French Immigration Bill: Sciences Pistes’ Perspectives

The French National Assembly passed the long-awaited, controversial French immigration bill on Dec. 20, 2023. It seems that the only thing that everyone agreed on was that something had to be done, yet disagreed on what that (something) had to be. The bill in both its early and final version split the French public as much as the French Conseil d’état (i.e., Council of the State).  While, regarding Sciences Pistes, even if the left is more outspoken, the right also has their strong opinion. 

In its final version, the bill focuses on strengthening data collection on immigrants’ acceptance, deportation and rejection. It constitutes longer waiting time to access welfare benefits and to call for family reunification. Furthermore, the controversial law pushes for easier access to residency permits for professionals working in labor areas undergoing shortage. It also postpones the “jus soli,” which allows citizenship at birth till the age of 16.  Concurrently it validates  citizenship withdrawal from dual nationals who commit severe crimes towards the police. Concerning foreign students, they will have to pay a deposit at the start of their education in France to be recuperated later on. The law leaves space for several criticisms from both the left and the right. 

The left among the Sciences Pistes have unequivocally expressed their dissatisfaction for the bill passed. Many believe it to be a National Rally’s ploy to enact a strict immigration policy that negates fundamental rights in the name of security. “It is totally unjust to see at what point a country which has the means to help others but which does not in the name of spreading security defended by the racist extreme right,” said one respondent identifying  with La France Insoumise. Another respondent, affiliated with the Place Publique, remarked with regards to fundamental rights that “Everyone, including the interior minister, knew that it (the bill) contained unconstitutional content.” 

On the subject of foreign students, many showed their concerns over the new required deposit. “It is a racist law aiming at criminalizing immigration and will only serve to promote access for wealthier foreign students to universities,” angrily expressed one respondent. “This law targets students in a general manner,” said another respondent who also doubts the motives behind the bill, “it looks like it benefits no one except that it satisfies political interests.”

With eyes on the future, several responses reflected fear for the growing migration crisis, “if we are incapable of integrating migrants in France right now, it will be impossible to integrate future ones, especially environmental migrants.” At the same time, others show doubt in the efficiency of the law, “I firmly believe that the law’s efficiency is debatable … We must not neglect the consequences of preventing vulnerable people from access to essential services.” 

On the other hand, the right, even if less expressed in Sciences Po, has strong opinions on the issue. Tackling the restrictions on the aides personnalisées au logement (APL), one of the housing assistance services offered, a respondent identifying with the right described it as “a measure of full common sense,” praising that “France is not an NGO that distributes funds. The measure would help reduce the assistance culture that has been developing, urging immigrants to add to the richness of the nation.” This is a common criticism by the right as to how much government aid goes to unemployed immigrants each year, thus creating a burden on government services without fiscal returns. The right claims that this undeserved aid incentivizes immigrants to avoid working in order to continue receiving it. 

Meanwhile, the same respondent was skeptical of the refundable deposit put in place on foreign students, seeing that “in face of the decline of France as an attractive education spot globally, it is necessary to preserve those students who are the future ambassadors of French values in their home countries.” Not to forget is the CVEC payment which, among others, students have to contribute annually to without ever feeling its value in developing student life. In addition, this new deposit comes after the controversial significant increase in tuition fees on foreign students from 2019 in public universities. 

On the European scene, a strong pro-European student strongly doubts the bill, “Overall, I think this law is absolutely inadequate to solve the problem of migration in France.” When asked about his opinion on the rise of anti-migration trends in Europe, the student tackled the French situation, while noting its exact replica in other European countries, “The approbation of the new (discriminatory) law on migration in France is the outcome of a society incapable of adapting to the rapid changes of modernity. To keep the electorate ‘happy’ they vote for laws against the very own principles of the EU.” Finally, with regards to the implication of the bill on neighboring European countries, the student pointed out that it will surely worsen the living conditions of migrants on neighboring borders, especially in Ventimiglia, and that it will affect equal distribution of migrants in the EU.

In conclusion, as one respondent posits: “the question posed right now is: will France stay silent at this moment?”