A highly anticipated book
The release in bookstores last April of Nicolas Pouvreau-Monti's book entitled Immigration: Myths and Realities (Fayard, 2026), constitutes a kind of relief. Finally, a work that deals with the phenomenon of migration without any ulterior motive other than to show what it is and to remind us that its management remains an eminently political matter.
The book is notable first and foremost for its presentation and argumentative structure. It begins by tackling what the author calls the "myths" surrounding the phenomenon, dismantling them one by one by providing factual data that undermines their credibility. It then proceeds to expose the ideological presuppositions, if not partisan activism, that have fueled—and continue to fuel—these various myths. It concludes with a call to citizens to take ownership of the consequences of the phenomenon, placing it within the realm that should have remained its proper domain: the government's responsibility to ensure the well-being of those who, through democratic processes, delegate the power to act to this body.
Among the myths shattered, the first is this mantra, peddled under the guise of historical common sense, caricatured by the demagogic zeal of the rebellious leader Mélenchon when he claims that one in three French people has a connection to previous migration. This mantra is now stamped with the "scientific" seal of the INED (National Institute for Demographic Studies), which states authoritatively that "the intertwining of origins and generations thus brings to 41% the proportion of people in France who have a connection to immigration, either through family history, marriage, or their own descendants."[1]The mantra would have us believe that there is no more immigration to France today than yesterday, and that the French nation is merely a conglomeration of successive migrations. Alas, as Nicolas Pouvreau-Monti explains in detail, there has never been as much immigration to France as there is today. In ten illuminating pages, he paints a picture of an "old, settled country" in which migration is a "recent exception." Around 1850, when the Industrial Revolution began, 1% of the population represented immigration; 6,5% in the aftermath of the decimation of the workforce caused by the First World War; and 11,3% of the total population in 2024 (source: INSEE). This, it should be remembered, occurred while the overall population of metropolitan France was tending to double in size.
Undoubtedly, no transcendent historical law governs the phenomenon of migration, except perhaps the history of laws adopted by our governments. As Nicolas Pouvreau-Monti details, these laws shape the pattern, rhythm, and composition of the migrations we observe. Regarding the period following the Second World War, the author describes the emergent effects of legislative shifts in terms of presence, settlement, socio-economic status, ethno-religious composition, and so on, within the national territory. One thinks of the well-known "family reunification"—more complex than it is often portrayed—and the expansion of enforceable rights regarding housing, removal for administrative or security reasons, and so forth. And if we add to this the deliberate political objectives pursued regarding the reception of foreign students, the workforce for "shortage professions," the reception of "political refugees," etc., the conclusion is inescapable: "There have never been as many immigrants in France as today, with very strong growth over the last twenty-five years. The immigrant population residing in the country has increased by 76% since 2000, reaching 7,7 million people in 2024."[2] »
So much for the "myth" of France as a universal, transhistorical host country and the almost complete result of this phenomenon. This vision is by no means substantiated and undoubtedly represents a purely ideological way of pursuing political interests, which are, moreover, diverse and varied. As the book argues, advocating for "labor immigration" to meet the demand for labor in "shortage sectors" stems from sectoral interests aimed at lowering the labor costs demanded by the sector—without regard for the social costs resulting from their low contribution to social protection, nor for the hindrance to technological innovation that this entails. Declaring itself a land of universal welcome by claiming to create a "new France" is merely a matter of the "dissensual" Mélenchonist aim of seizing power, just as it was a matter of establishing the power of the so-called representatives of the "circle of reason" by advocating the opening of borders in all directions and the free movement of goods and people.
It is therefore entirely logical that Nicolas Pouvreau-Monti urges us to place the issue of migration back on the political stage. This applies both to the political decision-making process—since the phenomenon cannot be considered a geopolitical inevitability, but rather results from the decisions made—and to addressing its consequences, particularly regarding social cohesion, the balance of social protection, and the preservation of the values espoused by French society. Nicolas Pouvreau-Monti warns us: “Like a wound that is left untreated, the unaddressed issue of immigration tends to worsen with the passage of time.”[3] »
Another myth shattered is the supposed beneficial contribution of immigration to our economy and public finances. The belief in a positive economic balance from immigration is still quite widespread among our fellow citizens. "Without them, who would pay our pensions?" people ask, without any further accounting verification. "This familiar refrain, meant to soothe the anxieties of an aging nation, nevertheless crashes against a wall of reality as soon as one dares to lift the hood of the French economic machine," warns the director of the Observatory of Immigration and Demography.
In a few up-to-date tables and figures, the author easily establishes that today's migration imports economic inactivity and burdens the state and social security accounts. Only 63% of immigrants residing in France are employed (source: EUROSTAT, 2021), one of the worst results in Western Europe. If we focus on non-European migrants of working age, just over half (56%) are employed, still one of the lowest rates in the European Union. Zooming in on 2023, the picture is telling: half of migrants of European origin are employed, as are a third of those from the Maghreb, and a quarter of African immigrants (excluding the Maghreb). France now admits the most African immigration of any OECD country, which strongly contributes to making immigration under-contributory to the nation's finances, but over-consumer of public spending, particularly social spending.
The argument presented by Nicolas Pouvreau-Monti is supported by numerous, meticulously analyzed examples. For instance, the comparison of the outcomes achieved by Algerian migration, on the one hand, and Southeast Asian migration, on the other, is quite striking. They can be described as antithetical. The former concentrates the aforementioned detrimental effects on employment, public resources, and internal security. The latter, within a single generation, has gone from having the lowest indicators of qualifications (academic, professional, and French language proficiency) to the highest. This makes it the diaspora that is best integrated into contemporary France. This is evidenced by their low rate of endogamy according to their migratory origin: 14% for descendants of two parents who immigrated from Southeast Asia, and even 2% for descendants of a single parent with the same origin, compared to 35% for all descendants of immigrants, and even 77% for descendants of two Turkish immigrant parents. Culture, suggests Nicolas Pouvreau-Monti, is "like the keystone" of these differences in integration trajectories into the host society. "The culture of origin, the family model, the relationship to education and to the host society are far more powerful drivers than any urban policy."[4] " he does not hesitate to conclude.
Demography and ideology
Beyond all the other "myths" debunked by the book, a persistent question gradually emerges upon reading it: hasn't demography, at least that of our officially recognized institutions, contributed somewhat to constructing all these "myths"? The book pays tribute to the few demographers who, for several decades now, have attempted to understand the issue of migration according to the approach that the social sciences should follow: namely, to treat it as an object to be understood and not as a value to be assessed or a cause to be evaluated. This is the case with Michèle Tribalat and Gérard-François Dumont, but how many have not been drawn into the game of...expertocracy, as Nicolas Pouvreau-Monti calls it, to become the militant supporters of a beneficial, peaceful and always enriching immigration, unbearably thwarted by the (supposed) fundamental "racialism" of native nationals?
The question arises, in fact, when what could have been merely a controversy between researchers admitting distinct interpretative hypotheses and divergent conclusions—in other words, a perfectly legitimate disputatio between scientists proceeding sine ira and studioThis has been transformed into attempts at academic disqualification, a media brawl, and an ideological rallying in favor of propagandists of open borders and a "win-win" global population mixing. Where was the hypothesis to be refuted, with its duly established figures and statistical calculations? Hadn't it given way to a moral and political stance, most often borrowed from the social debate whose very terms it adopted (particularly those of "systemic racism" or "Islamophobia")? Nevertheless, to claim virtue in the political and media arena, such a stance has no place in the realm of science, even if it is a science of society and population behavior. French demography, through its most recognized institutions, such as the National Institute for Demographic Studies (INED), and under the impetus of some of its influential figures, was straying from its scientific function to the point of losing, if we follow Mr. Tribalat's judgment[5], any competence in matters of immigration.
This is only half surprising when one recalls that for ages one of these influential figures, Hervé Le Bras, has been claiming that what we call demography, from its very origins, is driven by fundamentally political and ideological motives. Having learned his lesson, he ultimately demonstrates great consistency by practicing it in this way and by championing uncomplicated immigration.
In doing so, the demographers who followed him down this path managed to obscure the realities of the migratory phenomenon affecting our country for many years. But Nicolas Pouvreau-Monti, by reducing these "myths" to the status of ideological and political fantasies, sheds light on the realities of the phenomenon and provides a much clearer understanding of its implications. Statistical artifice, the occasional manipulation of analytical categories, interpretive biases, and the partisan leanings of demographers promoted as "unquestionable experts" on the issue of migration, have not succeeded in sanitizing it or reducing it to a trivial and fabricated question of "racism." The demographic analysis undertaken by Nicolas Pouvreau-Monti rejects the anti-racist moralizing so prevalent today, preferring factual observations and demonstrable causal relationships. This allows him to define the space where the effects of migration play out—the anthropo-cultural space of the nation, to give it a name—and the locus from which this space is regulated. This locus, as already indicated, is that of political decision-making and responsibility. It is therefore up to the "political leaders" and the citizens who mandate them to address the issue, to speak out, and to make decisions. The rigorous demographer, without mystagogical pretensions, simply a demographer, provides the data he has collected, discussed, and verified, attempts to identify the explanatory factors or causal relationships, and, when possible, predicts their evolution and consequences, then passes the baton, for that is where his scientific expertise ends.
That's what the book does. Immigration: Myths and Realities, and that is why it was expected in this form, accessible to a wide readership.
