The president of Horizons reveals, in an interview published by “L’Express” on Monday, her vision on immigration, while the right and the government are seeking common ground on the subject.
The former prime minister reveals his views on immigration. In an interview with the magazine The Express (article reserved for subscribers), published Monday, June 5, Edouard Philippe advocates the questioning of a 1968 agreement with Algeria on migration issues. He also distills several standpoints against a “immigration of the fait accompli”while the subject agitates the majority and the right, who are currently discussing the bill wanted by the government on this subject.
The mayor of Le Havre thus goes into detail on the agreement concluded in 1968 with Algeria, which organizes the entry, stay and employment of Algerians in France, according to rules derogating from common law. On certain points, the Algerians are favored compared to other foreigners (in particular as regards family reunification), on others they are losers (in particular for the students).
This text “completely determines the law applicable to the entry and stay of Algerian nationals, with stipulations which are much more favorable than common law. This is a very clear feature. No national of another State benefits from such advantages “believes the former Prime Minister. “Of course, there are extremely powerful historical relations between France and Algeria, but the maintenance today of such a system with a country with which we have complicated relations no longer seems justified to me”continues Edouard Philippe.
A “very strong increase in the number of foreigners” since the 2000s
In this interview, the president of Horizons evokes a “immigration of the fait accompli” in France, with “a very strong acceleration in the increase in the number of foreigners” since the early 2000s. And “the geographical origin of foreigners has also changed”he also notes, with a greater proportion of foreigners coming from North Africa and sub-Saharan Africa. “During this period, the French population increased by 9% and the number of foreigners increased by 53%. And nothing in this evolution corresponds to a political choice or a decision that we would have taken”adds the Norman aedile.
Edouard Philippe claims to be tackling “three unsaid” in matters of immigration. “First, we say that we want fewer foreigners in France, but when a certain number of our fellow citizens say so, they are actually targeting people who have been French, sometimes for three generations. control of the entry of foreigners into France which will solve this problem. It is a subject of integration, education, good citizenship”. “The second unsaid concerns Islam”became “a central subject, a disturbing subject, a haunting subject”.
“Finally, there is the unspoken work. Many French people find that there are too many foreigners in France, but in Parisian restaurants, in the tourist industry, in the agricultural sector, in a whole series of economic sectors which are not in crisis and which are essential to French success, we are relying on a quite impressive number of foreigners”develops the ex-tenant of Matignon.
A law proposed by the executive “necessary” but “not sufficient”
The former prime minister says “very supportive of the proposals made by Gérald Darmanin and Olivier Dussopt”while the executive is looking for ways to a parliamentary majority with LR on the immigration side. “This law is necessary, but I know it is not sufficient”he nevertheless points out.
He says to himself “opposed to any massive regularization and favorable to the principle proposed by Olivier Dussopt, which consists in allowing people exercising professional activities in sectors where the national interest requires to be able to continue to do so. I would prefer that this regularization be done at the case by case”.
Finally, he states that he understands “the objective pursued by LR”which wants to modify the Constitution in order to be able to derogate from European and international law, but “this proposal is not satisfactory in its terms. It would be interpreted for what it is, that is to say a form of legal Frexit”.