By: Dr. Nasser Hussyn Bukhari
Published By: ANI News Agency
US Vice President J.D. Vance’s position, in the context of the riots in France, that Western countries have aggravated their own problems by settling people from the Third World in their societies in the name of diversity and compassion may sound harsh, almost like a slap in the face. But does this statement fully reflect reality? Are immigrants the primary cause of the French riots, or are the roots of this crisis also embedded in the West’s own economic policies, historical decisions, and social inequalities? The answer must be sought through history and evidence rather than emotion.
After the Second World War, France and several other European countries needed a large workforce to rebuild their devastated economies and sustain industrial growth. To address labour shortages, they opened employment opportunities to people from North Africa, Turkey, and South Asia. France’s colonial relationships with Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia also laid the foundations for this migration. To suggest that the West accepted immigrants solely out of humanitarian compassion is to overlook an important dimension of its economic history.
Industrial expansion, labour shortages, and the demand for workers in low-wage sectors were among the principal drivers of immigration. Immigrants made significant contributions to construction, agriculture, cleaning, hotels, restaurants, and care services. Many worked long hours to secure a better future for their families while supporting the economies of their host countries. In some sectors, their labour helped businesses contain operating costs and maintain the delivery of essential services. However, it would also be inaccurate to claim that all immigrants work for low wages or that their arrival necessarily reduces inflation. Their economic impact depends on the sector, skill levels, wages, housing conditions, and government policies.
Over time, suburban communities developed around France’s industrial centres, where immigrants and members of their second and third generations settled in significant numbers. These areas increasingly faced problems such as unemployment, limited access to quality education, racial discrimination, inadequate housing, and strained relations with the police. Episodes of urban unrest had already occurred in some French suburbs during the 1970s and 1980s. These problems did not emerge overnight; they were connected to social and economic transformations that had unfolded over several decades.
In October 2005, the deaths of two young men who were attempting to escape the police triggered severe riots across various parts of France. Lasting nearly three weeks, the unrest involved burning cars, damaging property, and forcing the government to take emergency measures. These events brought questions about immigrant integration, racial discrimination, police conduct, and economic deprivation in suburban areas to the forefront of national debate. But could this crisis be attributed solely to immigration? If so, how could one explain the longstanding problems of unemployment, educational inequality, and declining trust in public institutions?
The Yellow Vest movement of November 2018 revealed another important reality. Initially driven by opposition to fuel prices and taxes, declining purchasing power, and a growing sense of alienation from the political elite, the movement largely reflected the economic grievances of the local population. It demonstrated that even in developed economies, the unequal distribution of the benefits of economic growth can generate public frustration and protest. The movement’s participants could not simply be blamed on immigrants, as their grievances were also linked to government policies and the rising cost of living.
In June and July 2023, France witnessed another wave of serious riots following the police shooting of a young man, Nahel Merzouk. Shops were looted, vehicles were set ablaze, and public buildings were damaged. These events once again raised questions about police accountability, public trust in state institutions, and the sense of exclusion experienced by young people. However, demanding justice for a young man’s death and setting fire to the property of innocent shopkeepers are two entirely different matters. Legitimate protest does not give anyone the right to engage in violence, looting, or the destruction of public property.
The protests and unrest in France in October 2026 must also be understood within this historical context. Inflation, the rising cost of everyday necessities, problems with public services, and grievances concerning the education system have fuelled discontent among various sections of society. Student protests have also highlighted issues such as inadequate educational resources, teacher shortages, and uncertainty about the future. In some places, demonstrations escalated into violence, shops were looted, and government buildings were damaged. These crimes must be condemned. However, attributing the current crisis solely to immigrants would mean ignoring the economic and political factors that have intensified public frustration.
This is where Edward Said’s concept of Orientalism becomes particularly relevant. Said demonstrated how the West had historically portrayed the East as a uniform, backward, and irrational society. When J.D. Vance’s argument places the Third World in a single category and identifies it as the principal source of problems within Western societies, it similarly pushes the distinct identities of different nations, cultures, and individuals into the background. This way of thinking reduces complex social problems to a simplistic civilisational divide. However, criticising Orientalism must not mean denying the problems associated with immigration or the responsibilities of immigrants themselves.
Violations of the law, religious or political extremism, harassment of opponents, and deliberate disregard for the fundamental principles of the host society are all reprehensible. Immigrants, including Pakistanis, must understand that respecting the laws of the country in which they seek employment is their responsibility, as is respecting its citizens. Threatening others in the name of political disagreement, engaging in violence, or violating the sanctity of public spaces abroad cannot be defended under any circumstances. However, responsibility for such actions must rest with the individuals concerned, not with an entire nation or all followers of a particular religion.
France’s historical experience demonstrates that social crises usually have multiple causes. J.D. Vance has raised an important question concerning social integration and respect for the law, but by confining it to a narrative about the importation of people from the Third World, he has oversimplified a complex problem. Western economies have benefited from the labour of immigrants; they must now also accept responsibility for promoting education, adequate housing, equal opportunities, and social integration. At the same time, immigrants must recognise that economic rights come with civic responsibilities.
A just society does not presume someone to be a criminal because of their nationality or religion, but neither does it excuse a crime in the name of identity. The solution to the French riots lies neither in collective condemnation nor in unquestioning support. The impartial enforcement of the law, economic justice, institutional accountability, civic responsibility, and mutual respect are the principles on which a stable society can be built. Genuine dialogue between civilisations does not begin with accusations; it begins with a willingness to acknowledge one’s own shortcomings and to understand others with fairness and integrity.
