A-Infos (en) France, OCL CA #352 - Towards the end of migrant workers' hostels? (ca, de, fr, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

Migrant workers' hostels are being transformed into "social housing." 
This is a policy consistently pursued by various governments for the 
past thirty years. The stated objective is to eliminate substandard 
housing and integrate a "marginal" population. The real goal is to break 
the working-class solidarity established by immigrant workers, to make 
them invisible and individualize them, to better cut them off from their 
integration into the working class, and to continue to deny them the 
status of tenants they have been demanding for half a century.

A long history
Initially, these were shacks and slum landlords to quickly house a 
workforce that employers had sought from the depths of Africa. The 
sector was gradually organized with the creation of management bodies, 
the main ones being SONACOTRA (state company then Mixed Economy 
Company), but also, especially for West Africa, AFTAM, ADEF and 
Soundiata (associations), all under the name of "Foyers de Travailleurs 
Immigrés" (FTI). In 2000, there were officially 700 FTIs, 400 of which 
were managed by SONACOTRA, officially comprising 110,000 beds[1](so 
really much more). These homes made the headlines in the 70s and 80s 
during the "SONACOTRA strike", a long struggle with a rent strike to 
obtain an improvement in housing conditions, the end of colonial 
management, a reduction in the rent and recognition of tenant status. 
This strike, notable for its self-organization, coordination involving 
several different nationalities, its duration, and its massive scale, 
was not limited to SONACOTRA and involved nearly all FTIs. Repression 
was significant (expulsions from the country, expulsions of residents 
from their homes). Out of necessity as much as desire, a more or less 
tolerated community life had taken root in African homes: informal 
canteens that still allow residents and non-residents to eat good, 
hearty meals for around EUR3; small shops with basic necessities 
available at any time, regardless of work schedules or travel time; 
multipurpose rooms for village association meetings (which fund projects 
in the home country); family gatherings for condolences and other 
events; general residents' meetings; prayer rooms. In fact, it's both a 
community life that eases the difficulties of exile and a form of worker 
solidarity (contributions so that those without resources can eat, for 
example). It is this collective life that makes it possible to endure 
the deplorable material conditions of the homes (overcrowding, lack of 
maintenance and therefore lack of hygiene, water outages, leaks not 
repaired by the landlord, cockroaches, rats, etc.). Pinel Home - Photo 
by Bouba Toure
Bouba Toure
Obviously, the state has difficulty tolerating these spaces that escape 
its control (and which limit the effectiveness of the hunt for 
undocumented immigrants). It has worked effectively since the 19th 
century to eradicate them from our society, and it does not welcome 
their reconstitution by these new pariahs, this segment of the French 
working class[2]. Shortly after the right's return to power in 1996, the 
Cuq report was published, named after a former police commissioner who 
became a member of parliament thanks to the Chirac network. This report 
particularly stigmatizes Black African homes, denouncing them as places 
of trafficking and prostitution, as fostering communitarianism to the 
detriment of integration, and so on. It was picked up in the media, 
contributing to the construction of an extremely negative image of 
homes, even within non-profit organizations. A Migrant Worker Shelters 
Treatment Plan (PTFTM) was established in 1997 to "rehabilitate" the 
shelters by transforming them into social housing[3]. This initially 
five-year plan has been renewed several times. The stated objective is 
the elimination of the nearly 700 shelters in the country. A little less 
than 30 years later, there are still around a hundred shelters (a little 
less than 15%) to "treat." The "five-year period" has lengthened somewhat!

Some Constants
Obviously, the first and constant objective is to improve the 
effectiveness of the hunt for undocumented migrants. Many are welcomed 
into shelters upon arrival, by members of their extended family or 
village, and cared for while they find work. Targeting shelters is not 
just about attacking their housing. If that were all there was to it, it 
would be enough to carry out identity checks at the exit of homes, 
something the police have never failed to do. It also means attacking 
the network of solidarity that allows them to feed themselves, find 
work, and adapt to a society with unfamiliar rules.

The goal is then clearly to break down these forms of solidarity, 
stigmatized under the term "communitarianism." Already in the name 
itself: the shift from "migrant workers' home," thus recognizing their 
real social status, to "social housing," these are no longer 
particularly poorly paid workers, but rather those receiving assistance. 
These social residences are only social in name and the status of the 
landlords: the rents are rather high (average fee of more than 400 euros 
for an 18m2), part-time managers as social support, prohibition of 
making duplicate keys, prohibition of receiving anyone even for a single 
night without asking the manager's permission two months in advance 
(useful for having privacy!), right for the manager and technicians to 
enter the accommodation without notice... The first social residences 
included collective spaces, but they were later integrated into the 
treatment plan of the homes to remedy this aspect. No more cafeteria, 
especially no large multipurpose room, no more canteen, no more street 
vendors, let alone artisans... The meager rooms granted are under the 
responsibility of the manager and therefore unavailable in the evenings 
and weekends. Africans are required to integrate, that is, not to 
integrate into social life, but to atomize themselves into individual 
housing without spaces for meeting.

Finally, the treatment plan for shelters cannot be separated from the 
famous "social mix." French-style social mix has never consisted of 
forcing the relatively wealthy to live alongside the very poor. It 
requires certain categories of poor people to make room for other poor 
people. Concretely, since the goal is to break down communitarianism, 
the new social housing units, unlike the old shelters, are designed to 
accommodate individuals or families referred there by the 115 emergency 
number. This already means that there have been long battles, shelter by 
shelter, to ensure that the social housing unit has as many official 
spaces as the old shelters for residents, with a share generally being 
allocated to these new arrivals. This also means that two populations 
with different statuses coexist in these residences. Of course, everyone 
is easily evicted since no one has tenant status. But the residents have 
a contract that is tacitly renewable for life. People referred by 115 
are there temporarily, with a lease with an official maximum duration of 
two years. And they generally hope to leave. People don't invest the 
same amount in permanent housing as they do in housing they hope to 
leave. Of course, there is almost no social support for anyone (a few 
mediation missions in some shelters), and it's up to the residents to 
manage any cohabitation issues that may arise.

All of this, the lack of collective spaces, and the cohabitation of very 
different populations, makes organizing the fight to defend rights very 
difficult in these new residences. It's an effective way for the 
authorities to break up a center of resistance and solidarity that has 
resisted them for decades. A Long Resistance
There are few struggles over housing in the long history of the labor 
movement in France. The struggle of the residents of shelters is, to my 
knowledge, the longest and most massive. If we take the example of the 
emblematic struggle of the "Nouvelle France" shelter, it began in the 
1950s in the Léon Gaumont shelter, which was actually owned by slum 
landlords, over basic demands such as hot water at least in winter. Once 
the managers closed the facility, the residents obtained a promise from 
the Montreuil city hall to rebuild a new shelter, the foundation stone 
of which was even laid while they were "temporarily" rehoused in Algeco 
apartments on Rue de la Nouvelle France. The promised shelter was 
located at Porte de Montreuil, an area undergoing gentrification and 
real estate speculation. The city hall then claimed to disperse them 
into tiny shelters, the majority of which were not in Montreuil. They 
refused until their expulsion from the Algeco in 1996. They then had to 
wander, then squat. A significant amount of work was done to explain the 
situation and its issues to the people of Montreuil. A significant 
support movement developed. They were able to negotiate a new home 
during the change of mayor in 2008, including the architecture and 
interior design: the "Nouveau Centenaire" home[4]is in the center of the 
city of Montreuil and was inaugurated in 2016. A struggle that has 
actually lasted more than 60 years, with the collective memory of the 
struggle and its conduct being passed down from generation to generation.

The resistance, which was necessarily carried out house by house, to 
obtain rehousing for everyone, including the "surplus" residents, the 
maintenance of communal spaces, and the right to accommodate relatives, 
is a very difficult struggle. Residents live in completely dilapidated 
homes where the plumbing is not maintained and hygiene is not 
guaranteed. At the Branly home currently under struggle, for example, 
they are forced to use buckets in the multipurpose room because of the 
water leaking from the pipes in the ceiling. It's the same situation in 
some rooms. Yet they pay EUR319 per month per bed, or EUR638 for a 17 m² 
room. It's understandable that when ADOMA (formerly SONACOTRA) holds out 
the promise of a new home to residents, it's a dream come true for many. 
And the managers don't do any work in the homes slated for demolition in 
order to exert more pressure. No one can demand that the homes remain as 
they are. If we visit the homes, many means of struggle have been tried. 
In some homes, no one has signed the internal regulations of the social 
housing complex, for example. But the courts consider that since they 
pay their rent (obviously, eh!), they have tacitly accepted it, and it 
applies it to evictions. In a COALLIA (formerly AFTAM) home where they 
had gone on rent strike, after ADOMA bought it, the latter demanded 
payment of the entire debt or face eviction of all residents (an 
eviction approved by the courts). There have been some partial victories 
(communal spaces, the right to move in without being checked, additional 
beds, etc.) but also many broken promises, such as promises to maintain 
canteens. Rally at ADOMA headquarters on April 24, 2025 - Photo by 
Jacqueline GEERING
© Jacqueline GEERING
These struggles are unfortunately often isolated. The reality of 
shelters is a reality that is ignored by nonprofit and activist circles. 
The struggle for decent housing has never been seriously addressed by 
unions, even less so for a population considered foreign ([5]. Yet 
resident representatives are often unionized and/or staff 
representatives at their workplaces. Yet, some shelters are well 
established in neighborhoods and supported by the neighborhood, which 
benefits from canteens, cafeterias, etc. Their isolation is actually the 
consequence of the desertion of working-class neighborhoods by the 
"left" and the xenophobic bombardment. Indeed, spontaneously, in 
community and activist circles, instead of identifying with a struggle 
that is a class struggle, we only see the "non-European immigrant" 
aspect, a discriminated and overexploited population that is foreign to 
us and that we must help, therefore humanitarian work. But people who 
organize themselves, have defined their demands, and are determined to 
remain in control of their struggles are not a good audience for 
humanitarians.

The second major obstacle is The law. Indeed, "Law No. 89-462 of July 6, 
1989, aimed at improving rental relations" explicitly states that it 
does not apply to sheltered housing. Residents are therefore deprived of 
tenant rights. This is certainly the subject of their most consistent 
demand. However, a law cannot be amended by local struggles, however 
long and determined. A change in the law requires parliamentarians to 
take up the issue, which shifts the struggle to a completely different 
level.
The question now arises as to the future of struggles in these social 
housing projects. They exist: changing locks to protect privacy, battles 
to ensure that resident committee elections, required by law, are held, 
demands for consultation on internal regulations, fights over 
maintenance of the premises (particularly elevators), and the fight 
against evictions for housing a relative. The tactic is always the same: 
once the situation has stabilized, managers begin to evict One by one, 
all those who are hosting relatives. There have been some successful 
mobilizations, but the courts systematically order evictions. The 
community no longer exists, some residents have died alone at home 
without anyone noticing, and there are few volunteers to be delegates. 
It must be said that holding General Assemblies in front of mailboxes is 
not easy...

The perception of immigrants as a separate category, to be supported if 
you're on the left and fought against if you're on the right, the 
unanimous evidence of their non-citizenship, weighs heavily. Moreover, 
the current political context is unfavorable, to say the least, and it's 
not going to improve. There is a political battle to be waged that is 
not being addressed enough by our movement: immigrants work here, are 
exploited here, they are our class brothers and sisters here. It is from 
this materialist position that we can combat racism and the far right.

Sylvie

Notes
[1]Annual report of the interministerial commission for housing 
immigrant populations, June 2000

[2]These immigrants are generally workers, and they work neither in 
California nor Nepal, but in France.

[3]It was initially an agreement between the State and the stakeholders 
of the 1% Housing program, in order to bring the management structures, 
the State (Prefecture and decentralized services), and the 
municipalities concerned to the negotiating table.

[4]It is named after the street where their squat was located during the 
negotiations.

[5]There are, however, exceptions. For example, Solidaires 94 actively 
supported the residents of Vitry in their fight for the rehousing of all.

http://oclibertaire.lautre.net/spip.php?article4494
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Subscribe/Unsubscribe https://ainfos.ca/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en