Immigration is a highly contentious and contested issue in France. During the past 20 years, 12 laws have been introduced towards bringing in an ever more restrictive approach to immigration. And yet every poll survey keeps showing the French want ever stricter border control. That is despite France no longer being a major destination country anymore. Although 10.7 percent of its population is foreign born, the annual immigration rate into France (the ratio between immigrant inflows and the total population of the country) amounted to 0.37 per cent in 2023 and is among the lowest in OECD countries. It is three times as low as countries such as Belgium (1.06 percent), Canada (1.06 percent) or Germany (1.37 percent).
A closer examination of the apparent polarisation around immigration shows it is largely driven by a strategic political positioning to transform the immigration issue from a practical policy matter into a symbolic battleground. As political parties struggle to retain their voters, they use immigration to activate the left-right division, rather than reflecting genuine societal cleavage.
At first glance, France’s political spectrum appears neatly divided on immigration: the left advocating for humanitarian concerns, while the right emphasises control and security. This binary presentation fails to capture the complexity of public opinion and policy realities.
First, immigration ranks relatively low among French citizens’ primary concerns. Surveys repeatedly show that economic issues (particularly purchasing power), healthcare system pressures, and climate change consequences dominate the public’s attention. In IPSOS-CESE polling for issues of public concern, immigration is in sixth position, with only 18 percent of the respondents ranking immigration as their primary concern. It typically appears as a secondary concern, often influenced more by media coverage and political campaigns than by direct personal experience. This suggests that the political emphasis on immigration may be disproportionate to its actual importance in citizens’ daily lives.
Second, annual surveys on racism show a constant progress towards greater societal understanding and tolerance. The Longitudinal Tolerance Index published by the National Consultative Commission on Human Rights (CNCDH) shows a rise in the level of tolerance towards foreigners since 1990, with younger generations more exposed to foreign cultures displaying the highest levels.
Lastly, contrary to the heated political discourse, French public opinion demonstrates significant consensus on key immigration issues. Polling consistently shows that majorities across political affiliations support targeted immigration to address labor shortages in specific sectors, from healthcare to agriculture. According to the think tank Terra Nova, 58 per cent of the population is in favour of labour immigration, selected or not, and even 70 per cent among those who are acquainted with immigrants. Similarly, there is broad agreement on the need to reduce irregular immigration and improve the efficiency of asylum procedures.
Most citizens support skilled migration programs, family reunification within reasonable limits, and humanitarian protection for refugees. Even on contentious issues like integration requirements, polling reveals more agreement than disagreement, with most French citizens supporting language learning and civic education programs rather than opposing immigration entirely.
The disconnect between the intensity of political rhetoric and the public’s priorities indicates that the immigration debate serves a political agenda beyond addressing genuine public concerns. It provides a convenient arena for political competition and identity formation, allowing parties to differentiate themselves on symbolic grounds while avoiding more complex economic and social policy discussions.
Understanding France’s current immigration politics requires examining how migration governance has evolved since the early twentieth century. From the 1920s through to the post-war period, immigration was primarily managed by employers and business associations who recruited foreign workers based on economic needs with minimal political interference. This system, while imperfect, maintained immigration as a largely technical and economic matter rather than a political issue.
Following World War II, civil society organizations increasingly assumed roles in immigrant integration and advocacy. Organizations like CIMADE (Comité Inter-Mouvements Auprès Des Évacués) emerged to assist refugees and migrants, creating a parallel support system that complemented official policies. This period saw immigration managed through a combination of economic pragmatism and humanitarian solidarity, with limited political controversy.
However, during the 1980s, there was a marked turning point with gradual state centralisation of immigration policy and the rise of the far-right National Front (FN). Immigration shifted from being a primarily economic and humanitarian concern to becoming a central political issue. This transformation coincided with economic restructuring, urban challenges, and the search for new political identities in post-industrial France.
The consequences of this shift have been profound. Business unions, once vocal advocates for immigration to meet labor needs, have largely withdrawn from public debates, preferring to manage their workforce needs quietly. The left has become increasingly fragmented, torn between humanitarian principles, economic realities, and electoral concerns about appearing too permissive. Meanwhile, civil society organizations find themselves marginalised in a political environment that prioritises partisan positioning over practical solutions.
This institutional transformation has created a political vacuum that right-wing and far-right parties have successfully filled by framing immigration exclusively through security and cultural preservation lenses. Without strong voices advocating for economic pragmatism or humanitarian balance, the debate has shifted toward restrictive policies justified by security concerns and identity politics.
The artificial nature of France’s immigration divide becomes clear when comparing political rhetoric with policy outcomes and public opinion. Despite decades of heated debate, French immigration levels remain relatively stable. Net migration in 2021 amounted to 159,000 persons in 2021, against 163,000 in 2006. In practice, policy-makers have fully endorsed the European agenda on migration, with stricter visa requirements, enhanced collaborations with sending and transit states to secure deportation, and an integration policy limited to language courses and civic training.
With a legislative reform every two years on average, in addition to the constant parliamentary debates ramped up by daily media coverage of stories involving immigrants, the anti-immigration rhetoric has become dominant and is constantly being reiterated.
This political frenzy over immigration has done more to reactivate and drive the left-right divide than address the public’s concern. The latest example of this is the recent petition launched by Philippe De Villiers, a far-right pundit, demanding the organisation of a referendum on immigration lest “we change population… lifestyle… civilisation”.
The petition has been largely promoted by conservative media outlets such as Cnews, Europe 1 and Valeurs Actuelles. It gathered 1.5 million signatures, but the numbers are questionable because it was posted on a non-secure website that allowed multiple signatures by the same person, or robot. The signatory has to automatically agree to their contact details being used by the conservative media to allow them to send newsletters and other commercial material. The endeavour is yet another marketing operation meant to mobilise supporters.
In sum, the experience of France shows how poorly performing institutions and political strategies have prevented effective governance of a complex social issue, immigration.
That has left France with a highly divisive left-right battleground and social fractures that transcend the reality on immigration – an underlying relative consensus.
This article was originally published in 360info under Creative Commons 4.0 International. Read the original article.
(NS)
Suggested Reading: