Was it a mistake for France to take in all those harkis after the war, or is that group of kebabs pretty respectful of the secularity of the Republic?
Can I start by saying that it is complicated? First, I have to say that it is hard distinguish the harkis ( Algerians soldiers who fought with France against the Algerian nationalists during the Algeria War ) from others muslims with an Arab ancestry, due to the difficulty of recognizing them among the muslims. ( Ethnical statistics are forbidden in France)
So, as far as I know ( Haven't studied the question much, my apologies ), what I am going to say here can cover all French muslims, including the harkis.
The harkis themselves, loyal to a fault, came to France without much to their names, and their history buried by France's collapsing colonial empire. I haven't read much on the subject, but what I know seems to indicate that they were assimilated, as much as they managed to. It was extremely tough, though. But they integrated themselves in the wider French society, and you can see from time to time, descendants of these people who did well for themselves. Some, at least. ( Jean-Luc Mélenchon, the Far-left political leader and representative in Parliament, is a descendant from one of them )
However, many of their children and grandchildren had a complicated time, I'll say. Some integrated themselves, but others didn't. Those who didn't feel no real sense of belonging there, and spent their time trying to learn Arabic, as they heard their grandparents speak it, but they themselves could not learn to speak it. ( Arabic is at best taught in High School, or in Universities.)
Add to that the idea that their economical situation made it hard for them to build their mosques, and you get a population descending from them that has not fully acquired a new culture, still knows parts of the past culture and don't really have an attachment to both. Perfect endoctrination material, especially given that they lived in the suburbs ( Reminder: "Suburbs" in France, and in Europe, means cheap residential neighborhoods meant to gather as much people as could be done, which is the main way of housing people since WW2), which means that finding a job became harder during the Mitterand years.
Fast-forward to the Eighties.
Enter foreign imams, mainly from Morocco, Algeria, Turkey and so on. Also enter foreign funds which builds mosques, creates associations and groups of interests. Now remember that it is the era where Salafism was going back into fashion, and consider that the said foreign imams brought that ideology or parts of it with them.
And we get to 1989, in the town of Creil, and more accurately, its high school ( Which was a tough assignement for a teacher at the time ). One day, three girls came with their veils on, which meant that they were breaking the law of secularism ( You don't get to bring religious symbols in a public school ). The headmaster, which was a hardass on his own right, raised hell and demanded that they took it off. The three girls refused. Soon, it was a national controversy. In the end, the girls relented...and took off their veils..Following a declaration made by the king of Morocco.
And that is the root of all of France's trouble today. French Islam developped itself with the ideology of foreign imams: therefore foreign ideals, of a harsher islam, of a political islam came to be. And therefore we had a slow and steady growth of an Islam that defies the Republic, see no reaction, and therefore defy harder, in the name of ideals that weren't there at first but came later.
The internet brought more extreme preaches to the fingertips of the youths, and things got worse when they began to leave for ISIS.
So, I answered the latter half of your question. The elderly, the original harkis, did respect the secularism of France. But some of their children felt no attachement and foreign powers moved in to bring preaches and funds mosques.
As for the first half, I have two answers to give. First one will be mine, as I believe that France could not abandon the harkis in Algeria, where it was a certainty that they would be slaughtered in the newly found republic. So bringing them back was a necessity due to honor.
As for the second one, I will quote the man, Charles de Gaulle himself on the matter. ( He said that in 1959, when De Gaulle had to organize the withdrawal of France from current day Algeria )
The Muslims, did you go and see them ? Did you observe them, wearing their turbans and their djellabas, you can clearly see that they not Frenchmen ! Those who profess the idea of integration are birdbrains, even though they are very smart. Try to mix oil and vinegar. Shake the bottle. Some time later, they separate themselves again. Arabs are Arabs, Frenchmen are Frenchmen. Do you believe that the French population can absorb 10 million of Muslims, which tomorrow will be 20, and the next day 40 ? If we integrate, if all Arabs and Berbers of Algeria were considered to be French, how would we prevent them to come and settle in Continental France, when the living standard is so much higher ? My village would not call itself Colombey-les-Deux-Eglises ( Colombey of the Two Churches) but Colombey-les-Deux-Mosquées ( Colombey of the Two Mosques) !
Without claiming to interpret the complicated mind of De Gaulle, I would say that he was very careful not to agree to allow Muslims in France, if he had a choice.
That's all that I know.
Edit: A few words and some typos
www.lefigaro.fr
