Charles Sitzenstuhl is a Renaissance deputy for Bas-Rhin.
THE FIGARO. - Should the Annecy tragedy push the government to show more firmness?
Charles SITZENSTUHL.- The time has come first and foremost for contemplation and support for the victims of this atrocious tragedy. We need decency and not political recuperation. It is up to the judiciary 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 share of immigrants of 7.3% in France, today we are at 10.3% in 2021, according to INSEE data. This is a significant increase that poses some difficulties.
In this area, we do not just need firmness, we need much more firmness! We must reduce legal immigration into our country. For example, I am in favour of there being annual quotas, a reduction in long-stay visas and implementing the automatic expulsion of foreigners convicted of the most serious crimes and offences. As far as asylum seekers are concerned, we must speed up the processing of cases. Any first refusal of asylum must be equivalent to expulsion and any convicted refugee must have his or her asylum status withdrawn.
We must move towards a restriction of AME, refocusing it on emergency care, communicable diseases and vaccination. We can also tighten the conditions of allocation, think about the duration of attribution and increase the duration of prior residence.
Charles Sitzenstuhl is a Renaissance deputy for Bas-Rhin
Proposals that are also those of the Republicans, who do not seem ready for the moment to vote the bill of Gérald Darmanin. 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 that 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 LR MP 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 raised 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, so we must be able to take stock.
In your opinion, what would be the avenues of evolution for a hardening of state medical aid?
We must move towards a restriction of AME, refocusing it on emergency care, communicable diseases and vaccination. We can also tighten the conditions of allocation, think about the duration of attribution and increase the duration of prior residence. Furthermore, we do not have any data on the nationality of the applicants, it would be interesting to be able to obtain them. We must no longer dodge this debate as the left does!