Top council rejects a large part of the strict French immigration law
France's Constitutional Council on Thursday scrapped large parts of a tough new immigration law, in a widely expected ruling that said many measures added by President Emmanuel Macron's government under right-wing pressure were illegal.
The nine-headed one councilwhich reviews legislation to ensure it complies with the constitution, said in a statement that it had removed in whole or in part more than a third of the 86 articles in the law, which was passed in December – including restrictions on foreigners' access to government subsidies, limits on the reunification of migrant families and the introduction of annual immigration quotas. by Parliament.
Revising France's immigration rules was one of Mr Macron's priorities for the second term, and under normal circumstances the Council would decision can be seen as a sharp rebuke. The French leader had called the new law a necessary “shield” to deal with pressure from migrants entering the country illegally.
But because of the way the law was drafted and the nature of the measures that were rejected, Thursday's ruling may paradoxically provide some relief to Mr Macron.
Gérald Darmanin, Macron's interior minister, welcomed the ruling, saying it left the core of the law intact. “Never before has a law provided so many means to deport criminals and so many requirements for the integration of foreigners!” He said on social media.
Many of the measures announced by the council were only included in law after the government reached a compromise with the Republicans, the mainstream right-wing opposition party. The deal was needed to get the bill through the lower house of parliament, where Macron's party and its centrist allies do not have an absolute majority.
The compromise gave Macron a legislative victory, but introduced many harsh measures that were not part of his government's original plans. It also attracted unwanted support from the far-right National Rally party and caused rifts in Macron's centrist governing coalition, with some of his own lawmakers voting against the bill.
The French Interior Minister, the Prime Minister and even Mr Macron himself found themselves in the awkward position of publicly admitting their disagreement with some measures – such as a rule forcing foreign students from outside the European Union to make a new deposit to pay – or worse, that parts of a law they defended probably violated the Constitution.
At a wide-ranging press conference this month, Mr Macron argued that an imperfect deal is better than no deal. “Was this part of the compromise needed, with a relative majority, to move forward?” he said. “Yes.”
Opponents accused the government of pushing through measures it knew would not pass the Constitutional Council solely to score political points.
“Has anyone ever seen a President of the Republic and ministers explain that they do not respect the rule of law?” Mathilde Panot, a top lawmaker for the left-wing France Unbowed party, said on LCI television on Thursday.
Laurent Fabius, the president of the Constitutional Council, also expressed frustration this month, saying there was “a certain confusion among some people between law and politics.”
“Mr. President, the Constitutional Council is not an echo chamber for trends in public opinion, nor is it a board of appeal for the choices made by Parliament,” Mr Fabius said in a speech at which Mr Macron was present. “It assesses the constitutionality of laws.”
Around France, thousands marched last week to protest the immigration law, and more demonstrations were held on Thursday ahead of the council's ruling.
Unlike the Supreme Court in the United States, the Constitutional Council in France is not at the top of the legal system, and none of its members are judges. Instead, they are a mix of lawyers, former politicians and senior civil servants.
Governments typically hope that the council will leave their legislation largely untouched, as was the case last year when the council retained the core of Macron's deeply unpopular pension reform.
Macron's government had initially presented its proposal immigration bill as both a carrot and a stick that would streamline a slow asylum process and facilitate the deportation of migrants staying illegally in France while facilitating integration. For example, the measure created temporary residence permits for foreign workers in sectors where there was a labor shortage.
But the compromise with right-wing Republicans had gnawed away most of the carrot and made the stick much bigger, even including fragments of many long-standing far-right positions on immigration.
These include delaying foreigners' access to state subsidies such as housing aid or child benefits for several months or even years; stricter family reunification rules for immigrants; and forcing children of foreigners in France to apply for French citizenship upon reaching adulthood, rather than having it granted automatically.
Many of these measures were overturned by the council, returning the law roughly to what Macron's government had initially intended.
In a statement on social media, Jordan Bardella, the head of the far-right National Rally party, called the ruling a “power grab” by the council and reiterated long-standing calls from the right and far right for a nationwide referendum on immigration.