The refugee crisis in Europe has prompted enormous public debate, political tensions and also vast movements of solidarity towards the hundreds of thousands of people fleeing wars, oppression, insecurity and poverty. But the debate on the issue in the French parliament on Wednesday was a dull affair, clearly overshadowed by fears that the acceptance of refugees will further fuel support for the far-right Front National party.
The debate had no political bite in as much as there was no vote held at its conclusion, just like that held the previous day on the subject of French air strikes against the Islamic State group in Syria. It was an occasion for debating the fundamental issues raised by the massive influx of migrants, and for the government to defend its programme for relieving the growing humanitarian crisis in Europe.
In his speech before the National Assembly, the lower house, Prime Minister Manuel Valls in essence repeated the words of President François Hollande during the latter’s general press conference last week. But Valls above all aimed to address the Right as much as the Left, and also those in the wider public who he described as “anxious”, making use of his recurrent verbal diptych of “humanity” and “firmness”.
“We must act by following principles,” he said. “Humanity, solidarity, but also seriousness and control.” On five occasions he used the word “lucidity”, and the word “firmness” seven times. “A heart is needed, of course, but an intelligent heart,” he said. “A firm heart. A heart that is lucid.”

The prime minister said France must respect its “values”, but also the law and its international responsibilities, and that by ensuring the right of asylum there would be no question of it opening wide its doors. The French are anxious, he said, which, between the lines, meant that many are tempted to vote for the far-right Front National.
“Some tell us we should close everything,” Valls continued. “To say that is to close one’s eyes to the refugees dying before our doors. Other say, on the opposite, everything should be opened up. To say that is to close one’s eyes to the difficulties in French society […] there is a malaise among our compatriots, an anxiety, a feeling of disorder.”
Listening to his speech, the situation appears to be dramatic. Just like Hollande’s recurrent comments since the terrorist attacks in Paris in January this year, Valls’s speeches sometimes actually provoke anxiety. “The moment we are living is filled with graveness, the migrant crisis, the climate challenge, the terrorist threat,” he told parliament. “In this unstable world, our nations can run the risk of toppling. Also, more than ever, the responsibility of the government is to keep a steady hand, to send to the world but also to the French this message of steadfastness and control.”
As a result, beyond underlining France’s pledge to receive over the coming two year 24,000 extra refugees (on top of the far greater regular numbers of asylum seekers who yearly arrive in the country), the prime minister above all placed an emphasis on measures to control immigration. He justified the procedures for deporting those migrants now labelled “economic migrants”, meaning those who flee poverty and not war or repression, and he reminded parliament that France had reinforced its border security (see more here). On two occasions, Valls insisted that France could well step up border security in the near future, countering one of the main criticisms of the conservative Right. “We have already this spring re-established temporary controls on this border,” he said, referring to the south-east border with Italy (see more here), “and we will not hesitate doing so again, as the rules of [the] Schengen [European free circulation zone agreement] allow us to, at every time the circumstances require it, notably as of the coming days or coming weeks.”
He also announced a beefing up of the numbers of border police by a total of 900 extra officers, which implicitly means that other policing services will be reduced by the same number.
Members of Parliament (MPs) from the conservative Right opposition Les Républicains (LR) party (formerly the UMP) were largely absent during the debate. Those who took part argued for the necessity of a filtering of migrants, and for a reform of the terms of the Schengen agreement. On that latter issue, they offered little suggestion of what should be changed, reflecting the divisions within their own party over the issue.
Earlier on Wednesday, the LR had began a “one day workshop” on immigration issues at its Paris headquarters. Organised by party leader, and former French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, it was snubbed by his main rivals in the race to become the party’s presidential candidate in elections due in 2017, namely former prime ministers Alain Juppé and François Fillon, and former minister Bruno Le Maire.
In his presentation of a policy programme on immigration, Sarkozy, who opposes the European Union’s drive for member states to share numbers of migrants on a quota system proportionate to their populations, underlined “the Christian roots of France”. Repeating hardline proposals he has put forward over recent weeks, he called for the creation of “a temporary war refugee status” - by which once a war that refugees had fled was over they would be automatically deported home – and the abolishing of state-funded medical assistance available to immigrants who had no legal residence status in France. He spoke also of the need for the “re-foundation” of the Schengen agreement, and a tightening of the conditions under which immigrants in France can apply for their immediate family members, left in their home countries, to join them. “To think that immigration can increase is to take the risk of an explosion of French society,” Sarkozy said.
Back in the debate in the French parliament, centre-right MPs adopted a more moderate, half-way house tone, and the non-socialist MPs of the Left stuck to their leftist guns in distance from Valls, but these were largely soporific speeches no truly lively debate emerged. As is often the case in parliamentary debates which are not followed by a vote, notably on foreign policy issues, there was little substance to the contributions from MPs.
This was despite the fact that many important questions remain unanswered. Just what is the definition of an “economic migrant” and what is the pertinence of creating such a category? There is also the question of the numbers of accommodation centres France should be opening up, whether France’s pledge to take an extra 24,000 refugees over two years is a sufficient gesture in face of the crisis in Europe, and just what should become of the Schengen agreement – beyond the absurd posturing of the Right.
-------------------------
- The French version of this article is available here.
English version by Graham Tearse