The expulsion could have been unconditional, but the mobilization of numerous activists and the very rapid media coverage of this action shifted, in a certain way, the balance of power.
The dual proposal of the prefect, made within the occupied premises of the Maison Blanche, to immediately rehouse all the families and to reassess the files of undocumented families was not a foregone conclusion. The rehousing is only effective until the end of the month and does not apply to undocumented families whose fate depends on the “benevolent” reassessment of the file, not by the O.F.P.R.A, but by virtue of the power and influence of the prefect in this matter. Other families will be subsequently followed by social services.
Were they not being followed before? What can be expected from a “benevolent” reassessment of asylum application files which have not been successful for some years? Should we not remember the precedent of the children of Don Quixote where not all the persons concerned benefited from stable rehousing after the movement?
What has been achieved, once again, might not have been. Yet, for the umpteenth time, these are just promises. What is striking, beyond that, is the speed and brutality of the judicial decision, which may or may not be related to the pressure from the political representatives of the municipal majority. It is evident that experienced and committed activists’ mobilization can have concrete social and political consequences, but surely not in line with the needs (for rehousing) and the moral imperatives that are required (such as the potential expulsion of Chechen families, for instance, with children enrolled in school in France).
This is less about questioning the legitimacy of this type of movement than about recognizing its limits in a social and political context that is not conducive to it.
