The asylum and immigration law which pushed thousands of people into the streets last Sunday will be scrutinized by the Constitutional Council which must render its decision this Thursday, January 25 and say whether the 86 measures of this text are in conformity with the Constitution. They were seized by the President of the Republic himself just after its adoption, a little over a month ago. This law could be partly censored.
2 mins
A government which passes a text that it knows is partly contrary to the Constitution: the chaotic path of the draft law on immigration in France is coming to an end and fueling criticism of the ” dangerous game » loaned to President Emmanuel Macron. In a decision eagerly awaited by the presidential camp, the Constitutional Council will say this Thursday whether the provisions of this controversial text, resulting from a compromise with the right-wing opposition and accused of being inspired by the far right, are compliant or not to the fundamental law.
Read alsoFrance: what is contained in the draft immigration law adopted in Parliament
Until then, nothing very unusual: the control of constitutionality, which can be requested in particular by a group of parliamentarians or by the head of state, is an integral part of legislative life in France. What is more unprecedented, however, according to experts, is that the government called for the text to be voted on knowing that some of its provisions violated the Constitution.
Indeed, on the day of the vote, December 19, the Minister of the Interior Gérald Darmanin acknowledged before the Senate that certain “ measures are manifestly and clearly contrary to the Constitution “. The next day, theFormer Prime Minister, Elisabeth Borne, recognizes “ doubts » on the text and cites a few herself: the deposit for non-European students, the establishment of migration quotasthe tightening of the conditions for family reunification which could infringe the right of “ lead a normal family life “. And for Sacha Houlié, the president of the laws committee of the National Assembly, around thirty articles could be unconstitutional.
Most of the contentious measures are what we call single riders, that is to say measures added by amendments, but without a direct link with the government’s initial objective.
And certain articles combine handicaps. Example: tightening access to social benefits. Legal specialists emphasize that these measures mark a breach of equality, which could be recognized as contrary to the Constitution. Between French people and foreigners, between active and inactive foreigners. But in addition, they do not directly aim to control irregular immigration as the government wishes since they only concern people in a legal situation.
The Constitutional Council should not, however, revoke all the problematic articles. In 1993, the wise men had only censored 8 out of 51 measures of Charles Pasqua’s very controversial immigration law.