Senate Approves Bill to Restrict Foreigners’ Access to French Social Benefits

– byPrince@Bladi · 2 min read
Senate Approves Bill to Restrict Foreigners' Access to French Social Benefits

Foreign residents in France holding residence permits could no longer be entitled to certain social benefits. The Senate has just adopted the bill initiated by Senator Valérie Boyer (Les Républicains) to tighten the conditions of access to these benefits for them.

According to the adopted text, only foreigners holding a residence permit for at least two years will be able to benefit from family allowances, personalized housing assistance (APL) and personalized autonomy allowance (APA). After the vote in the Senate, the bill will have to be validated by the National Assembly before being promulgated. If it comes into force, non-EU foreigners, holders of a valid residence permit, will not be able to access these social benefits. They will have to wait two years during which they will have to pay social security contributions without counterpart.

Several associations such as Emmaüs, La Cimade, Médecins du Monde, the Foundation for Housing the Underprivileged (ex-Abbé Pierre), Secours Catholique, Alerte or Gisti, reacted following the adoption of this text by the Senate, denouncing "the implementation of a disguised national preference". In a press release, these organizations declared that this law introduces "discriminatory criteria in access to social benefits" and that its application would lead to "unequal treatment between French citizens and regular foreign residents".

The validation of this text by the National Assembly will lead to "a major breach of equality", insist these charitable organizations in their press release, stressing that the entry into force of this law will plunge many families, children and the elderly into "precariousness". Worse, this text will "call into question the universal nature of social protection" which is "a guarantee of integration and cohesion", adds the note, indicating that this "dangerous precedent" could be "extended" to students, the unemployed, and even to the sick or disabled.

Rather than "generating savings" for the State, this measure could "increase other costly and less effective public spending related to the use of emergency devices", these associations also note.