FlexiLingoA world without borders, passports or visas
The task
4 min 30 · no preparationVous allez exprimer votre point de vue sur une question de société, sans préparation. L'examinateur vous pose la question suivante : « Selon vous, peut-on imaginer un monde où les frontières n'existeraient plus, où l'on voyagerait sans passeport et sans visa ? Expliquez votre position et justifiez-la. » Vous disposez de 4 minutes 30 pour parler de façon continue. Présentez des arguments clairs, appuyez-les par des exemples et concluez. L'examinateur n'intervient pas pendant votre exposé.
TCF Canada — expression orale — tâche 3
Translation of the prompt
ستعبّر عن وجهة نظرك في قضية مجتمعية دون تحضير مسبق. يطرح عليك الممتحن السؤال التالي: «برأيك، هل يمكن أن نتخيل عالماً لا توجد فيه حدود، ويسافر فيه الناس دون جواز سفر ودون تأشيرة؟ اشرح موقفك وبرّره.» أمامك 4 دقائق ونصف للتحدث بشكل متواصل. قدّم حججاً واضحة، ودعمها بأمثلة، ثم اختم. لا يتدخل الممتحن أثناء عرضك.
Translation of the prompt
You are going to express your point of view on a social issue, without preparation. The examiner asks you the following question: "In your opinion, can we imagine a world where borders no longer existed, where people would travel without a passport and without a visa? Explain your position and justify it." You have 4 minutes 30 seconds to speak continuously. Present clear arguments, support them with examples and conclude. The examiner does not intervene during your presentation.
Translation of the prompt
شما دیدگاه خود را درباره یک مسئله اجتماعی و بدون آمادگی قبلی بیان خواهید کرد. ممتحن این پرسش را از شما میپرسد: «به نظر شما، آیا میتوان دنیایی را تصور کرد که در آن دیگر مرزی وجود نداشته باشد و بتوان بدون گذرنامه و بدون ویزا سفر کرد؟ موضع خود را توضیح دهید و از آن دفاع کنید.» ۴ دقیقه و ۳۰ ثانیه فرصت دارید تا بهصورت پیوسته صحبت کنید. استدلالهای روشن ارائه دهید، آنها را با مثال تقویت کنید و نتیجهگیری کنید. ممتحن در طول سخنرانی شما مداخله نمیکند.
How to structure your answer
Introduction (20 s): rephrase the question and state your nuanced position right away: an appealing ideal, but unrealistic in the short term. For example: « À mon avis, c'est une belle utopie, mais elle me paraît très difficile à réaliser. »
First argument (1 min): present the positives, namely freedom of movement, access to opportunities and family reunification. Back them up with a concrete example: the Schengen area or ECOWAS (CEDEAO) free movement.
Second argument (1 min): present the obstacles, namely security, health controls, state sovereignty, economic imbalances and the risk of brain drain. Illustrate with the 2020 pandemic. Use « Cependant » to mark the shift.
Third argument (1 min): bring in your personal or Canadian experience: visa procedures, selective immigration, labour needs. Show that an intermediate solution is better than a world with no borders: « il vaut mieux améliorer le système que le supprimer ».
Conclusion (30 s): sum up your position and suggest gradual opening up (simpler visas, regional agreements, professional mobility). Close politely: « Je vous remercie. »
Keep talking for the full 4 min 30: the examiner does not interrupt, so you must structure your talk and fill the time with concrete examples.
Model answer
about 405 wordsMerci pour cette question, qui me touche personnellement, puisque je prépare mon projet d'immigration au Canada. Un monde sans frontière, sans passeport ni visa : est-ce possible ? À mon avis, c'est une belle utopie, mais elle me paraît très difficile à réaliser, du moins à court ou moyen terme. Je vais développer ma position en trois points.
D'abord, il faut reconnaître que l'idée est séduisante. Si les frontières disparaissaient, chacun pourrait étudier, travailler ou s'installer là où il trouve les meilleures opportunités. Les familles séparées par des décennies de démarches administratives pourraient enfin se retrouver. On a déjà des exemples encourageants : dans l'espace Schengen, des millions d'Européens circulent sans contrôle systématique, et en Afrique de l'Ouest, les citoyens de la CEDEAO peuvent voyager dans plusieurs pays de la région sans visa. Ces modèles prouvent que l'ouverture est possible entre des pays qui se font confiance.
Cependant, à l'échelle du monde entier, les obstacles sont considérables. Le premier est la sécurité : sans contrôle, il serait très difficile de lutter contre le terrorisme, les trafics ou la criminalité organisée. Le deuxième est sanitaire : la pandémie de 2020 a montré que les États ont besoin de pouvoir contrôler leurs entrées pour protéger la population. Enfin, il y a un obstacle économique. Les écarts de richesse entre les pays sont énormes. Si tout le monde pouvait partir librement, certains pays perdraient leurs médecins, leurs ingénieurs, leurs jeunes diplômés, ce qui aggraverait la fuite des cerveaux, alors que d'autres pays auraient du mal à absorber une arrivée massive de population, notamment en matière de logement et de services publics.
Troisièmement, mon expérience personnelle me montre que les règles actuelles, même contraignantes, ont une logique. Le Canada, par exemple, choisit ses immigrants selon ses besoins en main-d'œuvre et sa capacité d'accueil. C'est exigeant pour les candidats comme moi : il faut réunir des documents, passer des tests de langue, attendre des mois. Mais ce système permet une intégration plus organisée. Je pense donc qu'il vaut mieux améliorer le système que le supprimer.
Pour conclure, je ne crois pas qu'un monde totalement sans frontière soit réaliste aujourd'hui, car la sécurité, la santé publique et l'équilibre économique restent des préoccupations légitimes. En revanche, on peut avancer vers plus de liberté : des visas plus simples et plus rapides, des accords régionaux de libre circulation et une meilleure reconnaissance des diplômes. Ce serait une étape réaliste vers un monde plus ouvert et plus juste. Je vous remercie.
Show the translation
Thank you for this question, which touches me personally, since I am preparing my immigration project to Canada. A world without borders, without passport or visa: is it possible? In my opinion, it is a beautiful utopia, but it seems to me very difficult to achieve, at least in the short or medium term. I will develop my position in three points.
First, we must acknowledge that the idea is appealing. If borders disappeared, everyone could study, work or settle wherever they find the best opportunities. Families separated by decades of administrative procedures could finally be reunited. There are already encouraging examples: in the Schengen area, millions of Europeans travel without systematic checks, and in West Africa, citizens of ECOWAS can travel to several countries in the region without a visa. These models prove that openness is possible between countries that trust one another.
However, on the scale of the whole world, the obstacles are considerable. The first is security: without controls, it would be very difficult to fight terrorism, trafficking or organised crime. The second is health-related: the 2020 pandemic showed that States need to be able to control their entries in order to protect the population. Finally, there is an economic obstacle. The wealth gaps between countries are enormous. If everyone could leave freely, some countries would lose their doctors, their engineers, their young graduates, which would worsen the brain drain, while other countries would struggle to absorb a massive arrival of people, particularly in terms of housing and public services.
Thirdly, my personal experience shows me that the current rules, even restrictive ones, have a logic. Canada, for example, chooses its immigrants according to its labour needs and its capacity to receive them. It is demanding for applicants like me: you have to gather documents, take language tests, wait for months. But this system allows a more organised integration. So I think it is better to improve the system than to abolish it.
To conclude, I do not believe that a totally borderless world is realistic today, because security, public health and economic balance remain legitimate concerns. On the other hand, we can move towards more freedom: simpler and faster visas, regional free-movement agreements and better recognition of diplomas. This would be a realistic step towards a more open and fairer world. Thank you.
Key vocabulary
| Word or phrase | Meaning |
|---|---|
| la libre circulation | the right to move from one country to another without special authorisation |
| la souveraineté | a state's power to make decisions on its own over its territory (sovereignty) |
| la fuite des cerveaux | brain drain: highly qualified people leaving for other countries |
| une utopie | an attractive ideal that is difficult or impossible to achieve |
| la main-d'œuvre | the workforce: all the workers available in a country |
| la capacité d'accueil | the number of people a country can receive in good conditions (absorption capacity) |
| le contrôle aux frontières | border control: checking people and documents on entering a country |
| la réunification familiale | family reunification: allowing family members to live together in the same country |
| un accord régional | an agreement between several neighbouring countries, for example on the movement of people |
| l'immigration choisie | selective immigration: a policy in which the state selects immigrants according to its needs |
Common mistakes
Do not confuse « émigrer » (to leave your own country) with « immigrer » (to arrive in a country). Saying you immigrated from Morocco to Canada is correct, but « émigrer au Canada » is often used wrongly. The point of view matters: you emigrate from a country and immigrate to one.
WrongJ'ai émigré au Canada.
RightJ'ai immigré au Canada.
Stating that a world without borders or visas is possible, with no nuance. The examiners expect a reasoned position with arguments, not a one-sentence answer.
WrongUn monde sans frontières ni visas est possible.
« Malgré que » is often used with the indicative, which is wrong. Prefer « bien que » + subjunctive, or « malgré » + noun.
WrongMalgré que les règles sont strictes, …
RightBien que les règles soient strictes, … / Malgré la rigueur des règles, …
Forgetting the subjunctive after « il faut que », or conjugating it incorrectly (imperfect instead of present subjunctive). Also avoid clumsy constructions like « pour que on voyage »: use « pour qu'on voyage ».
WrongIl faut que les États contrôlaient leurs entrées.
RightIl faut que les États contrôlent leurs entrées.
Using redundant or invented expressions such as « aujourd'hui en jour » or « de nos jours actuels ». Say simply « de nos jours » or « aujourd'hui ».
Wrongde nos jours actuels
Rightde nos jours
Speaking for less than 4 minutes or stopping after two ideas. You must structure your talk and use all the time given, with concrete examples.
Number errors with « frontière ». « Sans frontière » (singular) is acceptable in the set expression, but use the plural « les frontières » when you talk about states' borders in general. Watch the pronunciation and agreement too.
Overusing basic connectors (« et », « mais », « aussi ») instead of varying them. Use « cependant », « en revanche », « par ailleurs », « en outre », « par conséquent ».
WrongIl y a des avantages, mais il y a aussi des risques, et aussi des coûts.
RightIl y a des avantages ; cependant, il y a aussi des risques. En outre, les coûts sont importants.
The grammar this task needs
The subjunctive after expressions of necessity and concession (il faut que, bien que, pour que)
Your argument rests on what States must do and on concessions ('attractive, although unrealistic'). The examiner listens for correct subjunctive forms. Note that 'malgré que' is discouraged in careful French: use 'bien que' + subjunctive or 'malgré' + noun.
- Il faut que les États puissent contrôler leurs entrées en cas de crise sanitaire.
- Bien que l'idée soit séduisante, elle reste difficile à réaliser.
- Pour que la libre circulation fonctionne, il faut que les pays se fassent confiance.
The conditional and the 'si' clause (si + imparfait → conditionnel présent)
The question is hypothetical ('a world without borders'). You must imagine consequences with 'si' + imperfect, then the present conditional. Never put the conditional after 'si'.
- Si les frontières disparaissaient, chacun pourrait s'installer où il le souhaite.
- Si tout le monde pouvait partir librement, certains pays perdraient leurs médecins.
- Si les visas étaient plus simples, les familles se retrouveraient plus vite.
Connectors of contrast, concession and consequence
A 4 min 30 monologue needs logical links to hold together. Varying connectors (instead of 'et', 'mais', 'aussi') is a strong marker of B2–C1 level.
- Cependant, à l'échelle mondiale, les obstacles sont considérables.
- En revanche, on peut avancer vers plus de liberté grâce à des accords régionaux.
- Par conséquent, il vaut mieux améliorer le système que le supprimer.
Vocabulary precision: émigrer / immigrer and the use of the definite article with abstract nouns
The topic is migration, so you will use these verbs. 'Émigrer' means leaving one's country, 'immigrer' means arriving in another; the choice depends on the point of view. Be careful too with the singular/plural of 'frontière(s)'.
- Beaucoup de jeunes diplômés émigrent pour trouver de meilleures opportunités.
- Mon projet est d'immigrer au Canada.
- Les frontières protègent la souveraineté des États.
Phrases to reuse
| Phrase | When to use it |
|---|---|
| À mon avis, c'est une belle utopie, mais… | To state a nuanced position right in the introduction: you recognise the appeal of the idea while expressing your reservations. |
| Je vais développer ma position en trois points. | To announce your structure at the end of the introduction. It shows the examiner you are organised. |
| D'abord, il faut reconnaître que + indicatif | To open the first argument by conceding what is positive in the opposing view. |
| On a déjà des exemples encourageants : … | To bring in a concrete example (Schengen, ECOWAS/CEDEAO) to support an argument. |
| Cependant, à l'échelle du monde entier, … | To turn from the advantages to the obstacles, widening the scope. |
| Le premier obstacle est…, le deuxième est… | To list several difficulties clearly in one argument (security, health, economy). |
| La pandémie de 2020 a montré que + indicatif | To support an argument with a real, recent event known to everybody. |
| Mon expérience personnelle me montre que + indicatif | To move to a personal example, which makes the answer more convincing and more natural. |
| Je pense donc qu'il vaut mieux + infinitif que + infinitif | To draw a conclusion by comparing two options (improve rather than abolish). |
| Pour conclure, je ne crois pas que + subjonctif | To open the conclusion; after a negated 'croire' the subjunctive is the usual choice. |
| En revanche, on peut avancer vers + nom | To end on a constructive proposal after a reservation. |
| Ce serait une étape réaliste vers + nom | To close with a measured, forward-looking sentence before 'Je vous remercie'. |
Ideas bank
| Position | Argument | Example |
|---|---|---|
| For | Freedom of movement gives access to better studies, jobs and living conditions, wherever one is born. | A talented engineer from a poor region could work where her skills are most useful instead of waiting years for a visa. |
| For | Without borders, families separated by administrative procedures could be reunited. | Parents and children who have waited ten years for family reunification could finally live together. |
| For | Existing regional models show that opening borders can work between countries that trust each other. | In the Schengen area, millions of Europeans cross borders daily without systematic checks; ECOWAS citizens travel visa-free in several West African countries. |
| For | Borders and visas are costly and sometimes unfair: they favour holders of 'strong' passports. | Some citizens can enter dozens of countries visa-free, while others must produce many documents and wait months for an appointment. |
| Against | Security: without controls it would be harder to fight terrorism, trafficking and organised crime. | Border checks allow police services to detect wanted persons or illegal goods. |
| Against | Public health: States need to be able to control entries during an epidemic. | During the 2020 pandemic, many countries closed their borders or imposed tests and quarantines to protect their population. |
| Against | Economic imbalance: huge gaps in wealth would worsen the brain drain and put pressure on host countries. | A country could lose its doctors and engineers, while another would struggle to provide housing and public services for a sudden mass arrival. |
| Against | State sovereignty: each State wants to decide who enters and under what conditions. | Canada selects its immigrants according to its labour needs and its capacity to receive them. |
| Nuance | The current system is demanding but has a logic; it is better to improve it than to abolish it. | Document collection, language tests and waiting months are hard for applicants like me, but they allow better organised integration. |
| Nuance | A progressive opening is a realistic middle path. | Simpler and faster visas, regional free-movement agreements, better recognition of diplomas and professional mobility. |
What the examiner looks for
The examiner is looking for a clear, nuanced position stated at the start and held to the end: here, 'an attractive ideal, but unrealistic in the short term', not a one-sentence yes or no. They expect three well-organised arguments, each backed by concrete examples (Schengen, ECOWAS, the 2020 pandemic, Canada's immigration system), and a real conclusion with a proposal. They also assess whether you can speak continuously for almost the full 4 min 30, with varied connectors, correct subjunctive and conditional, and precise migration vocabulary. A personal touch is welcome, as long as it supports the argument.