Endorsing migration policies in constitutional terms : the case of the French Constitutional Council

Abstract

This article sets out to inquire into the French Constitutional Council's approach when dealing with immigration matters. It seeks to demonstrate how the Council's case law has endorsed, for the most part, the legislator's immigration policies, recognizing extensive police powers and striking down only the most excessive provisions of immigration laws. It is argued here that the Council's seemingly neutral methods of reasoning are in fact politically oriented instruments providing stable support for restrictive immigration policy preferences. An overall analysis of the Council's case law sheds critical light on the main methods of reasoning advanced by the Council to endorse immigration policies, even in their most recent restrictive trends. The Council has clearly opted in favor of stricter immigration control, deliberately rejecting a rights-based approach.