. The people from Marseille left, as did those from Lille. The collectives from the 93rd department submitted their applications in the 93rd department, and the Parisian collectives banded together to submit theirs in Paris. That’s when the Coordination 75 for Undocumented Immigrants³ was born. Bringing together the collectives from the 11th, 18th, and 19th arrondissements—of which I was a part—it was led by Romain Binazon. At the time, he was also the spokesperson for the National Coordination of Undocumented Immigrants. From 1996 to 1998, Madjiguène Cissé and Aboubacar Diop held that position. Then Romain Binazon took over around 1998. In 2004, he was granted legal status, went on a trip to Benin, and died in an accident. I succeeded him as coordinator of CSP 75.

What’s interesting about this episode at the Basilica is that Sarkozy’s office issued written instructions to all prefects to meet with the organized groups. That’s how, in Paris, we got these meetings, which began with the prefecture. And this continued until 2024!

Enlarge Original (jpeg, 174k)

June 12, 2021. Anzoumane Sissoko at a demonstration against racism and the far right, organized by undocumented immigrant collectives, associations, and unions.

© Anne Volery.

A. V.: Were the meetings where undocumented migrant collectives negotiate regularization cases as a group with the prefecture set up that way?

A. S.: Yes. It was Claude Guéant who instructed all prefectures to meet with organized collectives. At the time of the basilica occupation, there were 64 collectives throughout France. I remember this because, just before the occupation of the basilica, there was a general assembly of the National Coordination. That’s actually where we formed the 19th Arrondissement Collective and joined the National Coordination.

A. V.: After the Basilica, there were the strikes and occupations of 2008–2010?

A. S.: Yes, but to understand that period, we need to go back in time. From 2001 to 2004, I had a case before the Labor Court because my former boss, with whom I’d worked for seven years, refused to pay my paid vacation and other entitlements. I lost in the first instance because I didn’t have any paperwork. I told the labor court judge that rights earned through work weren’t a matter of paperwork, that I had worked, and that if they didn’t recognize that, it was exploitation. I added that the 1997 Chevènement circular required us to provide pay stubs to regularize our status, even though we weren’t legally allowed to work, and that he couldn’t blame me for working with fake documents since I was asked to present pay stubs to regularize my status. The judge ruled in my favor.

I spoke with Diallo, who was at CSP 75 with me, about the fact that I’d had to fight this battle alone. We decided to contact the Paris Departmental Union of the General Confederation of Labor (UD CGT) and created a working group focused on the rights of undocumented workers; Diallo attended its meetings every Monday. After two years, they released the “four-page document” summarizing workers’ rights. With this document, the unions began planning actions. The working group’s meetings turned into planning sessions for these actions, but we quickly got the impression that the CGT was primarily interested in people who were union members and worked for large companies… As early as 2006, they launched strikes at companies and temporary staffing agencies. In 2008, the movement gained momentum, and on April 18, Interior Minister Hortefeux agreed to meet with them. Before going to see him, there was a preparatory meeting at the Labor Exchange in which we participated. During their meeting, Hortefeux asked them how many strikers there were. They replied 1,630. The minister told them he could regularize 2,000 people on the condition that they end the strike. They agreed, but rather than asking us to help complete the list of some 400 missing cases, they asked their picket line delegates to bring people in to fill out their list. We got nothing. That’s when we decided to occupy the Labor Exchange on May 2, 2008.

It received a lot of media attention. We called ourselves the “isolated undocumented workers” of the Labor Exchange. Isolated because the CGT reached out to all the associations, political parties, and other unions, and asked everyone to isolate us—not to help us. They thought we wouldn’t last and would leave quickly. They didn’t understand the system of solidarity that exists among us. We organized ourselves: we slept on site, we demonstrated every Wednesday and Friday, we sold T-shirts and newspapers, and we collected donations. With the money, we bought rice and seasonings to cook with. After 14 months, they saw that we were holding our ground and that we weren’t going to leave. In the end, they used the same tactic as the police: they forcibly evicted us using tear gas.

4 For more on the occupations of the Labor Exchange and Baudelique, see Laura Genz, (...)

At first, we stayed outside, on the boulevard in front of the Labor Exchange, for a little less than three weeks. Occupying the sidewalk was so visible and drew so much media attention that it caused even more of a disturbance than when we were inside. So they came to negotiate and sent the CGT cleaning workers’ union to us, who suggested we move to Baudelique (the building belonged to the Social Security inter-union coalition). We occupied the premises for another 14 months.⁴

A. V.: And was the National Coordination still in existence at that time?

A. S.: No. We “lost” the National Coordination at the end of 2004. After Binazon’s death, there were rumors… organizations like the Human Rights League (LDH) and some unions claimed that Romain was taking money from undocumented immigrants, and so on. We at the National Coordination wrote to these organizations telling them we wanted proof, since he was no longer there to defend himself. As a result, they isolated us from 2004 to 2006. It wasn’t until 2006 that they reached out to us again, in connection with the “disposable immigration” movement.

The National Coordination also lost its momentum because, when Binazon passed away, we decided not to appoint a national spokesperson, opting instead for regional leaders: in Paris, I was the most active, and the veterans from Saint-Bernard or from the 1998 era didn’t look kindly on the idea of someone who had only joined the movement in 2002 becoming the national spokesperson. I may be wrong, but that’s how I perceived it. So they argued that it would be better to organize with representatives from the regional coordinating committees. And that’s how the National Coordinating Committee got started. Later, around 2012, we created the National Union of Undocumented Migrants (UNSP). This followed the hunger strikes by CSP 59 in Lille, which marked an important moment in the struggle.

A. V. : I interrupted you when you were talking about the National Coordination. You were at Baudelique… Was it like at the Bourse—were you always isolated, or did other collectives join you?

A. S.: The collectives didn’t join us because they were hosted either by associations, like the LDH, or by unions, such as the CGT or Solidaires. They weren’t autonomous, so they came to Baudelique but on an individual basis, not as a collective.

It was the Paris-Nice March that allowed us to resume collective action. The comrades from Vitry pushed hard to participate, even though their collective’s leadership didn’t want them to. “Droits devant!!” also participated, as did the CSP 93 and the CSP 91. 2010 marked the 50th anniversary of independence for 14 countries formerly colonized by France. Sarkozy had invited 67 heads of state to Nice. We had a discussion with CSP 59 and decided to organize a march from Paris to arrive in Nice just as the summit was taking place, when all the presidents would be there.

We carried out the march with 100 undocumented immigrants! Each collective sent marchers. The march received a lot of attention; upon our arrival in Nice, we made the first two pages of *Nice-Matin*, even though there were 67 heads of state present!

Enlarge Original (jpeg, 228k)

August 24, 2024. CSP75 procession during the demonstration marking the 28th anniversary of the violent eviction of undocumented migrants from the Saint-Bernard Church in 1996.

© Anne Volery.

A. V.: And what about your relations with the prefecture?

A. S.: After the eviction from the Bourse, we received 300 summonses to appear at the prefecture out of the slightly fewer than 1,600 occupants we had counted on the day of the eviction. After that, we processed about a hundred cases per month during our meetings with the prefecture until the list was exhausted. All the cases were reviewed; not everyone was granted legal status, but all the cases were reviewed.

Later, at Baudelique, following negotiations with the prefecture, we decided to end the occupation, but some people remained and were subsequently forcibly evicted. The prefecture used this as a pretext to claim that they were not regularizing everyone’s status. We received 326 summonses for the 1,700 people on the list at the time of the evacuation. There, too, we processed the remaining cases during the appointments: it took a year and a half to work through the list.

5 In November 2012, Manuel Valls, Minister of the Interior, issued a circular that supplemented (...)

During those years, we were able to secure legal status for people who had been here for seven years, whereas the CGT only dealt with undocumented workers. For us, employment is a factor that can help comrades obtain legal status, but it’s not a requirement: we want legal status for everyone. We had managed to secure a tacit agreement with the ministry and the prefecture for regularization based on seven years of residence. Later, this was expanded, and the unions benefited from it. But we had secured this well before the Valls circular, and we were implementing it between 2008 and 2012. We were even able to regularize people with just five years of residence. The prefecture knew we were strong and capable of mobilizing.

To recap the timeline, in 2012, we organized the European March of Undocumented Migrants. There were 126 marchers this time. It was a time when they were arresting a lot of people; Sarkozy was nearing the end of his term and wanted to run for re-election, so he took a harder line on immigration. We launched the European March in response—and also because the 2010 Paris-Nice March had galvanized undocumented migrants: we wanted to do it again on a larger scale.

The march began in Hénin-Beaumont—Marine Le Pen’s hometown! We passed through Brussels, where we demonstrated in front of the Parliament. We traveled to Germany, Switzerland, and Italy, then returned to France to go to Strasbourg, where we were received at the Parliament by several members of the Left Party and by Catherine Trautmann, who was mayor of Strasbourg at the time. We were also received by the Council of Europe.

Then, in 2013, we organized the Great Paris March. It ended at the Élysée Palace, and we were received… Not received around a table—we were received at the reception desk [silence]… to submit the list of marchers.

A. V.: Did that lead to any regularizations?

6 The Cerfa is an administrative form. In this case, it’s a Cerfa signed by an employer who commits (...)

A. S.: Not directly: since we were regularly received at the prefecture, that’s where it was handled. When you submit a list of 200 people who participated in the Grand Paris march, they review it based on existing criteria: those who have been here for 7 years are selected, and the others are not. The Valls circular wore us down. According to the unions and associations, it made things easier. For us, it got more complicated: everything we used to do—the cases of people who’d been there for seven years and those with family histories, family ties, who had this or that…—the prefecture was less strict before the circular. After the circular, they wouldn’t hear of it anymore and started telling us: “Cerfa6, Cerfa, Cerfa…” For those who didn’t have a Cerfa, the prefecture required 10 years of residence.

A. V.: Can you talk about the lockdown period?

A. S.: Lockdown was a very difficult period. Migrants were on the front lines alongside healthcare workers. “Essential workers”—that was the term used—were not subject to lockdown restrictions. Public opinion was a bit more lenient toward “migrants,” but only toward those with papers, not the “undocumented.”

7 For more information on the CSP Montreuil, see Anne Volery, Coordination 75 des sans-papiers, op. c (...)

In terms of actions, we organized a rally on April 26, 2020, in front of the annex of the Ministry of the Interior. We were still under lockdown, and the prefecture rejected our request to hold the demonstration, but we went ahead with it anyway. They stationed police officers at all the nearby subway exits. We streamed live from the platform at the Avron station and posted it on social media to ask people to come demonstrate with us on May 31. And that really sparked something—a huge crowd turned out. We held another demonstration on June 20, and once again, a huge crowd turned out! During that period, we were the most active alongside Montreuil. There was a real sense of momentum in Montreuil at that time.7

A. V.: Did that have any particular effect?

A. S.: No, the lockdown didn’t have… any impact. The only small benefit was for those applying for naturalization; their applications were processed a bit more smoothly.

A. V.: Can you talk about the current situation, the increase in racial profiling and the raids that took place in the summer of 2025?

8 The CESEDA governs the entry and residence of foreigners in France. It contains the rules applicable to (...)

9 The Retailleau circular, dated January 23, 2025, repeals the Valls circular, which had been in effect until then (...)

A. S.: Today, we have to deal with the Darmanin Law⁸ and the Retailleau Circular⁹, which restrict regularization and prioritize occupations facing labor shortages. But when you look at the list of occupations facing labor shortages in Île-de-France, you realize that the main jobs where employers hire undocumented workers aren’t on the list. Cleaning isn’t on it, nor are kitchen assistants, and so on. They’re on the list in other regions, but not in Île-de-France, where the need is greatest. You have to wonder if this isn’t done on purpose… or are we dealing with people who don’t know anything and are making decisions without any basis?

You mentioned the roundups—that’s nothing new. Sarkozy, when he was Minister of the Interior, was already conducting roundups at subway entrances to arrest as many undocumented immigrants as possible. With those roundups and his laws, he was harassing us. But later on, he did open up a small window of opportunity when we were at the Bourse, and we were able to regularize the status of quite a few people.

Yes, Retailleau has started doing it again, but raids and racial profiling are things we’ve been familiar with for a long time.

A. V.: The Retailleau directive also put an end to group appointments. You mentioned that Claude Guéant had issued instructions to receive groups of undocumented immigrants. So are you now facing conflicting instructions?

A. S.: Yes. My explanation for this is political. Today, refusing to grant legal status—or even snatching papers away from people who have them, because that’s where we’ve ended up—is done to win over voters from the National Rally. Sarkozy was tough—he was even tougher than these people—but he was still willing to talk, and if there’s a discussion, at some point, there’s negotiation. These people are in a different world. People like Wauquiez or Retailleau are tougher than the National Rally: I’m not sure Marine Le Pen or Bardella would do what they’re doing now regarding immigration. Because they’ll be confronted with the reality on the ground, just like Meloni in Italy, who, upon coming to power, granted legal status to 500,000 people.

A. V.: What are the prospects for the activist groups?

A. S.: Today, I tell people to come out and fight to protect themselves. When you’re in the struggle, that’s protection. If you’re arrested and detained, the group is there to mobilize in your support. That’s fundamental.

The doors are closed. We can’t promise people that tomorrow, or next year, they’ll be granted legal status. Given these circumstances, and given that the world is in such a bad state, the only solution is to keep fighting, to keep advocating for rights. The past has shown us that when we fight, at some point, the tide turns.

Top of page