SHARE
COPY LINK
For members

POLITICS

‘A National Front pamphlet from the 1980s’ – What’s in France’s controversial immigration bill?

Here's the latest on France's controversial immigration bill.

'A National Front pamphlet from the 1980s' - What's in France's controversial immigration bill?
French Interior Minister Gerald Darmanin speaks during a session of questions to the government at The National Assembly in Paris (Photo by Bertrand GUAY / AFP)

French politicians debated it late into the night on Monday and discussions are due to resume on Tuesday with the government reportedly determined to reach a deal. 

The unexpected torpedoing of their flagship immigration bill has led to a crisis for Emmanuel Macron’s government. Most media reports have been focusing on the political fallout.

But foreigners living in France, those hoping to move here some day and second-home owners might have more practical concerns, such as how the bill’s success or failure will affect their own lives or plans. 

From language tests for residency cards to a tightening of citizenship rules and a special visa exemption for British second-home owners, the various forms of the bill can significantly affect people’s lives.

Where are we now?

Last week Monday, MPs in the Assemblée nationale voted in favour of a Motion de rejet – which means the bill was rejected before debates could even begin.

However, the Macron government is reportedly determined to get it passed and opted for a rare parliamentary procedure known as a Commission mixte paritaire (CMP).

This is a committee made up of both MPs and Senators whose role is to make alterations to the bill to come up with a compromise that would be accepted by both houses of parliament.

The CMP met on Monday evening – although negotiations had been going on behind the scenes for a week – and debated until past midnight without reaching a compromise. Discussions are due to continue on Tuesday morning.

What does that mean for me?

At this stage we don’t know exactly what compromises the CMP will come up with, but analysts say that the political composition of the CMP means that the revised bill would likely be more right-wing than the original, with tougher measures against immigration. 

The CMP’s debates are private, but the reaction of politicians on the left suggests that measures being debated are indeed more rightwing – the Communist senator Ian Brossat described it as “like a National Front pamphlet from the 1980s” while Jordan Bardella of the far-right Rassemblement National described it as an “ideological victory” for his party.

It’s likely that there is an element of hyperbole to both statements, however.

The original bill attempted to take a ‘something for everyone’ approach with appeals to the right such as easier expulsion of radicalised foreigners and language tests for long-term residency cards alongside appeals to the left such as the amnesty for undocumented workers in some sectors.

It ended up, however, pleasing no-one. 

Language tests for foreigners – in the original bill perhaps the most far-reaching clause for people already here was the idea of compulsory language tests in order to secure a long-term carte de séjour residency card – you can read full details of the proposal HERE. This seems likely to remain in the bill. 

When the bill passed through the Senate there were several amendments added that could also affect people planning to move to France, as well as second-home owners. Most of these were junked when the bill passed back to the Assemblée nationale, but it’s possible that some or all could now be revived by the CMP. 

Immigration quotas – another Senate suggestion is the idea of an annual quota on migration, which would be set by parliament. Little detail has been provided on this at this stage.

Limits on short-term residency card renewal – we mentioned above the idea of language tests in order to get a long-term residency card. The Senate has proposed an amendment to limit the amount of times you can renew a short-term (one-year) card. The idea is to prevent people from avoiding the language requirement by simply never moving onto the long-term card, instead continuing to annually renew their card.

Limit family reunification rights – rules around foreigners in France being joined by spouses or family members would be tightened up, with a minimum stay of 24 months required before you can be joined by a spouse or family member. The Senate also proposed stricter financial requirements for people who want to bring a spouse or family member to join them, although there is little detail on the amounts required.

French citizenship for children born in France – currently children who are born in France to foreign parents are automatically given the right to French citizenship once they reach 18 under the droit du sol principle (although in order to do anything practical like get a passport or ID card they still need to apply for a naturalisation certificate). The Senators proposed that this no longer be an automatic right and children must “express their will” to get citizenship – presumably through an extra admin procedures.

Benefit restrictions – currently foreigners in France can qualify for benefits such as housing allowance or certain family benefits after they have been resident for six months, the Senate wants to increase the qualification period to five years.

Healthcare restrictions – this would affect only those who end up in an ‘irregular immigration situation’ by not having the correct paperwork. People who arrive on a visa or residency permit are entitled to register in the French public health service after three months. Currently undocumented foreigners who are in France for more than three months are entitled to basic healthcare under the Aide medicale de l’Etat, with costs reimbursed by the State for hospital treatment and medication. The Senate amendment proposes a complete ban on this for anyone who is undocumented or in an irregular immigration situation – this is a major red line for politicians on the left or the centre. 

And what about visa exemptions for second-home owners?

The Senate also added an amendment to ease visa conditions for second-home owners. The amendment that ended up being adopted was a curious one – it covered only British second-home owners and proposed a complete exemption to visa requirements for Brits who own property in France – you can find full details here.

This was also junked when the bill came back to the Assemblée nationale with MPs arguing that it promotes inequality to offer a visa exemption to people based purely on wealth. It’s possible that it could come back, but it seems unlikely that it will be at the top of the priority list of the CMP as they grapple to come up with a compromise acceptable to all. 

So what next? 

If the CMP does manage to agree on a revised bill, it will still need to be debated and passed in the Assemblée nationale, so there are still no guarantees that any of this will become law.

The government hopes that an agreement will be reached on Tuesday, and the vote could take place on Tuesday evening, although this may be optimistic. 

We feel safe in making two predictions, however – the first is that most of these clauses outlined above will be largely drowned out in the public and political debate by more headline-grabbing issues such as the expulsion of radicalised foreigners and the amnesty for undocumented workers.

The second is that we haven’t heard the last of this. 

Member comments

  1. As an American second home owner, it is not clear to me why there’s support for a special visa for second home owners of British nationality, and not for second home owners of other nationalities outside of the EU. It seems counter intuitive to be exclusive with regard to country. Canadian second home owners would seem to be in la même bateau. A piece about the rationale for the « British » distinction, at some point, would be of interest.

  2. I’m just coming up to two years in France, having moved here with my German wife from the UK. If there’d been a 24 month delay in being able to do so, I wouldn’t have been able to move to France. For a start, we’d sold our house in the UK, so I’d have had nowhere to live!

  3. I submitted a request for a carte de dix ans three months ago in September 2023, was given a récépissé (valid for six months from my application date), and have yet to hear from the prefécture. Does this debate affect applicants like me, a U.S. citizen with a second home in France; in other words, has my application been stalled pending the outcome of this debate or would it be going through the existing process? Your website helps me to stay connected with France when I’m not there.

Log in here to leave a comment.
Become a Member to leave a comment.
For members

JOHN LICHFIELD

OPINION: France’s economy is far from doomed, but not quite booming either

Depending on who you ask, France's economy is either booming or doomed - John Lichfield takes a look at who is right and where French finances are heading.

OPINION: France's economy is far from doomed, but not quite booming either

France is booming. France is also doomed. Take your pick.

On a much-visited French news site Le Figaro this week, consecutive stories collided head on.

The first story reported that the annual ‘Choose France’ conference will bring a record number of foreign investments to French soil in 2024 (56 projects worth €15 billion). France is the most attractive country in Europe for foreign investment for the fifth year in succession.

The second story – an essay by the political commentator and pollster Jérôme Fourquet – said that the French economic model of the last 40 years, had “reached the end of the road and left the country in a cul-de-sac”.

France no longer “made anything”, the essay said. The economy was being kept alive by state and consumer spending, funded unsustainably by twin deficits of trade and public finance.

Which is true? Both, up to a point.

The Choose France foreign investment conference in Versailles this week will be the most successful since President Emmanuel Macron launched the project six years ago. France opened 200 more factories than it closed last year, returning to a modest trend of “re-industrialisation” interrupted by the Covid and Ukraine crises.

Jérôme Fourquet’s essay was brilliant but also over the top. It ignored some of the positive developments in France of recent years.

It suggested that France “made nothing” but also admitted that the country was a world leader in arms, cosmetics, perfume, luxury goods and wine.

France, Fourquet might have added, is also one of the world’s largest exporters of cereals. It holds a major part of Airbus, the world’s most successful plane-maker. Unlike the UK, it is still a train-maker and a car-maker, although both industries have declined.

All the same, the essay made good points about the “French model” created unconsciously over four decades by governments of Right and Left and only timidly changed by Emmanuel Macron’s Centre in the last seven years.

Fourquet defines the French model as “state-consumerist”, a mixture of excessive public spending and taxation and generous pensions and welfare payments which allow most French people to live reasonably well. Unfortunately, the high taxation is never enough to cover the public spending and the consumers consume more from abroad than the country exports.

The result is twin, expanding deficits in public spending and the balance of payments which cannot be sustained indefinitely.

In 2003, France’s accumulated state debt was the equivalent of 63 percent of annual GDP. It is now 110 percent of GDP. The annual service charge is about to overtake education as the single biggest item in the state budget.

In 2006, France’s trade deficit was €4.3 billion. In 2023, it was €99.6 billion (admittedly inflated by the high cost of oil and gas).

Fourquet says the cost and bureaucratic weight of the French state make creating businesses – and wealth and jobs – more difficult than in other EU countries. This is covered up by more state spending which, in turn, sustains consumer spending which, in turn, boosts the twin deficits. A vicious spiral.

He concedes that Macron has tried to chip away at the state in the last seven years. The President has also splashed the cash on pet projects and has done little to reduce the regulatory burden.

Rather than lighten the entire system, Macron suspends rules and norms when he wants to get stuff done (such as the rebuilding of Notre Dame cathedral). The success of his foreign investment drive is also partly based on “keys in hand” offers of low or no-regulation factory sites which are not always easily accessible to domestic investors.

Some of those criticisms are justified. Macron has not been the revolutionary that he promised to be in 2017. He has been a plodding state reformer, extending with some success the job-friendly policies introduced by President François Hollande. France being France, neither man gets any credit.

There are signs that the economic downturn late last year (and the explosion in the budget deficit) may have been a temporary set-back as Macron insisted. Growth in the first three months of this year exceeded expectations at 0.2 percent of GDP. Jobs are being created again. (More than 1 million extra jobs since pre-Covid days).

High energy costs are crippling business across Europe but they are lower in France than elsewhere. The boom in foreign investment in France has tended to be high in value but low in jobs. The industrious and energetic minister for industry and energy, Roland Lescure, says that is now changing.

One of the projects under discussion at Choose France is a home-grown plan for a €1.6 billion solar panel factory in the Rhône delta which would create 12,000 jobs.

So is it boom or is it doom?

Neither. There has been a gradual, positive shift in the French social-economic model in the last seven to ten years which Jérôme Fourquet plays down or ignores.

Macron promised to do far more but he has had to surmount to two international crises (Covid and Ukraine) and to adjust to two domestic revolts (Yellow Vests and pensions reform). His unpopularity is partly explained by his failure to sell a convincing narrative of reform; it is also explained by France’s obsession with “reform” (in the abstract) but hatred of all “reforms” (in detail).

But what are the alternatives? All the opposition forces, from far-left to far-right, offer policies which would preserve or worsen an unsustainable status quo.

Macron’s final three years are unlikely to achieve much in the way of new reforms. A recovery of the economy might warm attitudes to Macronism (a big ask) and allow his would-be successors in the Centre to block Marine Le Pen in 2027.

Otherwise, Le Pen’s zombie economics – extra spending, no new taxes, breaking the European single market – could tip a heavily indebted France into the abyss.

SHOW COMMENTS