Alexandre Chauveau / Photo credit: Emmanuel DUNAND / AFP
The immigration bill will be debated starting this Monday in committee at the National Assembly before being examined in public session on December 11. The deputies inherit the senators’ version, considerably toughened compared to the government’s initial text.
The debates promise to be intense and a compromise difficult to find. The immigration bill will be debated starting this Monday in committee at the National Assembly. After its passage in the Senate, the text is presented in a tougher version compared to that initially drawn up by the government. Thus, State Medical Aid (AME) has, for example, been transformed into Emergency Medical Aid while article 3, relating to the creation of a residence permit for professions in shortage, has been deleted then rewritten.
And the positions are well defined on each side. The left wing of Macronie thus promises to undo the Senate version and to reintroduce a regularization component into the text. Enough to tense up the Republicans, who have made it a red line. “If the majority starts with the idea of undoing in principle what the Senate has done, things are off to a very, very bad start. When it comes to immigration there cannot be “at the same time”. We cannot get tougher and relax at the same time, it’s not possible”, squeaks Annie Genevard, LR MP for Doubs.
“There is something to answer for on the right and the left”
However, the majority wants to believe that a compromise with the right remains possible. Including on the much-disputed article 3. “I think that we can find agreements with each political group. Each group must look in the mirror and ask itself what its responsibility is: are they there for the French? For their survival? For the presidential election of 2027? Or, we say to ourselves that, in the text, there is something to respond to the left and the right at the same time on immigration. We needs”, assures Ludovic Mendès, Renaissance deputy and rapporteur of the text.
In any case, the mission promises to be difficult – some would even say impossible – while Gérald Darmanin has set himself the objective of having the text adopted by a vote, and therefore without 49.3.