In France, a fine provoked a political clash on immigration.
Let us focus on the facts. A young French citizen of foreign origins has been fined because caught wearing a niqab while driving. The young lady must pay 22 euros in accordance with article 412-6 of the highway code that forbids driving “in presence of objects or people that hinder the freedom of movement and the range of vision inside the passenger compartment”.
Hinting that whoever is wearing a hat or a tight-fitting pair of trousers is liable for fine.
The anecdote of the young woman is to be referred to the heated debate on the controversial shilly-shally talks, between President Sarkozy and the State Council, on the opportunity to pass a bill that bans the use of burqa in public spaces.
What really matters in all this episode is the fact that the young lady is the wife of a polygamous citizen of ethnic Algerian origins. Besides the fact that he is also an activist member of a radical Islamic movement.
Polygamy is not recognised by the French civil jurisdiction. As a consequence of that, the wives of Habbadj do not appear to be formally married, and can therefore take advantage of the conspicuous financial benefits that the French State foresees for unmarried or divorced women with children.
The whole story is a real twine. A troubling situation that the Interior Minister Brice Hortefeux preferred to assign to his colleague Eric Besson, responsible for immigration issues.
It remains unclear what the fined young lady has to do with all this muddle; the point is that the French authorities hope for the French citizenship retraction that the immigrant acquired in 1999 by marriage.
Does French civil jurisdiction foresee the citizenship retraction in cases like this one?
An enigma more than a question. To the point that the Minister for Immigration asked for some more time to study more in depth the case.
But while waiting for the final verdict let us stick to the facts.
Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights foresees that “all citizens have the right to citizenship” and “nobody can be ultra vires deprived of it”. This is an order that, according to an interpretation unanimously shared by French jurists, implies the impossibility to revoke the status civitatis to all citizens born in the Hexagon.
Retraction is likely only for those immigrants who obtained citizenship by naturalization/marriage or just in those cases foreseen by article 25 of the civil code:
-conviction for offence to the principles of the Republic;
-conviction for offence to the public administration;
-conviction for non-compliance of the duties foreseen by the national service code.
-conviction in a foreign country for a circumstance considered criminal also in France, under the condition that the punishment implies more than 5 years of imprisonment.
-If the citizen adopted a behaviour deemed as detrimental for the French State.
It is now evident that, neither polygamy nor the possible sentence for state fraud belong to the cases foreseen by article 25.
The remote alternative could be conviction in accordance with article 27-2 of the civil code, to have obtained the status civitatis in a fraudulent way.
In this case, evidence should be provided that Habbadj omitted to warn the French administration – when in 1999 he got married to the fined young woman in question – that he was already married.
A cul de sac to prove how the veil is becoming more and more today’s Pandora’s box.