Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros6Natives of French Overseas Depart...

Sommaire - Document précédent -

Natives of French Overseas Departments Living in Metropolitan France: Migration Pathways Between Republican Assimilation and Colonial Heritage

Joao Cartry Soune-Seyne
Traduction de Yvonne van der Does (Office of International Scientific Visibility - IdEx Université Côte d’Azur)
Cet article est une traduction de :
Natifs des DOM en Hexagone. Des migrations entre assimilation républicaine et héritage colonial [fr]

Résumé

Originating from the French colonial empire and then integrated into the Republic through their departmentalisation in 1946, the Overseas Departments (DOM) occupy a unique place within the national space. Drawing on a rich literature developed over the last years, this article examines how this tension manifests itself through the migration of natives from the DOM to France. It begins by tracing the state-implemented migration policies, which have organised the departure of thousands of Antilleans and Réunionese. The article sheds light on the motivations behind these policies, the territorial conceptions and asymmetrical social structures that made them possible, and the negotiations that have gradually modified them since 1946. The paper then investigates the multi-located belongings of DOM natives in Metropolitan France, exploring how geographical distance, forms of otherisation and racialisation, and territorial inequalities affect their experiences, sociabilities, and identifications. In conclusion, the article seeks to show how the colonial heritage and the assimilationist framework simultaneously shape migration trajectories from the French overseas departments to mainland France.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

  • 1 The French Overseas Departments and Regions (DROMs) include the Antilles (Guadeloupe and Martinique (...)
  • 2 They can also be distinguished from the other French overseas territories (New Caledonia, French Po (...)

1A significant share of natives of the French Overseas Departments (DOMs)1 now live in mainland France: around a quarter of Antilleans, one sixth of Guianese, and one seventh of Réunionese (Abdouni and Fabre 2012). Of those residing in their native territory, almost a third have already spent more than six months outside of it, often in metropolitan France (Haddad and Caron 2022). These figures, which reflect the scale of circulation between the French Overseas Departments and mainland France, are the result of decades of migration policies organized by the French government since these territories became departments in 1946. At the time of the collapse of the French colonial second empire, Guadeloupe, Martinique, French Guiana and Réunion, by remaining under French sovereignty, entered a decolonization process that diverged from the path followed by other colonies that became independent. The politico-administrative category of “Overseas Departments” refers to this unique legal status (Guyon 2016).2

  • 3 This literature review was conducted as part of the ReliMigrAntilles project (“Religion and migrati (...)
  • 4 Today, the word “migration” often refers exclusively to international migration, as opposed to “mob (...)

2The aim of this article is to shed light on the unique position of the Overseas Departments, simultaneously included in the space of the French Republic and heirs to a colonial and slaveholding past. To highlight this tension, this article takes a closer look at the migrations of DOM natives to metropolitan France, that have been analyzed extensively in several disciplines in recent years. A critical synthesis3 of these studies has now become essential to understand the opposition between the assimilationist and universalist objective of the French Republic and its practical implementation. A demographic and historical approach will be used to explore State policies regarding migratory movements since 1946. The article continues with an analysis of research on the mobility4 experiences of DOM natives.

1. Proactive migration policies in the post-departmentalization period

3The study of migrations is a heuristic endeavor that sheds light on the relationships between the home territory and the host territory (Célestine 2018, Cohen 2002). The implementation of deliberate policies regulating migration from the French Overseas Departments to metropolitan France in the post-war period therefore reflects the unprecedented process of “departmentalization”, which distinguishes itself by its empirical nature (Mary 2021). In this respect, it is essential to observe how the logics that have driven, challenged and reformed these policies have evolved since 1946.

1.1. Migration policy as an instrument of demographic regulation

4At the end of colonization, the four old colonies experienced demographic growth due to population movements (Peron 1966, Audebert 2010). A turning point in the migratory history of the sugar islands (the Antilles and Réunion) occurred when they became French departments: from then on, they became emigration societies (Haddad 2018c, Constant 1987). Although records show that DOM natives lived in metropolitan France prior to 1946, their numbers were relatively small and were mostly limited to intellectual and artistic elites. From the 1950s onwards, several French administrations organized migration flows from the DOMs to mainland France (Condon 2000), but it was only in 1963 that emigration became institutionalized with the creation of BUMIDOM – the Office for the Development of Migration in the French Overseas Department (Bureau pour le Développement des Migrations intéressant les Départements d’Outre-Mer) (Pattieu 2016). BUMIDOM’s actions had an impact on tens of thousands of DOM natives and amplified their migrations (Bertile 2014, Haddad 2018c). At that time, working-class populations among the DOM natives were more specifically targeted and trained for low-skilled jobs in metropolitan France which had experienced labor shortages after the war (Pattieu 2016). To achieve this objective, policies were also implemented in the 1960s and 1970s to organize the migration of men from the Senegal River valley, Morocco and Tunisia, but the duration of their stays and the resources invested in them were not on the same scale as policies targeting people from the Antilles and Réunion (Gastaut 1999). The former were mostly assigned to the industrial and small and medium-sized business sectors (Timera and Garnier 2010), while DOM natives, who had the benefits of French nationality, could be channeled to civil service, notably category C positions: administrative and public service jobs for men; maintenance, childcare or domestic work for women (Vergès 2019).

5This specific migration policy was implemented in the French Overseas Departments in the post-war period not only in answer to a shortage of labor in France, but it was also linked to the desire to keep the DOMs under the sovereignty of the French Republic. At the time, the sugar islands were experiencing high levels of unemployment and underemployment, considered by the authorities to be due to the strong growth of their population, an interpretation that was certainly tinged with colonialism (Condon 2020). The uprooting of more than 2,000 underage Réunionese children between 1962 and 1984, who were sent to various departments in mainland France was designed to meet the dual objective mentioned above of repopulating French rural regions and limiting Réunion’s demographic growth (Bertile et al. 2021). In an international context of demands for independence and autonomy, these policies also served, to a lesser extent, to calm socio-political tensions (Constant 1987, Giraud et al. 2009). Suspected of disseminating propaganda among their pupils, twenty-six civil servants were removed from the Antilles and Réunion by the “Debré” order of October 15, 1960 (Paris 2020, Mary 2021). Thus, unlike other labor migrations, those involving DOM natives were also aimed at influencing the demographics of the territories of origin (Guyon 2016). In French Guiana, however, where the population only grew moderately until the 1980s, the State tried instead, in vain, to implement immigration policies (Piantoni 2009). The claimed objective of departmentalization was assimilation, but this was contradicted by renewed interventionism of the State in these territories, which contributed to institutionally entrench their specificity in French society.

1.2. An internal migration economy maintained from the 1980s onwards

6From the 1970s onwards, spontaneous migration of DOM natives to metropolitan France became more frequent than organized migration, showing that the BUMIDOM program was losing momentum (Constant 1987). The failure of this program to solve employment problems in the French Antilles and Réunion, protest by migrants that job opportunities were not meeting their expectations, and the economic crises in mainland France led the newly elected left-wing government to abolish it in 1982 (Célestine and Wuhl 2005, Constant 1987, Mary 2021, Pattieu 2016). It was replaced the following year by the National Agency for the Integration and Promotion of Overseas Workers (Agence Nationale pour l’insertion et la promotion des Travailleurs d’Outre-mer, ANT), whose priority was the integration, protection and return of DOM natives already settled in France (Abdouni and Fabre 2012). Measures included assistance with family reunification, access to employment, training and housing in France, and assistance with permanent and temporary returns (Bertile 2014, Marie 2014).

  • 5 Mobility incentive policies had a later and lesser impact on natives from other overseas territorie (...)

7Despite the reforms introduced from the 1980s onwards, relations between the DOMs and mainland France continued to be organized around an internal economy in which migration was seen as the solution to the DOMs’ socio-economic problems (Marie 2014). The social riots in Réunion in 1991 brought the attention once more to the problems faced by the youth in this department due to the lack of jobs, and led the government to reimplement policies encouraging the movement of DOM natives to metropolitan France (Labache 2009, Abdouni and Fabre 2012). These policies accelerated the growth of their numbers in mainland France from the late 1990s onwards after the slowdown of the previous years, with natives from French Guiana and Mayotte now contributing a larger share compared to earlier5 (Abdouni and Fabre 2012, Marie 2014, Temporal 2017). Policies were increasingly aimed at young people who wished to pursue their studies (Breton et al. 2022b) and revealed “insufficient educational opportunities, tight labor markets, and very high unemployment rates” in the Overseas Departments compared to mainland France (Temporal, Marie, and Bernard 2012). Various stakeholders in the DOMs (local authorities and public agencies, associations, schools, etc.) have encouraged this trend and have contributed to create a culture of professional mobility from these territories (Chevallier 2017, Ihaddadene 2017, Labache 2009). As a result, DOM natives residing in mainland France enjoy better socio-economic conditions than those who have remained in their native territory: they tend to be younger, more educated and more often employed (Marie and Temporal 2011, Marie 2014, Temporal, Marie, and Bernard 2012). With equivalent levels of education, they hold positions and jobs similar to natives of mainland France, unlike non-European foreign migrants (Brinbaum, Meurs, and Primon 2015, Abdouni and Fabre 2012). In this sense, geographical mobility to metropolitan France has often been the opportunity for social mobility for DOM natives, both financially and in their individual projects (Haddad 2023). However, while their access to jobs has improved overall, racial stereotypes and discrimination against them have not disappeared in the labor market (Haddad 2018a, 2019, Marie 2002).

2. Between overseas and mainland France: multi-located belongings

8The intersection of the colonial past with French Republic assimilation gave rise to the different migration policies that were framed in the first section of this article. Another pertinent angle of study is to analyze the experiences and practices of individuals who migrated to mainland France from the DOMs. The following section reviews the vast literature on the subject and shows the ambivalent sense of belonging of mobile DOM natives.

2.1. Circulation and sociability divided between two spaces

  • 6 Territorial continuity was introduced in 2003 for the French Overseas Territories, to provide assis (...)

9Compared to international migrants in mainland France, people from the French Overseas Departments report more frequently that they have maintained relationships with their territory of origin (Beauchemin, Lagrange, and Safi 2015). These relationships are diverse, and include financial and material transfers, calls, letters, and regular visits (Condon 1996, Beaugendre, Breton, and Marie 2016, Breton et al. 2022a). Natives of the DOMs more often report a desire to live outside metropolitan France in the future (44% of them compared to 14% of international migrants), which probably corresponds to plans to return (Beauchemin, Lagrange, and Safi 2015). Returns are effectively a major phenomenon in the DOMs, and frequently reflect the desire to be reunited with family (Haddad and Caron 2022, Bessy and Riche 1993, Condon and Beaugendre 2016). Thousands of kilometers separate DOM natives living in mainland France from their families, which is a considerable distance compared to natives of mainland France, 90% of whom live less than 5 hours from their parents’ home (Beaugendre, Breton, and Marie 2016). The freedom of movement and the financial incentives granted to DOM natives6 undoubtedly contribute to their ability to maintain contacts (Lacroix, Audebert, and Ma Mung 2018, Grysole and Bonnet 2020). Because of the permanent nature of social relationships, and more particularly family relationships, mobility usually does not represent a rupture from the space of origin as much as a reconfiguration of the ties maintained with it.

  • 7 Most of the DOM natives in France live in Île-de-France (Holder 2013). This is especially the case (...)

10Studies have shown that within metropolitan France the social activities of DOM natives and more particularly those from the French Antilles mostly revolve around other people from the DOMs. Their high concentration7 in certain areas makes it easier for newcomers to settle there (Breton et al. 2022a, Espérance 2014) and helps them maintain relationships and practices from the territory of origin. Antillean associations created in France since the 1950s play a major role in “maintaining the symbolic link with societies of origin” with activities focused on solidarity and socializing, for example (Audebert 2008: 15, Célestine 2018, 2012, Giraud 2002). In the Seine-Saint-Denis department, quite a few Antilleans have been able to find a sense of community in the missionary churches that have multiplied, where hymns are sung in Creole, thereby preserving their religious practices beyond migration (Malogne-Fer 2022). Cultural practices, such as the Creole language, are also sometimes passed on between generations from DOM natives to their children born in France (Condon 2004). The study of the practices and social life of DOM natives in France shows the links they have maintained with their native land, which allow them to deepen their identification with it.

2.2. Identifications and positions redefined in and by migration

  • 8 Otherization, or “denial of Frenchness” (Roux, Purenne, and Talpin 2023), refers to interactions wh (...)

11Identifications are fundamentally dependent on the political contexts and interactions in which individuals are immersed (Brubaker and Cooper 2000, Dubar 2010, Avanza and Laferté 2005). This has been confirmed by the experience of mobile DOM natives, and surveys have shown that their experiences sometimes redefine the way they perceive themselves. DOM natives and their descendants are among those who report the most experiences of racism, discrimination and otherization8 while living in mainland France, compared with other migrant groups and the majority population (Primon and Simon 2020, Mekkaoui and Robert 2023). This relative over-reporting can be explained by “stronger expectations of equality and a greater sensitivity to stigmatization among descendants born and socialized in France and aware of its values” (Primon and Simon 2020: 185). In a universalist and egalitarian national context that morally condemns racial discrimination (Fassin and Fassin 2006), this prejudice is interpreted as particularly unfair by DOM natives (Haddad 2018b), and all the more so because it is clearly based in their case on race –skin color– or geographical origin (Primon and Simon 2020).

12DOM natives react to these experiences in many ways. Research has shown that, combined with the links maintained with the native territory (see previous section), experiences of otherization have led to a stronger identification with the DOM of origin, without necessarily implying a rejection of the French national community (Labache 2002, Haddad 2018d). Other studies have documented forms of reappropriation, in certain contexts, of a racial identity imposed on them in mainland France and more specifically Antillean reappropriation of a “Black” identity (Trawalé 2018, Gordien 2019). After moving to France, DOM natives come into contact with other migrants, and this encounter reshapes their understanding of themselves (Haddad 2018d). Identification issues have also led to tensions within associations defending DOM natives. Studies have shown, for example, how the DOM category has been used in public action to encourage the fight against racial discrimination, while at the same time making the DOM natives the main target audience of these measures at the expense of other issues and populations, notably international migrants (Célestine 2018, 2010, Giraud 2002). In short, the migratory experience of DOM natives is characterized by a variety of impositions and categorizations, and it should not be assumed that their effect on self-identifications is uniform.

Conclusion

13This article analyzes the position of the French Overseas Departments based on the literature on the migration of DOM natives to mainland France. It examines more precisely how their colonial past and their assimilation into the Republic both permeate the migratory trajectories of these territories and their populations. When these territories became French departments in 1946, this event did not represent so much a rupture –several researchers have shown that legal equality did not instantly and automatically lead to social assimilation (Terral 2014, Mary 2021, Larcher 2014)– but rather the foundation of an empirical process that was progressive because unprecedented. The study of the changes in the migration policies implemented by the French State reveals both a colonial heritage and its various condemnations and adjustments for the sake of integration within the French Republic. The experience of mobile DOM natives highlights the fact that these dynamics apply not only to territories, but also to people who are still subject to forms of otherization, discrimination and inequality linked to race and geographical origin. The geographical distance separating the DOMs from mainland France has recently taken on a greater importance as a theme of research and of public policy by revealing inequalities in economic, political and cultural resources between these two spaces, and has given rise to egalitarian claims shaped by the universalist ideal. In conclusion, this analysis invites us to reflect on the notion of postcolony by shedding light on the colonial aspects that remain despite changes in legal status.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Abdouni, S. and E. Fabre. 2012. “365 000 Domiens vivent en métropole.” INSEE Première 1389. INSEE. https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/1281122#:~:text=En%202008%2C%20364%20800%20personnes,le%20sud%20de%20la%20France.

—. 2017. “Bilan des migrations entre La Réunion et la France métropolitaine: Peu de départs et peu d’arrivées.” INSEE Analyse 23. INSEE. https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/2867072#:~:text=la%20France%20m%C3%A9tropolitaine-,Bilan%20des%20migrations%20entre%20La%20R%C3%A9union%20et%20la%20France%20m%C3%A9tropolitaine,d%C3%A9parts%20et%20peu%20d'arriv%C3%A9es&text=Chaque%20ann%C3%A9e%2C%20entre%202012%20et,et%20arrivent%20sur%20l'%C3%AEle.

Aubourg, V. 2022. “Sévé mayé: Un rituel de passage réunionnais en contexte métropolitain.” Archives de sciences sociales des religions 197: 131‑54. https://doi.org/10.4000/assr.66113.

Audebert, C. 2008. “L’intégration des Antillais en France et aux Etats-Unis: contextes socio-institutionnels et processus de territorialisation.” Revue européenne des migrations internationales 24(1): 65‑87. https://doi.org/10.4000/remi.4269.

—. 2010. “Constructions sociales héritées et productions territoriales antillaises: une contribution géographique à l’analyse de sociétés ‘mobilisées’.” in M. Cottias, É. Cunin and A. de Almeida Mendes (dir.) Les traites et les esclavages. Paris: Karthala, 257‑73. https://doi.org/10.3917/kart.cotti.2010.01.0257.

Avanza, M. and G. Laferté. 2005. “Dépasser la ‘construction des identités’? Identification, image sociale, appartenance.” Genèses 61(4): 134. https://doi.org/10.3917/gen.061.0134.

Beauchemin, C., H. Lagrange and M. Safi. 2015. “Liens transnationaux et intégration: entre ici et là-bas.” in C. Beauchemin, C. Hamel, P. Simon and F. Héran (ed.) Trajectoires et origines: enquête sur la diversité des populations en France. Paris: INED éditions, 87‑116.

Beaugendre, C., D. Breton and C.-V. Marie. 2016. “‘Faire famille à distance’ chez les natifs des Antilles et de La Réunion.” Recherches familiales 13(1): 35‑52. https://doi.org/10.3917/rf.013.0035.

Bertile, W. 2014. “Où en sont les politiques ultramarines de mobilité?” in P. Vitale (ed.) Mobilités ultramarines. Paris: Éditions des Archives contemporaines, 35‑62.

Bertile, W., P. Ève, G. Gauvin and P. Vitale. 2021. Les enfants de la Creuse: idées reçues sur la transplantation de mineurs de La Réunion en France. Paris: Le Cavalier Bleu Éditions.

Bessy, P. and C. Riche. 1993. “Le retour au pays pour la retraite des personnes nées dans les DOM. Une enquête sur les intentions.” Economie et statistique 270(1): 51‑61. https://doi.org/10.3406/estat.1993.5825.

Boschet, A. and J.-B. Guégan. 2017. Comprendre les migrations: approches géographique et géopolitique. Levallois-Perret: Bréal.

Breton, D., C.-V. Marie, É. Floury, M. Crouzet, M. Dehon and É. Fabre. 2022a. “Migrations, Famille et Vieillissement à La Réunion. Premiers résultats de l’enquête MFV-2 en outre-mer.” Aubervilliers: Ined. Http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12204/AYSGGTdUkOqZPUwFsDqF. https://doi.org/10.48756/ined-dt-1122m6pd.

Breton, D., C.-V. Marie, É. Floury, M. Crouzet, M. Dehon and E. Fabre. 2022b. “Migrations, Famille et Vieillissement à La Réunion: Présentation des premiers résultats de la nouvelle enquête dix ans après sa première édition.” Aubervilliers: INED & INSEE.

Brinbaum, Y., D. Meurs and J.-L. Primon. 2015. “Situation sur le marché du travail: statuts d’activité, accès à l’emploi et discrimination.” in Trajectoires et origines: enquête sur la diversité des populations en France. Paris: INED éditions, 203‑32.

Brubaker, R. and F. Cooper. 2000. “Beyond ‘Identity’.” Theory and Society 29(1): 1‑47. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007068714468.

Célestine, A. 2010. “Mobilisations et identité chez les Antillais en France: le choix de la différentiation.” Asylon(s) 8. http://www. reseau-terra.eu/article 946.html.

—. 2012. “Originaires d’outre-mer.” La Vie des idées, May 28. https://laviedesidees.fr/Originaires-d-outre-mer.

—. 2018. La fabrique des identités: l’encadrement politique des minorités caribéennes à Paris et New York. Paris - Aix-en-Provence: Éditions Karthala - Sciences Po Aix.

Célestine, A. and L. Wuhl. 2005. “Comment peut-on être Antillais hors des Antilles?” Hommes & migrations 1256(1): 76‑88. https://doi.org/10.3406/homig.2005.4372.

Chevallier, C. 2017. “La mobilité des jeunes en Martinique. Les initiatives de l’Espace Sud, plateforme de promotion de la mobilité.” Cahiers de l’action 49(2): 47. https://doi.org/10.3917/cact.049.0047.

Cohen, J. 2002. “Entre Caraïbes et métropoles: parcours diasporiques et citoyennetés.” Hommes & migrations 1237(1): 6‑12. https://doi.org/10.3406/homig.2002.3829.

Condon, S. 1996. “Les migrants antillais en métropole: un espace de vie transatlantique.” Espace, populations, sociétés 14(2): 513‑20. https://doi.org/10.3406/espos.1996.1778.

—. 2000. “Migrations antillaises en métropole: Politique migratoire, emploi et place spécifique des femmes.” Les cahiers du CEDREF 8‑9: 169‑200. https://doi.org/10.4000/cedref.196.

—. 2004. “Pratiques et transmission des créoles antillais dans la ‘troisième île’.” Espace populations sociétés 2: 293‑305. https://doi.org/10.4000/eps.182.

—. 2020. “Continuité coloniale et gestion démographique des Antilles françaises, 1950-1980.” Migrations Société 182(4): 43‑57. https://doi.org/10.3917/migra.182.0043.

Condon, S. and C. Beaugendre. 2016. “Partir pour tourner la page: une lecture genrée des migrations entre les départements d’outremer français et l’Hexagone après une rupture conjugale.” in S. Pennec, C. Girard and J.-P. Sanderson (ed.) Trajectoires et âges de la vie (Sélection d’articles issus des travaux présentés au XVIIIe colloque, Bari, 2014).

Constant, F. 1987. “La politique française de l’immigration antillaise de 1946 à 1987.” Revue européenne des migrations internationales 3(3): 9‑30. https://doi.org/10.3406/remi.1987.1142.

Dubar, C. 2010. La crise des identités. L’interprétation d’une mutation. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.

Espérance, P. 2014. “Mobilités de classement et mobilités de pélerinage. Etude de cas sur la mobilité estudiantine réunionnaise.” in P. Vitale (ed.) Mobilités ultramarines. Paris: Éditions des Archives contemporaines, 141‑75.

Fassin, D. and É. Fassin. 2006. De la question sociale à la question raciale?: Représenter la société française. Paris: La Découverte. https://doi.org/10.3917/dec.fassi.2006.02.

Gastaut, Y. 1999. “La volte-face de la politique française d’immigration durant les Trente Glorieuses.” Cahiers de l’Urmis 5. https://doi.org/10.4000/urmis.338.

Giraud, M. 2002. “Racisme colonial, réaction identitaire et égalité citoyenne les leçons des expériences migratoires antillaises et guyanaises.” Hommes & migrations 1237(1): 40‑53. https://doi.org/10.3406/homig.2002.3832.

Giraud, M., I. Dubost, A. Calmont, J. Daniel, D. Destouches and M. Milia-Marie-Luce. 2009. “La Guadeloupe et la Martinique dans l’histoire française des migrations en régions de 1848 à nos jours.” Hommes & migrations 1278: 174‑97. https://doi.org/10.4000/hommesmigrations.252.

Gordien, A. 2019. “Gais, ‘blacks’ et antillais: L’art de ruser avec des impositions hétéronormatives et postcoloniales.” L’Homme & la Société 208(3): 83‑115. https://doi.org/10.3917/lhs.208.0083.

Grysole, A. and D. Bonnet. 2020. “Introduction au thème. Observer les mobilités sociales: l’investissement migratoire des familles.” Politique africaine 159(3): 7‑32. https://doi.org/10.3917/polaf.159.0007.

Guyon, S. 2016. “Trajectoires post-coloniales de l’assimilation.” Politix 116(4): 9‑28. https://doi.org/10.3917/pox.116.0007.

Haddad, M. 2018a. “Des femmes noires dans des institutions de soin: quels récits des frontières ethno-raciales?” Les Mondes du travail 21: 47‑57.

—. 2018b. “Des minorités pas comme les autres? Le vécu des discriminations et du racisme des ultramarins en métropole.” Revue française de sociologie 59(4): 649. https://doi.org/10.3917/rfs.594.0649.

—. 2018c. “L’effet d’une politique d’État sur les migrations DOM-métropole. Les enseignements des recensements de 1962 à 1999.” Population 73(2): 191‑224. https://doi.org/10.3917/popu.1802.0191.

—. 2018d. “Migration DOM-métropole des années 1960 à nos jours. Itinéraires d’une minorité française.” Thèse de sociologie. Paris: Sciences Po.

—. 2019. “La fabrique du stigmate: Le cas des personnes originaires des DOM.” La Vie des idées, october 22. https://laviedesidees.fr/Haddad-Marine-La-fabrique-du-stigmate.html.

—. 2023. “Les projets de mobilité des jeunes réunionnais·es: une affaire de famille.” Agora débats/jeunesses 94(2): 139‑53. https://doi.org/10.3917/agora.094.0139.

Haddad, M. and L. Caron. 2022. “Transregional Spouses, Parents and Children: How Gender and Family Shape Return Migration in the French Overseas.” Population, Space and Place, décember. https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.2629.

Holder, D. 2013. Natifs des DOM en métropole: immigration et intégration. Paris: L’Harmattan.

Ihaddadene, F. 2017. “Les pratiques des professionnels face aux freins à la mobilité des jeunes ultramarins: l’exemple de La Réunion.” Cahiers de l’action 49(2): 39. https://doi.org/10.3917/cact.049.0039.

Labache, L. 2002. “L’ethnicité chez les Réunionnais en migration.” Hermès 32-33(1): 457. https://doi.org/10.4267/2042/14404.

—. 2009. “La mobilité des jeunes réunionnais.” Agora débats/jeunesses 50(4): 22‑32. https://doi.org/10.3917/agora.050.0022.

Lacroix, T., C. Audebert and E. Ma Mung. 2018. “La famille transnationale dans les recherches sur les migrations.” in C. Imbert, É. Lelièvre and D. Lessault (ed.) La famille à distance: Mobilités, territoires et liens familiaux. Paris: Ined Éditions, 73‑92. https://doi.org/10.4000/books.ined.15898.

Larcher, S. 2014. L’autre citoyen. L’idéal républicain et les Antilles après l’esclavage. Paris: Armand Colin.

Leroux, C. 2017. “La mobilité des jeunes Mahorais en métropole: l’action des missions locales.” Cahiers de l’action 49(2): 31. https://doi.org/10.3917/cact.049.0031.

Malogne-Fer, G. 2022. “Culture et enjeux de mémoire chez les Antillais catholiques d’Île-de-France.” Archives de sciences sociales des religions (197): 155‑78. https://doi.org/10.4000/assr.66193.

Marie, C.-V. 2002. “Les Antillais en France: une nouvelle donne.” Hommes & migrations 1237(1): 26‑39. https://doi.org/10.3406/homig.2002.3831.

—. 2014. “Des ‘Nés’ aux ‘Originaires’ Dom en métropole: les effets de cinquante ans d’une politique publique ininterrompue d’émigration.” Informations sociales 186(6): 40‑48. https://doi.org/10.3917/inso.186.0040.

Marie, C.-V., D. Breton, M. Crouzet, E. Fabre and S. Merceron. 2017. “Migrations, natalité et solidarités familiales: La société de Mayotte en pleine mutation.” INSEE Analyse Mayotte 12. INSEE. https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/2656589#tableau-Figure_3.

Marie, C.-V. and F. Temporal. 2011. “Les DOM: terres de migrations.” Espace populations sociétés 3: 475‑91. https://doi.org/10.4000/eps.4652.

Mary, S. 2021. Décoloniser les Antilles? une histoire de l’État post-colonial, 1946-1982. Paris: Sorbonne Université presses.

Mekkaoui, J. and M. Robert. 2023. “Un quart des personnes originaires de La Réunion vivant dans l’Hexagone se déclarent victimes de discriminations ou de traitements inégalitaires.” INSEE FLASH RÉUNION 259. INSEE. https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/7674576.

Paris, M. 2020. “‘Contre tous les pouvoirs’: Le militantisme intersectionnel de féministes réunionnaises émigrées en France (années 1960-1970).” 20 & 21. Revue d’histoire 146(2): 95‑107. https://doi.org/10.3917/vin.146.0095.

Pattieu, S. 2016. “Un traitement spécifique des migrations d’outre-mer: le BUMIDOM (1963-1982) et ses ambiguïtés.” Politix 116(4): 81‑113. https://doi.org/10.3917/pox.116.0081.

Peron, Y. 1966. “La population des departements francais d’outre-mer.” Population (French Edition) 21(1): 99. https://doi.org/10.2307/1527708.

Piantoni, F. 2009. “La question migratoire en Guyane française: Histoire, société et territoires.” Hommes & migrations 1278: 198‑216. https://doi.org/10.4000/hommesmigrations.259.

Primon, J.-L. and P. Simon. 2020. “Mesurer le racisme?: L’apport des enquêtes quantitatives à la sociologie du racisme.” Sociologie et sociétés 50(2): 175‑202. https://doi.org/10.7202/1066818ar.

Roux, G., A. Purenne and J. Talpin. 2023. “Expérience des discriminations et citoyenneté: Enquête auprès d’habitants de quartiers populaires.” Appartenances & Altérités 3. https://doi.org/10.4000/alterites.486.

Temporal, F. 2017. “Les jeunes ultramarins: quelle(s) réalité(s)?” Cahiers de l’action 49(2): 7‑17. https://doi.org/10.3917/cact.049.0007.

Temporal, F., C.-V. Marie and S. Bernard. 2012. “Insertion professionnelle des jeunes ultramarins: DOM ou métropole?” Population 66(3): 555‑99. https://doi.org/10.3917/popu.1103.0555.

Terral, R. 2014. “Soixante ans d’extension de la législation sociale dans les DOM: l’exemple de la Guadeloupe aux Antilles françaises (1946-2006).” Revue française des affaires sociales 4: 12‑27. https://doi.org/10.3917/rfas.144.0012.

Timera, M. and J. Garnier. 2010. “Les Africains en France: Vieillissement et transformation d’une migration.” Hommes & migrations 1286‑1287: 24‑35. https://doi.org/10.4000/hommesmigrations.1719.

Trawalé, D. 2018. “L’articulation du racisme et de l’homophobie en contexte français: marginalité multidimensionnelle, subjectivations et mobilisations associatives gays noires.” Thèse de sociologie. Paris: Sorbonne Paris Cité.

Vergès, F. 2019. Un féminisme décolonial. Paris: La Fabrique éditions.

Haut de page

Notes

1 The French Overseas Departments and Regions (DROMs) include the Antilles (Guadeloupe and Martinique), French Guiana, Réunion and, since 2011, Mayotte. This name (DROM) officially replaced “DOM” in 2003. In this article, DOMs will be used to refer to the four “old colonies”, i.e. the DROMs excluding Mayotte.

2 They can also be distinguished from the other French overseas territories (New Caledonia, French Polynesia, the French Southern and Antarctic Lands (TAAF), Saint-Barthélémy, Saint-Martin, Saint-Pierre-and-Miquelon, Wallis-and-Futuna) whose political status includes them in the national space while recognizing that they have their own specific legal features (Guyon 2016).

3 This literature review was conducted as part of the ReliMigrAntilles project (“Religion and migration, from the Antilles to mainland France”), supervised by CERI (CNRS/Sciences Po) and funded by the Institut Convergences Migrations. For more information, see: https://relmantilles.hypotheses.org/. I would like to thank all the members of the team for their feedback on the first versions of this text.

4 Today, the word “migration” often refers exclusively to international migration, as opposed to “mobility”, which refers to movements within the same country (Boschet and Guégan 2017, Haddad 2018d). As research on displacement from the DOMs to metropolitan France borrows from both literatures, the distinction is not relevant in this article.

5 Mobility incentive policies had a later and lesser impact on natives from other overseas territories (Leroux 2017, Marie et al. 2017).

6 Territorial continuity was introduced in 2003 for the French Overseas Territories, to provide assistance with the costs associated with the geographical distance and isolation from mainland France. It is managed by the Overseas Agency for Mobility (Agence de l’Outre-mer pour la Mobilité, LADOM) and includes financial assistance for plane tickets. Only certain segments of DOM natives are eligible for these subsidies, which only partially cover travel costs, such that these continue to represent a huge cost compared to mobility within mainland France.

7 Most of the DOM natives in France live in Île-de-France (Holder 2013). This is especially the case for Antilleans who, from the BUMIDOM period onwards, mostly lived in the Paris region, where the need for administrative and health staff was greatest (Condon 2000). Compared with other migrants, their population is one of the most concentrated geographically (Audebert 2008). By contrast, only half of Guiana natives live in the Paris region (Abdouni and Fabre 2012) and people from Réunion Island are the most scattered, with nearly three-quarters of them in the different regions of France (Abdouni and Fabre 2017: 2, Aubourg 2022).

8 Otherization, or “denial of Frenchness” (Roux, Purenne, and Talpin 2023), refers to interactions where the French nationality of individuals, in this case DOM natives, is called into question.

Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Joao Cartry Soune-Seyne, « Natives of French Overseas Departments Living in Metropolitan France: Migration Pathways Between Republican Assimilation and Colonial Heritage », Appartenances & Altérités [En ligne], 6 | 2025, mis en ligne le 15 mars 2025, consulté le 08 octobre 2026. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/alterites/1297 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/13s08

Haut de page

Traducteur

Yvonne van der Does (Office of International Scientific Visibility - IdEx Université Côte d’Azur)

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont susceptibles d’être soumis à des autorisations d’usage spécifiques.

Haut de page
Sommaire - Document précédent -
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search