IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/idg/wpaper/vswpujebbzdvygr2dk3a.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Politique d’immigration, statut légal et fécondité des migrantes : le cas de Mayotte

Author

Listed:
  • Cris Beauchemin
  • Marine Haddad
  • Mamady Cisse
  • Christelle Nagnonhou
  • Lucas Ondicolberry
  • Andreas Priambodo

Abstract

La fécondité des immigrées est devenue dans certains contextes un sujet si sensible qu’il conduit parfois à des réformes constitutionnelles sur le droit de la nationalité, les femmes « sans papiers » étant soupçonnées d’instrumentaliser leur grossesse pour légitimer leur séjour dans leur pays d’accueil. En France, le territoire de Mayotte cristallise les débats en la matière. L’île, dont le statut est contesté par les Comores, a été progressivement intégrée à la France. Sa frontière avec les autres îles de l’archipel est aujourd’hui l’une des plus contrastées du monde sur le plan économique. Et, alors que la libre circulation a prévalu jusqu’en 1995, le contrôle de la frontière n’a cessé de se durcir depuis cette date. Mayotte offre donc un cas particulièrement intéressant pour étudier la relation entre politique migratoire, statut des migrants et fécondité. Dans ce document, sur la base d’une revue de littérature internationale, nous proposons un cadre d’analyse de ces relations. Nous exploitons par ailleurs l’enquête Migration-Famille-Vieillissement-Mayotte (MFVM, 2015-2016). Premier résultat : la proportion des femmes comoriennes « sans papiers » l’année de leur arrivée à Mayotte est historiquement élevée et elle a progressé au fil du renforcement de la frontière. Son incidence est telle (87% avant 1995, 97% entre 2011 et 2015), qu’il est impossible de comparer statistiquement les femmes selon leur statut légal à l’arrivée. Second résultat : la probabilité d’avoir un enfant suivant l’arrivée à Mayotte a évolué au fil du temps. Elle s’est accrue après l’instauration du visa Balladur qui a constitué un signal fort de mise en cause de la présence des Comoriens à Mayotte, et qui a pu conduire certaines femmes à adapter leur comportement de fécondité pour légitimer leur présence sur le territoire mahorais. Ce résultat rappelle que les comportements de fécondité peuvent répondre à des signaux institutionnels qui ne relèvent pas uniquement des politiques familiales. Après 1999, la probabilité d’avoir un enfant suivant l’arrivée s’est stabilisée, ce qui suggère que l’insécurité croissante vécue par les femmes en situation irrégulière du fait de l’accroissement des contrôles et des expulsions a pu limiter leur fécondité, comme cela a été observé dans d’autres contextes.

Suggested Citation

  • Cris Beauchemin & Marine Haddad & Mamady Cisse & Christelle Nagnonhou & Lucas Ondicolberry & Andreas Priambodo, 2024. "Politique d’immigration, statut légal et fécondité des migrantes : le cas de Mayotte," Working Papers 297, French Institute for Demographic Studies.
    • Handle: RePEc:idg:wpaper:vswpujebbzdvygr2dk3a
    DOI: 10.48756/ined-dt-297.0924
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://archined.ined.fr/download/publication/VswpuJEBBzdVygR2dk3a/6500c02cad27553612370f7b030350a61725461269670.pdf
    File Function: Deposited file
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.48756/ined-dt-297.0924?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gary S. Becker & H. Gregg Lewis, 1974. "Interaction between Quantity and Quality of Children," NBER Chapters, in: Economics of the Family: Marriage, Children, and Human Capital, pages 81-90, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Caroline H. Bledsoe, 2004. "Reproduction at the Margins: Migration and Legitimacy in the New Europe," Demographic Research Special Collections, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 3(4), pages 87-116.
    3. Francesco Fasani, 2015. "Understanding the Role of Immigrants’ Legal Status: Evidence from Policy Experiments," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo Group, vol. 61(3-4), pages 722-763.
    4. Amuedo-Dorantes, Catalina & Arenas-Arroyo, Esther, 2021. "Immigration policy and fertility: Evidence from undocumented migrants in the U.S," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 274-297.
    5. Mathias Czaika & Hein De Haas, 2013. "The Effectiveness of Immigration Policies," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 39(3), pages 487-508, September.
    6. Marianne Tønnessen & Eleonora Mussino, 2020. "Fertility patterns of migrants from low-fertility countries in Norway," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 42(31), pages 859-874.
    7. Eleonora Mussino & Salvatore Strozza, 2012. "The fertility of immigrants after arrival: The Italian case," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 26(4), pages 99-130.
    8. Cris Beauchemin & Julia Descamps & Pascale Dietrich-Ragon, 2023. "Sans papiers ou sans logement : les aléas des trajectoires des immigrés « installés » en France," Working Papers 275, French Institute for Demographic Studies.
    9. Catalina Amuedo-Dorantes & Cristina Borra & Noelia Rivera-Garrido, 2023. "Fertility implications of family-based regularizations," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 23(2), pages 449-484.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Malmberg Anders & Malmberg Bo & Maskell Peter, 2023. "Population age structure – An underlying driver of national, regional and urban economic development," ZFW – Advances in Economic Geography, De Gruyter, vol. 67(4), pages 217-233, December.
    2. Jonathan Lindström & Eleonora Mussino & Livia Sz. Oláh, 2022. "Childbearing among Polish migrant women and their descendants in Sweden: an origin-destination country approach," Journal of Population Research, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 133-155, March.
    3. Eibich, Peter & Siedler, Thomas, 2020. "Retirement, intergenerational time transfers, and fertility," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    4. Kota Ogasawara & Mizuki Komura, 2022. "Consequences of war: Japan’s demographic transition and the marriage market," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 35(3), pages 1037-1069, July.
    5. Allan Puur & Leen Rahnu & Liili Abuladze & Luule Sakkeus & Sergei Zakharov, 2017. "Childbearing among first- and second-generation Russians in Estonia against the background of the sending and host countries," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 36(41), pages 1209-1254.
    6. Rosa Duarte & Sandra Ferrando-Latorre & José Alberto Molina, 2018. "How to escape poverty through education?: intergenerational evidence in Spain," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(9), pages 624-627, May.
    7. Meier, Volker & Wrede, Matthias, 2010. "Pensions, fertility, and education," Journal of Pension Economics and Finance, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(1), pages 75-93, January.
    8. de la Croix, David & Gosseries, Axel, 2012. "The natalist bias of pollution control," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 271-287.
    9. Clark, Gregory & Cummins, Neil, 2016. "The Child Quality-Quantity Tradeoff, England, 1780-1880: A Fundamental Component of the Economic Theory of Growth is Missing," CEPR Discussion Papers 11232, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    10. Okada, Keisuke, 2012. "The effects of female HIV/AIDS status on fertility and child health in Cambodia," Journal of Asian Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 560-570.
    11. Elisabeth Gugl & Linda Welling, 2007. "The Early Bird gets the Worm? Birth Order Effects in a Dynamic Model of the Family," Department Discussion Papers 0710, Department of Economics, University of Victoria.
    12. Brian C. O'Neill & Deborah Balk & Melanie Brickman & Markos Ezra, 2001. "A Guide to Global Population Projections," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 4(8), pages 203-288.
    13. Fernando Mayoral & Carlos Garcimartín, 2013. "The impact of population on the reduction of steady-state disparities across Spanish regions," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 50(1), pages 49-69, February.
    14. Azuara, Oliver, 2011. "Effect of universal health coverage on marriage, cohabitation and labor force participation," MPRA Paper 35074, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Verónica Amarante & Marco Manacorda & Edward Miguel & Andrea Vigorito, 2016. "Do Cash Transfers Improve Birth Outcomes? Evidence from Matched Vital Statistics, Program, and Social Security Data," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 8(2), pages 1-43, May.
    16. Ea Hoppe Blaabæk & Mads Meier Jæger & Joseph Molitoris, 2020. "Family Size and Educational Attainment: Cousins, Contexts, and Compensation," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 36(3), pages 575-600, July.
    17. Larry E. Jones & Michele Tertilt, 2006. "An Economic History of Fertility in the U.S.: 1826-1960," NBER Working Papers 12796, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Baudin, Thomas, 2010. "A Role For Cultural Transmission In Fertility Transitions," Macroeconomic Dynamics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(4), pages 454-481, September.
    19. Jr-Tsung Huang, 2008. "The Personal Tax Exemption and Married Women's Birth Spacing in the United States," Public Finance Review, , vol. 36(6), pages 728-747, November.
    20. Silles, Mary A., 2010. "The implications of family size and birth order for test scores and behavioral development," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 29(5), pages 795-803, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:idg:wpaper:vswpujebbzdvygr2dk3a. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Karin Sohler (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://archined.ined.fr .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.