Questioned from Brussels, where he was participating in the European Council, Emmanuel Macron spoke about the ongoing discussions on the immigration bill on Friday December 15. The text, rejected Monday by the Assembly, is now at the heart of intense negotiations between the government and the right, the outcome of which divides ministers and the majority.
In front of the press, the Head of State called for an “intelligent compromise (…) in the service of the general interest” during the joint committee (CMP) which must seal the fate of the text on Monday. The head of state also declared that he would draw “the consequences” of the outcome of the current discussions.
The government and Emmanuel Macron chose to entrust the CMP with the task of defining a compromise text, after the Assembly adopted a motion rejecting the bill. She will have to work on the basis of the text toughened last month by the Senate, mainly on the right.
Republicans in a position of strength
Since Monday, Elisabeth Borne, Prime Minister, and those close to her, have been talking intensively with the Republicans, in a position of strength, to try to extract from them even minimal concessions likely to appease the majority, divided on this text.
After having received the leaders of the right twice, before a new meeting planned for Sunday evening, the Prime Minister presented Thursday to her ministers and then to her majority the “major balances” of the text likely to be discussed on Monday by the seven senators and seven deputies from the CMP, reported several ministers.
In front of her ministers, the head of government spoke of a text which would cut the reform of state medical aid (AME) for undocumented immigrants, which would not include the extension of stay periods in France to benefit from social benefits and certain provisions of the nationality code.
The text would, however, retain an article on the case-by-case regularization of undocumented immigrants in professions in shortage which would be at the discretion of the prefects. The majority was in favor of a broader and less restrictive formula.
