As soon as it was passed, France’s immigration reform law aroused a great deal of opposition, first and foremost within the presidential majority. Longed for by the government, which has been slow to reach a political agreement, the law is now at risk of being gutted, dashing the hopes of those who expected France to finally adopt a firm policy to control migratory flows.
The Immigration Act suffered numerous setbacks throughout the legislative process leading up to its adoption on December 19th. Initially rejected by both the Right and the Left, the bill, although incomplete and insufficient, nevertheless made it possible to correct certain aberrations in French law that were too openly favourable to immigrants, for example by putting an end to the automatic right to residency, or by extending the minimum period of residency to qualify for social benefits.
But this apparent victory, welcomed by a large section of the French Right—Les Républicains and Rassemblement National—could well be no more than a flash in the pan. A whole ideological system inherited from the Left and the years of socialism that France experienced in the 1980s is rebelling and trying to render obsolete the provisions of this new law, which they fought so hard to obtain, on the grounds that it is ‘anti-republican’ and ‘nauseating,’ according to all the politically correct adjectives that apply in such circumstances.
The start signal was given by President Emmanuel Macron himself who, even before the final vote on the bill, was already talking about the need to revise the law, in order to secure the vote of the left wing of his party, which was reluctant to support a law deemed too firm and too right-wing. This is a rather surprising contradiction on the part of a man who, assisted by his Minister of the Interior Gérald Darmanin, pushed for many months for the adoption of a major immigration reform which he wanted to make one of the major achievements of his five-year term, but who, like the horse that has arrived before the obstacle, refuses to make the final leap. Once more, he is caught in the trap of his famous ‘at the same time’—a political motto consisting of holding the untenable and satisfying no one while claiming to be listening to everyone. Frightened that a bill “so right-wing” could have seen the light of day when he was in power, he hurried to reassure the Left that the law would lapse. He then rushed to refer the matter to the Constitutional Council, which has been asked to verify whether certain articles of the law are unconstitutional and should therefore be withdrawn. The left-wing orientation of this great administrative body of the State is well known, and it is a safe bet that the ‘wise men,’ as the senior civil servants who sit on the Council are known, will be delighted to satisfy the President’s expectations.
The same line was taken by government spokesman Olivier Véran, who admitted as soon as the vote was confirmed that “there were things in the law that he didn’t like.” The signal was disastrous, since the government spokesman found himself in a way calling on his fellow citizens to circumvent or not apply a law that he himself had helped pass. Olivier Véran then sent a message “to foreigners,” as if to apologise for the passage of this law, and to remind them of the extent to which France owes them everything and must continue to welcome them with open arms.
Quite naturally, some political and social players jumped on the bandwagon and voiced their violent disapproval, with a series of bombastic declarations about the foul and dangerous nature of a law that, when all is said and done, is a clumsy attempt to bring some order to a jungle of laxity and absurdities that has been building up for decades.
At the university, trade unions and students expressed their “concern” and “anger” at the provision that would tighten the conditions of access for foreign students to the faculty, since their residence permit would henceforth be subject to a deposit. The President of the University of Montpellier has signed a press release expressing the collective concern of university presidents about the attractiveness of French universities. Students are denouncing increased “discrimination” and “insecurity” among foreign students.
In the hospital sector, a group of 5,000 healthcare professionals has come together to denounce a law that “seriously calls into question France’s humanist healthcare model,” and is alarmed at the health and social consequences of the law on the health of migrants arriving in France. State Medical Aid (Aide Médicale d’Etat, or AME), which is very favourable to immigrants, was not abolished in the latest version of the law, as the Right wished. But the fact that there was an intention to do so is nevertheless enough for the defenders of republican virtue to believe that it is legitimate to make grand declarations about France as a “humanitarian homeland” being in danger.
The watchword now runs from one administration to another: the duty is to ‘resist’ an iniquitous law passed under the Mephistophelian influence of the Rassemblement National. Some local authorities are announcing that they will not apply the law, like Anne Hidalgo, the Socialist mayor of Paris, always quick to set herself up as the defender of the oppressed. At the departmental level, 32 left-wing departments have already announced that they will refuse to apply certain provisions of the law, such as the tougher conditions for payment of certain benefits. In a centralised country like France, they don’t have the right to do so, but they don’t care: moral posturing is more important to them than respect for the authority of the State, and they feel a certain pride in appearing as the Resistance fighters of the 21st century—the new Jean Moulin engaging in arm-wrestling with Marine Le Pen and her deputies cast in the roles of Marshal Pétain and his ministers.
This comedy has all the makings of a sad farce. The law passed on December 19th puts an ounce of firmness back into a system of mismanagement and licence. During the long months of the legislative process, the French people voted in favour of a policy of authority and defence of the national interest. When, thanks to parliamentary debates, a semblance of a result is about to be achieved, their rulers set about destroying it, because their guilty conscience is the strongest—the same guilty conscience that once drove France to get rid of Algeria, and which today prevents the country from putting its own house in order.
French Immigration Law: The Voice of Bad Conscience
Protesters at a march against France’s new immigration law at the Place de la Republique in Paris, on December 22, 2023.
(Photo by Dimitar DILKOFF / AFP)
As soon as it was passed, France’s immigration reform law aroused a great deal of opposition, first and foremost within the presidential majority. Longed for by the government, which has been slow to reach a political agreement, the law is now at risk of being gutted, dashing the hopes of those who expected France to finally adopt a firm policy to control migratory flows.
The Immigration Act suffered numerous setbacks throughout the legislative process leading up to its adoption on December 19th. Initially rejected by both the Right and the Left, the bill, although incomplete and insufficient, nevertheless made it possible to correct certain aberrations in French law that were too openly favourable to immigrants, for example by putting an end to the automatic right to residency, or by extending the minimum period of residency to qualify for social benefits.
But this apparent victory, welcomed by a large section of the French Right—Les Républicains and Rassemblement National—could well be no more than a flash in the pan. A whole ideological system inherited from the Left and the years of socialism that France experienced in the 1980s is rebelling and trying to render obsolete the provisions of this new law, which they fought so hard to obtain, on the grounds that it is ‘anti-republican’ and ‘nauseating,’ according to all the politically correct adjectives that apply in such circumstances.
The start signal was given by President Emmanuel Macron himself who, even before the final vote on the bill, was already talking about the need to revise the law, in order to secure the vote of the left wing of his party, which was reluctant to support a law deemed too firm and too right-wing. This is a rather surprising contradiction on the part of a man who, assisted by his Minister of the Interior Gérald Darmanin, pushed for many months for the adoption of a major immigration reform which he wanted to make one of the major achievements of his five-year term, but who, like the horse that has arrived before the obstacle, refuses to make the final leap. Once more, he is caught in the trap of his famous ‘at the same time’—a political motto consisting of holding the untenable and satisfying no one while claiming to be listening to everyone. Frightened that a bill “so right-wing” could have seen the light of day when he was in power, he hurried to reassure the Left that the law would lapse. He then rushed to refer the matter to the Constitutional Council, which has been asked to verify whether certain articles of the law are unconstitutional and should therefore be withdrawn. The left-wing orientation of this great administrative body of the State is well known, and it is a safe bet that the ‘wise men,’ as the senior civil servants who sit on the Council are known, will be delighted to satisfy the President’s expectations.
The same line was taken by government spokesman Olivier Véran, who admitted as soon as the vote was confirmed that “there were things in the law that he didn’t like.” The signal was disastrous, since the government spokesman found himself in a way calling on his fellow citizens to circumvent or not apply a law that he himself had helped pass. Olivier Véran then sent a message “to foreigners,” as if to apologise for the passage of this law, and to remind them of the extent to which France owes them everything and must continue to welcome them with open arms.
Quite naturally, some political and social players jumped on the bandwagon and voiced their violent disapproval, with a series of bombastic declarations about the foul and dangerous nature of a law that, when all is said and done, is a clumsy attempt to bring some order to a jungle of laxity and absurdities that has been building up for decades.
At the university, trade unions and students expressed their “concern” and “anger” at the provision that would tighten the conditions of access for foreign students to the faculty, since their residence permit would henceforth be subject to a deposit. The President of the University of Montpellier has signed a press release expressing the collective concern of university presidents about the attractiveness of French universities. Students are denouncing increased “discrimination” and “insecurity” among foreign students.
In the hospital sector, a group of 5,000 healthcare professionals has come together to denounce a law that “seriously calls into question France’s humanist healthcare model,” and is alarmed at the health and social consequences of the law on the health of migrants arriving in France. State Medical Aid (Aide Médicale d’Etat, or AME), which is very favourable to immigrants, was not abolished in the latest version of the law, as the Right wished. But the fact that there was an intention to do so is nevertheless enough for the defenders of republican virtue to believe that it is legitimate to make grand declarations about France as a “humanitarian homeland” being in danger.
The watchword now runs from one administration to another: the duty is to ‘resist’ an iniquitous law passed under the Mephistophelian influence of the Rassemblement National. Some local authorities are announcing that they will not apply the law, like Anne Hidalgo, the Socialist mayor of Paris, always quick to set herself up as the defender of the oppressed. At the departmental level, 32 left-wing departments have already announced that they will refuse to apply certain provisions of the law, such as the tougher conditions for payment of certain benefits. In a centralised country like France, they don’t have the right to do so, but they don’t care: moral posturing is more important to them than respect for the authority of the State, and they feel a certain pride in appearing as the Resistance fighters of the 21st century—the new Jean Moulin engaging in arm-wrestling with Marine Le Pen and her deputies cast in the roles of Marshal Pétain and his ministers.
This comedy has all the makings of a sad farce. The law passed on December 19th puts an ounce of firmness back into a system of mismanagement and licence. During the long months of the legislative process, the French people voted in favour of a policy of authority and defence of the national interest. When, thanks to parliamentary debates, a semblance of a result is about to be achieved, their rulers set about destroying it, because their guilty conscience is the strongest—the same guilty conscience that once drove France to get rid of Algeria, and which today prevents the country from putting its own house in order.
READ NEXT
Our New Year Message: No Surrender
Free Speech: What Are They Afraid Of?
The Virtue That Enables All Others: A Conversation with Ayaan Hirsi Ali