>> Follow the debates live:
>> The key points
- The debates in the Assembly on the draft law “controlled immigration, an effective right of asylum and a successful integration” are very tense. The examination of the text will overflow on the day of Saturday, even that of Sunday. A first test for the majority who leaves divided.
- More than a thousand amendments tabled, including about two hundred LREM members.
- On Thursday evening, the majority took action to reduce the time limit for filing an asylum application from 120 to 90 days. The left denounced a measure voted with the right and the FN.
>> The essence of the debates
Article 12 was adopted
Amendment on the courts at the foot of the airport runways
Autain (LFI) wants to abolish the “remove specially designed courts at the foot of airport runways”. His amendment is rejected.
LR MPs want tough on Article 11
The LR deputies try to harden the text, proposing in particular the pronunciation of OQTF “if the foreigner has committed a criminal offense sanctioned by a final judgment of the competent courts” or if the foreigner prevents the registration of his fingerprints.
While the administrative authority can now endorse an OQTF with a ban on returning to the country for three years, Republican deputies want to extend this term to ten years.
The amendments are rejected. Article 11 was adopted.
“Extreme right most extreme”
Gerard Collomb defends his text and says that in 2017, only 25,000 OQTFs were actually executed out of 85,000 pronounced. The minister wants to put an end to the “machine to manufacture illegals” and warns against a coming to power of “extreme extreme right”.
According to him, to delete Article 11, as the opposition demands, would be to “abolish any distinction between asylum and immigration”.
Start of debate on Article 11
This article provides that “a foreigner who has lodged an asylum application and wishes to apply for a residence permit must take this second step in parallel with his asylum application. ”
It also states that “in case of rejection of the application for asylum and the application for a residence permit, the alien must be subject to an obligation to leave French territory (OQTF)”.
According to the group New Left, this provision may cause the applicant to “cynically” renounce one of his requests “because the foreigner may fear that seeking asylum and residence will mitigate his chances of being granted asylum. ”
Clementine Autain (LFI) judges this text “liberticide”.
Ménard and Di Filippo (LR) defend two identical amendments
These amendments consist of introducing “a deposit of 200 euros for failed asylum seekers who appeal” . Their deposit would be refunded “in case of a favorable decision”. They are rejected.
Few (PCF) opposes video-hearing
Stéphane Peu is opposed to the video-audience, during the examination of article 10. This one allows the introduction of the video-hearing before the administrative judge and the judge of freedoms and detentions without l agreement from abroad.
The Communist deputy strongly asserts that “all associations of magistrates and lawyers are opposed to it”.
Ardisson (LREM) attacks LFI
MP La Republique en Marche attacks her colleagues from France Insoumise: “Your business is the zadistes and those who sack the universities!” She is applauded by Eric Ciotti.
Adoption of an amendment by Joël Giraud (LREM)
Adoption of a amendment LREM on Article 10B. It provides that “in the case of the temporary reintroduction of internal border control, it is possible to refuse access to the territory to persons who are controlled near an internal land border which they have crossed without being authorized to do so”. “:
This amendment intends to set the scope of these controls in the law: a zone of ten kilometers along the borders appears perfectly proportionate. Amendment 631
Have jihadists crossed the border?
Eric Ciotti (LR) asks Gérard Collomb, based on information from Le Figaro and the Guardian.
French-Italian checks renewed for 6 months
Gerard Collomb speaks about the “very strong migratory pressure” at the French-Italian border and says that in 2017, 50,000 non-admissions were pronounced at this border.
The minister mentions the “dangerousness of the roads in the Hautes-Alpes” and explains that the rescue forces “regularly intervene every week to rescue people in ruins on the mountain”.
“The ‘at the same time’ exists,” argues Gerard Collomb, who ensures he wants to “control immigration” and ensure that “the right to asylum is respected.”
Danièle Obono (LFI) discusses the problems encountered at the Franco-Italian border and pays tribute to Cédric Herrou.
Gérard Collomb will answer later on this question.
Consideration of article 9 bis
The deputies LR want to force the government to publish each year “a report on the evolution of the capacity of reception of the territory”.
No reception by individuals in the law
Rejection of a LREM amendment aimed at introducing, on a trial basis, a system for the reception of asylum seekers by private individuals “.
LR MPs want to ban remittances
Pierre-Henri Dumont defends an amendment to prohibit any “asylum seeker eligible for the asylum seeker’s allowance and receiving it” to make “transfers of funds from a deposit account or to an agency international funds transfer “.
Stated amendment tabled by the government
Government amendment, which takes up a proposal from the Taché report: its purpose is to “enable beneficiaries of international protection to obtain the benefit of their social rights on the basis of the family composition taken into account in the context of the asylum procedure without wait for the final fixing of their civil status by the OFPRA, and thus accelerate the opening of the rights essential to the integration “.
Sub-amended by Aurélien Taché himself the amendment is adopted.
MPs from unsubstantial France want to create climate refugee status
The amendment, advocated by Clémentine Autain, aims to “institute the fact that the benefit of subsidiary protection can be granted to anyone who suffers in his home country a degradation of its environment causing a serious upheaval in his living environment “.
A proposal that does not please Marine Le Pen, because according to her “143 million people are potentially” concerned.
Danièle Obono (LFI) responds quickly:
After another speech by Marine Le Pen, Aurore Bergé (LREM) claims to attend “a match between the extreme left and far right”.
A way to return back to back the two camps according to Elsa Faucillon (PCF), which responds to Aurore Bergé: “You do not realize the way you were elected,” says the communist elected, referring to the election in 2017 of Emmanuel Macron against Marine Le Pen.
Clementine Autain (LFI) denounces for its part the “ideological manipulation” of Aurore Bergé.
Does the government put (really) means?
The MP Loïc Prudhomme (LFI) wonders what the concrete means that puts the government on the table while it claims “improve the reception of asylum seekers.” Elise Fajgeles says that 7,500 additional places of accommodation were voted for 2018:
5,000 new places are still planned for the year 2019, has even promised Édouard Philippe in the summer of 2017 .
Republican versus Republicans
Debates have resumed in a more peaceful tone since Friday morning. But Pierre-Henri Dumont (LR) was annoyed at not having an answer on the fate of the migrants in the Calaisis:
Florent Boudié (LREM) asked him “that the debate remains courteous and republican”. While irony on the label of the deputy of Pas-de-Calais: “Remember this word: republican.”
Article 9 adopted
Article 9 is finally adopted. It makes more directive the national scheme for the reception of asylum seekers and integration of refugees by providing that it sets the share of asylum seekers hosted in each region as well as the distribution of accommodation places which are intended.
If asylum seekers do not stay in this area, they will lose the right to shelter and allowances.
Reception of refugees: the German model
Currently, the distribution of asylum seekers in temporary accommodation (reception center for asylum seekers, reception centers and situation check …) is uneven. The Minister of the Interior recalls, for example, that “40% of asylum applications are made in Île-de-France”.
Gerard Collomb believes that it is therefore necessary to draw inspiration from the practices in Germany in order to set up a new scheme to better distribute those who claim to be refugees (Article 9):
A sharing of the effort between all the communities that rejects Emmanuelle Ménard (attached FN), which proposes to seek the advice of local elected officials.
The rapporteur opposes her categorically no: everyone must take “her share of generosity”, according to her.
Acceleration of the expulsion of the rejected before recourse
Article 8 expands the cases in which an unsuccessful asylum seeker who lodges an appeal with the CNDA may nevertheless be deported. His appeal is therefore no longer considered to be suspensive.
The three selected cases: the applicant comes from the list of “safe countries”; it represents a “serious threat to public order”; his request for reconsideration was dismissed.
But for many opposition MPs, such a measure could lead some people to be deported even though the right of asylum could be granted to them retrospectively.
Cases in no way contrary to “constitutional commitments”, their answers the LREM Florent Boudié . For the rapporteur, the important thing is that the “right to appeal” is preserved.
Vote on Article 7
This article allows the asylum seeker to formulate a single request if he has children, which “thus avoids the successive requests that contribute to slowing down the length of time for processing asylum applications”.
Article 6 voted by LREM alone
The left (PCF, LFI and NG) and the MoDem voted against. The Republicans did not want to vote a device “emptied of its substance” by some amendments.
The Republic in motion was therefore alone on this article (plus a voice from a UDI MP, Act and Independents).
Towards the generalization of video audiences
Article 6 aims to “develop” (“generalize”, for the opposition) the establishment of tele-hearing before the National Court of Asylum (CNDA). A “Skype format” denounced by the left and some members of the majority.
The rapporteur assumes that the scheme will generate savings by avoiding escorted transportation of asylum seekers to the court. It considers that safeguards have been provided, such as the need for the lawyer’s presence at the applicant’s side and, if possible, for his interpreter.
Moreover, such a device can now be imposed on the plaintiff, whereas in the present law his consent had to be collected.
What deeply regrets the MoDem Brahim Hammouche, who points out the lack of “benevolence” of this means of communication:
His colleague Laurence Vichnievsky even sees in the absence of consent a risk of unconstitutionality:
Asylum and time limits
After having ratified Article 5 yesterday, which reduces to 90 days the time limit for a foreigner to submit an asylum application to OFPRA (as opposed to 120 days before), MEPs examine Article 6. This divides in two, the deadline for appealing the dismissal of the right of asylum to the National Court of Asylum, ie 15 days.
In return, the rapporteur Elise Fajgeles has enshrined in the law the possibility for the unsuccessful to summarily seize the CNDA. One way to assert his claim quickly, waiting to complete it later.
Review the debates of Friday, April 20th