Prestando atención al proyecto en su conjunto, mi grado de satisfacción es:

Similar to what was seen in the 1980s in the same situation, the legislative reform of the Foreigners Law that was started in 1998 and culminated in the adoption of the new law in December 1999, did not appear out of the blue or due to an external influence. The sub-commission had already formulated some suggestions for a policy-reform. But also, there was more and more societal debate on the existing Foreigners Law of 1985 and the difficulties it created. After the law had been

criticized already in the debates on the expulsion of the 103 immigrants,313 civil society and

immigrant collectives themselves started to publically speak out against the norm and called for a

change in legislation.314

First protests and demonstrations organized by the Moroccan Emigrant Association (AEME) in May

1997,315 quickly led to the United Left picking up the topic and bringing it into parliament. In

September 1997 the IU initiated a plenary debate, officially on the “policy of the government to solve

the problems of the immigrants that come to Spain”.316 However, the leftist party did not confine

313

See Chapter 4.2. Also, see the debate on the yearly report of the ombudsman on 16.9.1997 (DSCG, 6. Leg., Comisiones Mixtas, Núm. 65, 16.9.1997, passim).

314 _{There had been quite some debate already in the last months of the PSOE government. The effect of this}

was not a complete reform of the law, but the redrafting of the Royal Decree in 1995/1996, which worked as the implementation rule of the law (see e.g. Bruquetas-Callejo et al., 2011, 297-298).

315

See Protesta marroquí contra las normas de extranjería, El País, 24.5.1997.

71

itself to criticism of the government’s policy alone, but called for a completely new law.317 The

speaker of the IU thereby drew a direct connection between the experiences Spanish emigrants had made and the attitude the government should take towards immigration.

“We understand that one should not hold up much longer the enactment of legislative, administrative and social measures to resolve what never should be considered as a problem of police control: the situation of the immigrant from his arrival in Spain onwards. We believe, mister Minister, that the government cannot look the other way when confronted with this reality and, if doing so, they will be accomplices of this situation. Spain, further, as you very well know, as the chamber knows, is a state with two million emigrants that have fought for their own rights, often alone, other times with the help of the administration, but that thus is a country that perfectly knows of what we are talking; a society

that has suffered in its flesh the reality of paving its own way in foreign countries.”318

Interesting in this quote was that it showed very clearly, more clearly than others, how the speaker used emigration memory on a collective scale: first the experience of emigration is shown as one that is solitary, the Spanish emigrant had to fight on his or her own to gain his life in the new society. Then, however, the experience was collectivized: although one could argue that Spanish society had suffered emigration, it had not suffered the difficulty of finding its path in other societies. By this rhetorical dodge, the listener directly identified the entirety of Spanish society with the experiences of those of the emigrant minority.

Whereas Meyer Pleite of the United Left used this method of identification in his statement, Javier Arenas Bocanegra, Minister of Labor and Social Affairs, used the same emigration memory to dissociate:

“As you know, Spain has in the past been a country that was characterized by the emigration of its workers. In these times, Spain is a receptor of immigrants and today we need to address, in my opinion, intensively – without forgetting about the policy of support towards the emigrants that want to behold their Spanish reference – the problem of immigration. Today, fortunately, Spanish companies are

emigrating, and not Spaniards.”319

The motive of dissociation was described before, however, here it worked twofold: firstly, in temporal terms (between past and present) and, secondly, in qualitative terms (between immigrants and Spanish companies). The connotation of the two qualia, (the immigrants being connoted with the term “problem”, whereas the companies are described by the term “fortunately”) reinforced the dissociative mechanism still.

In the discussion of the motion, i.e. the text resulting from this debate, a few weeks later Arenas Bocanegra’s party-colleague, Jordano Salinas, also argued in a dissociating way, but less clearly than the minister and also more or less in line with what he had presented before:

“If the Spanish society – by virtue of the migrations which it furnished for centuries – has a vision of the foreigner which is radically different from other societies in our neighborhood, it is the task of all groups

317

See Willy Meyer Pleite, DSC, 6. Leg., Pleno, Núm. 103, 24.9.1997, 5200.

318

Willy Meyer Pleite, DSC, 6. Leg., Pleno, Núm. 103, 24.9.1997, 5200.

72

– and also of the government – to maintain this favorable judgment, to maintain this positive

differentiating element with respect to the rest of European societies.”320

Here again the formulation of the “vision that Spanish society has of foreigners”, he already had used in the sub-commission, was brought up again: the memory of the century-long emigration had made Spain look upon the “Other” benevolently. This favorable view, however, was at risk and had to be safeguarded through legislation – an allusion to the curbing of immigration Jordano Salinas had argued in favor of in the sub-commission. New in this quotation was yet another dissociative dimension: Spain was different from other countries in the way it saw foreigners.

The notions of dissociation, of being different, noth Arenas Bocanegra and Jordano Salinas exposed, were diverging and in part contradict each other (past - present, immigrant problem - favorable companies, Spain’s favorable view of the foreigners - xenophobia in other countries), but they helped formulate and frame immigration as a binary issue, as one in which one could clearly distinguish and dissociate from each other two sides.

During the discussion of the motion of the United Left, speakers of all parties evoked the consensus in matters of immigration policy. Also, for the first time it was formulated clearly that a new legislative basis for immigration had to be found. However, all parties also agreed to wait for the report of the sub-commission for guidance on this, as the report at this point in time had not yet

been published.321

Regardless, the pressure put on the government by the opposition and civil society did not diminish. On the contrary, already two months later, in another hearing of the Minister of the Interior, this time before the Commission of Justice and Interior, Fernández Sanz (PSOE) heavily attacked the

government for not having a coherent immigration policy.322 Likewise the Minister of Labor and

Social Affairs, Arenas Bocanegra, was aim of the PSOE’s charges in the Commission for Social Policy

and Employment in early March 1998.323 Again and again NGOs joined in this criticism.324

But the call for a new regulation of the foreigners policy came from within the administration as well.

In an interview with El País from February 1998, the Director General of Interior Policy, José Ramón

Ónega, talked about the importance of immigration to Spain and the fact that there was a need of a

pact of state (pacto de estado) in this realm. He argued that there should be a superior body

coordinating migration policy altogether – a position contrary to that of the PP on this matter.325 In

the interview one can see clearly, how emigration memory played a role in setting the stage for the calls for policy reform:

320

Diego Jordano Salinas, DSC, 6. Leg., Pleno, Núm. 105, 7.10.1997, 5345.

321

See DSC, 6. Leg., Pleno, Núm. 105, 7.10.1997.

322 _{See Matilde Fernández Sanz, DSC, 6. Leg., Comisiones, Núm. 363, 18.12.1997, 10719-10722.}

323

See Matilde Fernández Sanz, DSC, 6. Leg., Comisiones, Núm. 400, 10.3.1998, 11790- 11792.

324

See e.g. 12.000 inmigrantes se quedan sin permiso laboral, El País, 21.1.1998 or El Gobierno aprueba un

cupo de 28.000 inmigrantes, que las ONG ven "insuficiente", El País, 14.3.1998.

325

See DSC, 6. Leg., Comisiones, Núm. 363, 18.12.1997, passim. The PP held this position until the following

May, when in the midst of the negotiations on the new Foreigners Law, it agreed with the other parties to create a secretary of state for immigration (see Los partidos acuerdan la creación de una secretaría de Estado de inmigración, El País, 4.5.1998).

73

“Q: Have we forgotten too fast that we Spaniards only a few years ago travelled to Europe with a cardboard suitcase bound together by a string? A: Yes, yes, yes. Spain has passed from being a country of emigrants to being a receptor of immigration.

Q: When did this rupture exactly happen? A: I believe from the 1980s onwards… Look, we calculate very precisely in this ministry. As there was no immigration, there existed no administrative mechanisms. First, a section was created, then a service, then a general directorate…

Q: Would then a Ministry of Emigration [migration is meant, JT] be necessary? Well… I would not dare to

say as much. But, yes, a superior organ, yes.”326

Recalling past emigration led to reason about the change in migration patterns, leading in turn to calls for changes in migration policy making.