By: |
It was Laurent Fabius and the Constitutional Council upon whom President Emmanuel Macron depended to abolish the Immigration Law’s shift from centre-right to extreme-right, which the Republicans – the right-wing party – had implemented in exchange for their votes in Parliament. Fabius and his team erased multiple unconstitutional and overtly xenophobic articles. While the text still retained robust provisions for the rapid expulsion of foreigners deemed undesirable on French soil, it likewise reaffirmed all provisions endorsing “national preference”: tightening access to social benefits, criminalizing “illegal stay” for foreigners, setting migration quotas by Parliament, executing a “return deposit” for foreign students, and inflicting restrictions on family reunification, among others. Fabius reiterates his stance this Monday, May 6, in the newspaper Le Monde. Nevertheless, he brings no good news for the right-wing and far-right factions.
On April 11, 2024, the Constitutional Council squeezed in the bud the request of the Republicans – the right – for the organization of a shared initiative referendum (RIP) to install “national priority”. The idea is above all to block the path to social benefits for foreigners. The President of the Constitutional Council hammers home this Monday: the action is unconstitutional. “National preference – applied systematically – is contrary to the Constitution,” asserts Fabius.
“The Constitution does not prevent the benefit of certain social benefits for foreigners in a legal situation from being subject to a condition of duration of residence or activity,” explains the former socialist Prime Minister, “but this duration cannot deprive disadvantaged people of a policy of national solidarity,” he adds.
As a reminder, the right had presented a request last March to organize a RIP to reactivate a host of articles censored last January in the Immigration Law. Since the strike of the 9 Wise Men, Eric Ciotti’s comrades have argued staunchly for their right to a referendum of shared initiative, arguing that their text is supported by “the notion of reform relating to the social policy of the nation in the sense of the first paragraph of article 11 of the Constitution”…
The Constitutional Council has not advanced one iota, according to it the recommendations formulated by the right are a “disproportionate attack” on the rights to social protection of foreigners in a legal situation. The Republicans’ RIP proposal “familiarised the benefit of social benefits for non-European foreigners in a regular situation to a residence of at least five years, or to an affiliation of at least thirty months for a professional activity: this long-term could not be admitted,” Fabius clarified this Monday.
“The Council confirmed that social protection does not apply only to individuals of French nationality, but to all people legally living in France, denying the so-called national preference thesis,” adds the former Prime Minister.
“National preference” is the backbone of far-right ideology and it is not new; the architect of the National Front (FN), Jean-Marie Le Pen, had made it his business. Her daughter, Marine Le Pen, has certainly put this xenophobic view on hold for a less sulphurous display, but the FN New Look – the National Rally, RN – thinks no less. On this aspect, Fabius stated that given his function he cannot go further. “I will restrict myself to saying, since it is constant, that national preference – applied systematically – is contrary to the Constitution,” he concluded.
But for Marine Le Pen this is not the end of the story, on the contrary, it is only just starting. Her list is credited with a large win in the European elections next June, a success which will act as a launching pad for the 2027 presidential election. If the leader of the far right is not stopped in her tracks by the courts in October 2024 (she, her dad and 26 former FN executives will be tried for embezzlement of European funds) the French will be very tempted to entrust her with all the keys to the 2027 elections. And if this is the case nothing could prevent a revision constitutional to engrave “national preference” in stone.
What's happening in Tunisia?
Subscribe to our Youtube channel for updates.
