Key provisions of France’s controversial immigration law struck down by Constitutional Council. Social benefits, migration quotas, and family reunification measures face rejection.
Key points
Constitutional Council Strikes Down Controversial Immigration Law: Key Measures Rejected
In a decisive move, the Constitutional Council of France has invalidated significant portions of a controversial immigration law, dismissing 32 out of 86 articles, primarily on procedural grounds. The law, which had undergone a tumultuous parliamentary process, faced opposition from both within and outside the government.
Notably, the Council scrapped a majority of clauses proposed by rightwing lawmakers seeking to enhance the bill’s stringency. Accusations were leveled against President Emmanuel Macron’s administration, alleging a compromise with the far-right to ensure the law’s passage.
Over the weekend, approximately 75,000 citizens nationwide took to the streets in protest, anticipating the Council’s ruling. Here, we delve into the key measures that faced rejection by the Constitutional Council.
Delayed Access to Social Benefits
One of the pivotal articles struck down by the Council pertained to impeding immigrants’ access to social welfare, introducing discriminatory criteria between French citizens and foreigners. The legislation sought to conditionally grant certain social benefits to immigrants based on their employment status.
Under the proposed law, immigrants without employment would have had to endure a five-year wait for monthly rent assistance (APL), while those employed would have faced a three-month waiting period. Critics viewed this as a significant concession to the far-right and conservative factions advocating priority status for French citizens in social welfare matters.
Migration Quotas
The introduction of migration “quotas” met with rejection from the Constitutional Council. The provision aimed to impose limits on the number of immigrants accepted in France, excluding asylum seekers, over a three-year span. Despite its recognition as unconstitutional by Macron’s coalition, the measure was included in the revised bill to garner support from Les Républicains, with the hope that the Council would nullify it.
Critics accused Macron of attempting to deflect responsibility onto the Constitutional Council by presenting legislation knowingly conflicting with France’s fundamental laws.
Family Reunification
A deeply divisive measure targeting immigrants seeking to bring their families to France also faced rejection. The law stipulated that immigrants must prove 24 months of residence in France—up from the current 18 months—before applying for family reunification.
Additionally, applicants were required to furnish evidence of a “regular” income and French health insurance for each family member. Green lawmaker Mélanie Vogel argued during parliamentary debates that such requirements would be impossible to meet, as the absence of the family in France would prevent affiliation with its social security, rendering foreign insurance invalid in the country.
The Constitutional Council’s firm stance against these contentious measures reflects a commitment to upholding constitutional principles and protecting the rights of all individuals, irrespective of their immigration status. As France grapples with the complexities of immigration policy, the Council’s decision is poised to shape the trajectory of future debates and legislative initiatives.
