French Prime Minister François Bayrou ignited political controversy with his remarks on immigration, characterizing France as approaching a "feeling of submersion". This statement, made during a January 27, 2025 interview on LCI, immediately received backlash from various political leaders, sparking fierce debates over the nation's immigration policy.
During his discussion, Bayrou pointed out, "I think foreign contributions are positive for a people, provided they do not exceed a proportion." He elaborated, saying, "But as soon as you have the feeling of submersion, of no longer recognizing your country, the ways of life, or the culture, at this point, you have rejection." His remarks suggested concerns about cultural integration and immigration thresholds, which many interpreted as aligning with sentiments more commonly expressed by right-wing factions.
Responding sharply to Bayrou’s comments, Yaël Braun-Pivet, the President of the National Assembly, stated, "I would never have made these remarks, and they disturb me. We are talking about men and women, about our country, France, which, due to its history, geography, and culture, has always welcomed and has been built with this tradition." She emphasized the positive contributions of immigrants to French society and asserted, "it is contrary to what we are deeply. I don’t use those words and I never will."
Firestorm criticism was also echoed by Manuel Bompard of La France Insoumise, who felt Bayrou’s statements were "extremely shocking" and noted, "It does not correspond at all to reality." Bompard pointed out statistical evidence showing foreigners made up only 7.7% of the French population, according to INSEE data from 2021, underscoring the gradual increase from past years without any dramatic spikes.
Cyrielle Chatelain, the leader of the ecologist deputies, joined the chorus of critics, declaring, "It's shameful; it shocked me greatly for a Prime Minister to use the term 'migratory submersion' and perpetuate this false idea." She emphasized the need for rational discussions on immigration rather than invoking fear-based language, arguing for a broader view rather than viewing immigration solely through the lens of interior ministry policies.
Braun-Pivet added additional layers to the conversation, highlighting the importance of viewing the immigration issue holistically, rather than through fear-inducing rhetoric. "I think we need to stop seeing it through the prism of the interior ministry. It is much larger than this,” she remarked, pushing for constructive dialogue rather than sensationalism.
Bayrou’s comments also reflect political dynamics leading up to potential discussions about immigration referendums, which have been hotly debated among right-wing and extreme right factions. Though Bayrou hinted at the need for regulation, he dismissed calls for referendums, stating these often perpetuate oversimplistic narratives about immigration to the point of misleading the public.
The controversy unveiled the ideological divide within French politics, showing how immigration remains one of the most contentious issues. Many left-leaning leaders are adamant about framing immigration not as a crisis but as part of France's rich history of integration and multiculturalism.
With increasing divisions apparent among political factions, it is evident how language plays a pivotal role. Words like ‘submersion’ carry weight—the weight of history and emotion, especially for those who view immigration through historical lenses of inclusion. Braun-Pivet's remarks serve as reminders of France's longstanding tradition of hospitality and the need to embrace rather than reject the narratives of incoming communities.
The debate on immigration is not just about numbers; it's intertwined with national identity, values, and the socio-political fabric of the nation. The challenges of tomorrow require discussions rooted not merely in fears or numbers but grounded in France’s historical commitments to human rights and dignity, values upheld by its rich cultural legacy. Surely, as leaders on all sides react to the current discourse, the gravity of their words should resonate meaningfully with the public.