Why Thaïs d’Escufon Does Not Believe in Assimilation

Thaïs d’Escufon argues that assimilation is no longer an appropriate response to the migration and identity issues she describes in France. However, she distinguishes between the assimilation of isolated individuals, which she considers possible in some cases, and a large-scale policy of assimilation, which she regards as unworkable.

Her position is part of a highly critical view of contemporary immigration, Islamism, institutional functioning, and demographic change. She concludes that the assimilationist model should be abandoned in favor of “remigration” and an affirmation of European identity. These positions reflect a specific political and identity-based reading of the debate on immigration and the nation.

Assimilation: an appealing ideal considered outdated

Assimilation is presented as a theoretically appealing idea: a person arriving in a country could adopt its language, customs, references, and way of life, eventually becoming fully integrated into the national community.

Thaïs d’Escufon nevertheless believes that this ideal no longer addresses the current situation. She argues that the issue would not be limited to the integration of individual people, but would concern a country’s ability to preserve a collective identity when arrivals become numerous and permanent.

She emphasizes a central distinction in her reasoning: assimilating a person who has left their original group would be conceivable, whereas assimilating large groups organized into communities and possessing their own points of reference would not. In her view, it is the shift from individual situations to a collective phenomenon that would render the model ineffective.

First argument: the demographic question

The first part of her critique concerns demographics. Thaïs d’Escufon refers to an increase in births of children with at least one foreign parent and a decline in births of children with two European parents between 1999 and 2019. She cites figures attributed to the Observatoire de l’immigration: a 15.6% decline in births of children with two European parents, a 61.3% increase for children with at least one foreign parent, and a 49.8% increase when both parents are foreign.

Based on these figures, she argues that assimilation could apply to individuals, but not to “peoples.” For her, when newly arrived populations or populations of immigrant background form large groups, the relationship between the host society and newcomers changes in nature: the issue would no longer be the adoption of a common framework by a small number of people, but the coexistence of collective groups.

This demographic interpretation underpins an essential part of her rejection of an assimilationist policy. She believes that the volume of arrivals and the formation of communities would prevent the process from succeeding on a national scale.

Second argument: civilizational differences and a conflictual memory

Thaïs d’Escufon further argues that people arriving in France sometimes come from civilizations she considers very distant from French culture. She believes that assimilation would be all the more difficult in the absence of shared cultural references.

She compares this situation with past European migrations. She notes that the settlement of Italians, Spaniards, or Portuguese people in France could involve difficulties, while stressing that these populations belonged, in her view, to a closely related civilization. Her reasoning is that if adaptation could be complex between European societies, it would be even more difficult for people from other continents and other cultural traditions.

She also links this difficulty to colonial history. In her view, some individuals or groups would harbor hostility toward France because of that past. She also mentions the existence of a decolonial left, which she accuses of politically opposing French culture and contributing to an adversarial relationship with it.

These assertions structure her thesis: in her view, assimilation would require a willingness to embrace the national culture and a sufficient basis for convergence. She considers that these conditions would not be met in some of the situations she describes.

Third argument: the presence of already established communities

The third point concerns the existence of neighborhoods in which immigrant communities or communities of immigrant background are said to be firmly established. Thaïs d’Escufon refers to areas that some political leaders describe as “lost territories of the Republic.”

She uses the expression “lawless zones,” but argues that the problem would more broadly be one of “non-France zones.” From her perspective, these spaces would partially escape the influence of the state, particularly that of law enforcement, and would function according to social, cultural, or identity-based dynamics distinct from the national framework.

She describes this phenomenon as a form of gradual secession, not military but demographic. The idea she advances is that the geographical concentration of populations sharing a distinct identity would make assimilation more difficult, because individuals would not be isolated but integrated into lasting community networks.

Fourth argument: a French identity not reducible to culture

The final argument is the most fundamental in her case. Thaïs d’Escufon rejects a strictly cultural definition of French identity. She acknowledges that France evokes gastronomy, history, music, a way of life, and collective references, but she believes that national identity also includes a concrete dimension linked to a European people.

She therefore argues that the French are historically European and that this reality should not be considered shocking. To illustrate her point, she refers to Clovis and draws a parallel with Japan, whose population is commonly described as Asian.

Under this conception, adopting French practices would therefore not be enough to preserve French identity if the country’s demographic composition were profoundly transformed. Thaïs d’Escufon offers the hypothetical example of a France populated by 70 million Congolese people sharing certain French cultural practices: in her view, such a country would no longer be France, even if its inhabitants ate French products or attended church.

This approach rests on an ethno-cultural view of the nation, in which the historical continuity of a people matters as much as customs, language, or institutions.

From assimilation to remigration

At the end of her reasoning, Thaïs d’Escufon describes assimilation as an ineffective and counterproductive model. She believes that the 21st century will confront France with major demographic challenges and that expanding migratory phenomena would require, in her view, a different response.

She proposes remigration as the only solution. She associates it with a logic of affirmation: rather than seeking to make others like oneself, she calls on Europeans to become, in her words, who they are again and to reassert their identity.

Her argument is therefore not limited to a critique of integration or a discussion of the criteria for assimilation. It concerns the very definition of the French nation, the place of origin in collective identity, and the migration policies to be adopted. These issues are the subject of deep political debates, involving opposing conceptions of citizenship, national belonging, and republican universalism.

FAQ

What distinction does she make between individual and collective assimilation?

Thaïs d’Escufon believes that an isolated individual can, in some cases, assimilate into French society. By contrast, she considers assimilation impossible when large groups live within structured and lasting communities.

Why do demographics play a central role in her argument?

She believes that the scale of migration flows and changes in births transform an individual process of integration into a collective phenomenon. It is this quantitative dimension that leads her to regard assimilation as unsuitable.

What solution does she propose instead of assimilation?

She advocates remigration as well as an affirmation of European and French identity. This proposal is part of her conception that national identity extends beyond adherence to a culture or way of life alone.