This paper aims to clarify the relationships between public and private actors in immigration policy, by examining the 1920s debate on the introduction of foreign workers to France. The French government began recruiting foreign workers, based on bilateral treaties signed with Poland, Itary, and Czechoslovakia in September 1919 and March 1920. It regarted the introduction of foreign workers as necessary to carry out its economic development plans. Responsibility for overseeing immigration, however, was shared among several government ministries and agencies, and jurisdictional conflicts arose among them. Although the Parliament also discussed bills for creating a responsible agency, the ongoing conflicts prevented the realization of immigration policy reform. The National Manpower Council, charged by Parliament with resolving the issue, was ultimately able to adopt only such passive measures as strengthening cooperation among existing organizations. While the Parliament failed to establish an agency with overall responsibility for immigration policy, the Societe generale d'immigration (SGI), founded by professional organizations in 1924, developed processes for the recruitment and introduction of foreign workers from Eastern Europe and expanded its influence at home and abroad. Representatives of the SGI maintained a cooperative relationship with members of Parliament and with the administration through the Permanent Interministerial Immigration Commission and the National Manpower Council. Nevertheless, these relationships were greatly altered at the end of 1928 as a result of pressure from Polish authorities. The Interministerial Commission analysed the transference fees charged by SGI, which the Polish authorities regarded as problematic, and decided as a result of its discussions to intensify its control over all private organizations, including the SGI. Not only did the relationship between Agriculture Ministry and SGI representatives deteriorate in the process, but conflicts between Agriculture and Labour Ministy agents also came to the fore. That is, the Labour Ministry was friendlier to the SGI than was the Agriculture Ministry. This is significant because it highlights the fact that we cannot regard the relationship of the actors as one of binary opposition between the public and private sectors. This paper concludes that the actors, whether public- or private-sector, tightened their connections even as they opposed each other, leading gradually to the formation of contemporary immigration policy.