Post a Comment Print Share on Facebook

Charles Sitzenstuhl (Renaissance): "We must reduce legal immigration to France"

Charles Sitzenstuhl is a Renaissance deputy for Bas-Rhin.

- 2 reads.

Charles Sitzenstuhl (Renaissance): "We must reduce legal immigration to France"

Charles Sitzenstuhl is a Renaissance deputy for Bas-Rhin.

LE FIGARO. - Should the Annecy tragedy push the government to show more firmness?

Charles SITZENSTUHL.- The time is first for contemplation and support for the victims of this atrocious tragedy. It takes decency and no political recovery. It is up to the courts to investigate the reasons that led this man to commit this abominable act.

An immigration bill is due to arrive in Parliament soon. What should it contain?

On immigration issues, we must stop having gazelle modesty. I understand our compatriots who are fed up with excessive immigration. In 1999, I was 10 years old, there was a 7.3% share of immigrants in France, today we are at 10.3% in 2021, according to INSEE data. This is a non-negligible increase which poses certain difficulties.

In this area, it doesn't just take toughness, it takes much more toughness! We must reduce legal immigration to our country. For example, I am in favor of there being annual quotas, a reduction in long-stay visas and that we implement the automatic expulsion of foreigners convicted of the most serious crimes and offences. Regarding asylum seekers, we must speed up the processing of files. Any first refusal of asylum must be tantamount to expulsion and any convicted refugee must have their asylum status withdrawn.

Proposals which are also those of the Republicans, who do not seem ready for the moment to vote for Gérald Darmanin's bill. Is a political compromise possible in the Assembly to find a majority on this text between the left wing of Renaissance and LR?

I hope there will be an agreement with Les Républicains and I trust the political talent of Gérald Darmanin to achieve this.

This week, you abstained on the motion for a resolution by MP LR Véronique Louwagie aimed at tightening the conditions for granting state medical aid (AME). Your group had however clearly expressed its desire to reject this text. Why this choice ?

It was a voluntary abstention, and benevolent vis-à-vis the debate posed by Les Républicains on state medical aid. There should be no taboo on this subject. This is a policy that costs the State 1.2 billion euros and concerns 400,000 beneficiaries. Why not talk about it? I note that the AME is one of the recurring subjects of exasperation mentioned by our fellow citizens.

The AME is not a national social achievement, it is only a public policy put in place by the State in 1999, it is therefore necessary to be able to draw up an assessment.

What do you think would be the avenues of evolution for a tightening of state medical aid?

We must move towards a restriction of the AME, refocusing it on emergency care, contagious diseases and vaccination. We can also tighten the conditions of allocation, think about the duration of allocation and increase the duration of prior residence. Moreover, we have no data on the nationality of the applicants, it would be interesting to be able to obtain some. Do not dodge this debate like the left does!

Your Name
Post a Comment
Characters Left:
Your comment has been forwarded to the administrator for approval.×
Warning! Will constitute a criminal offense, illegal, threatening, offensive, insulting and swearing, derogatory, defamatory, vulgar, pornographic, indecent, personality rights, damaging or similar nature in the nature of all kinds of financial content, legal, criminal and administrative responsibility for the content of the sender member / members are belong.