Scrupulously Destroying France
Here are excerpts, slightly edited, from an English-language article at France 24, about Interior Minister Manuel Valls' immigration policies:
French Interior Minister Manuel Valls wants to wipe the slate clean. At a Senate committee hearing Wednesday, Valls announced the new French administration’s intention to axe some of the controversial immigration procedures introduced under former French President Nicolas Sarkozy.
Valls noted that he would like to see more objectivity in the process without necessarily making broad concessions on France’s immigration policy.
The "naturalization criteria surreptitiously introduced by my predecessor" (Claude Guéant) were like a "random, discriminatory obstacle course,” he told the Senate committee Wednesday.
During his presidency, Sarkozy made the integration of immigrants a key domestic issue, implementing several policy reviews during his five-year term before he was voted out of office in May 2012.
Note: We must not allow ourselves to be fooled by the media's attempts to paint Nicolas Sarkozy as a type of Benjamin Disraeli. Since he left office he is depicted as anti-immigration, anti-euthanasia, anti-crime, anti-Socialist, etc… Lest we forget that his "openness" allowed Socialists from the Mitterrand era to return to center-stage, that he allowed in two million immigrants, hinted often at general amnesty for illegals, watched while crime ran rampant, vacillated on all ethical issues, and famously proclaimed métissage a national duty. The Socialists in power today are like Sarkozy, but more so. (To put it differently, Sarkozy was just a tad less than Hollande.) In America, it is the same thing. Now that Bush has been replaced by Obama, people say "Oh don't you miss Bush?" Well, no, I don't.
Until 2010, naturalization decisions for immigrants across France were made at a central office in the western city of Nantes, making it a fairly straightforward administrative procedure.
But after the previous administration transferred the responsibility for that process from the Nantes office to local prefectures, naturalization decisions were made at the discretion of each jurisdiction. As a result, between 2010 and 2011, the number of naturalizations dropped from 94, 573 to 66, 273.
"Earlier, naturalization was a gateway to integration. Today, the logic is completely reversed. Naturalization has become a certificate of good conduct," wrote immigration specialist Catherine de Wenden in the left-leaning French daily, Libération, in May 2012.
Note: What she is saying is that she opposes any attempt to make naturalization something you earn. Instead, it should just be given to you, so you can integrate, and make your demands on European society more freely. This woman is similar to Cecilia Malmström, the EU Interior Commissioner. Two peas out of the same pod, or as I like to say "two pods out of the same pee."
High on the list of procedures Valls intends to axe is the test of French culture and history. A new decree, published in January 2012, which comes into effect July 1, officially scraps the culture and history test.
The old test, which was for immigrants with primary school level education, featured multiple choice questions such as, “Whom do you associate with the Arc de Triomphe? a) Napoleon b) General de Gaulle c) Julius Caesar?" Another question asked candidates to select the date for the abolition of slavery - from a choice of 1848, 1918 or 1968.
(…)
According to Valls, the previous administration’s "deliberate policy to exclude deserving people” from the process has resulted in a "free fall” in naturalisations.
(…)
"The challenge of immigration is to ensure that naturalisation is no longer seen, or perceived, as the end of an obstacle course, but as a process of integration,” he said.
The new procedures were welcomed by France Terre d'Asile, a Paris-based immigrant rights group. "It’s a step in the right direction, but we need more information and details,” said Matthew Tardis, head of the organization, in an interview with FRANCE 24. “We need to limit the arbitrary nature of naturalization procedures where local prefectures hold discretionary powers. The law must be the same for all. We need a clear framework."
It’s a sentiment echoed by Eduardo Rhian Cypel, a Socialist parliamentarian and spokesman for France Terre d'Asile. “We need objective criteria. These are conventional criteria in the French Republic: residency in the country, for how many years, do you have a job, do you have children who are in school? These new rules will be much simpler,” said the Brazilian-born politician, who is himself a naturalized French citizen. “A strong France is a France that is capable of accepting newcomers to the national community."
Yes. A strong body is one capable of accepting E-coli, botulism, rattlesnake poison and potassium cyanide into its bloodstream. How strong that body will be! How enriched!
Besides the above edifying statements, Valls also said, to a French Senate committee:
"I will scrupulously preserve the Schengen Space agreement."
"I will scrupulously continue to destroy France as my predecessors have done."
"I firmly refuse any unilateral closing of the borders…"
Steeve Briois, general secretary of the Front National reacts to Manuel Valls' potential reforms:
Manuel Valls announcement of his intent to modify the naturalization criteria sounds like publicity for the sale of French nationality.
Manuel Valls fantasizes about a model that has already been put to the test, that made nationality almost an automatic acquisition and that has led to the economic situation and identitarian catastrophe that we are now experiencing.
Valls is wrong on several points:
He claims that integration is possible and beneficial. We insist that this is impossible when French ID cards are distributed with assembly-line speed: only assimilation of a controlled number of individuals is viable in a country that claims to want its immigrants to become full-fledged Frenchmen.
He believes Claude Guéant turned naturalization into an "obstacle course." This is totally false, he turned it into a 100-meter sprint!
(We) perceive Valls' intentions as the exact opposite of what needs to be done. First, it is imperative to leave the Schengen Space and recover our sovereignty and the control of our borders.
And it is time to open a real debate on immigration and on naturalization reform: the French people must be able to decide who can become their fellow-citizens, and how this is to be done!
Only the Front National is clear and unequivocal on these subjects. The UMP cannot puff up with pride: they were as much zealots as Valls is today.
Labels: Dhimmitude, Immigration, Manuel Valls, National Identity


11 Comments:
This Mesieur Valis is a useful functionaire of the decrepit and denigrating Hollande army of traitors. Valis is doing everyhting according to the chapter and, verse of the book; the EU diktats regarding immigration, invasion and population replacement program for the erstwhile european nation states. Reading in the press something very identical is taking place in Greece. there some education minister is likewise in simile Valis fashion corrupting and tergiversing Grrek history; doing away with prayers and worship in the schools, and other degenerative aberrations of legal legerdemain, all in line with the EU diktat. The sooner France exits the den of thieves and diabolical scheemers of the population replacement firm in Brussels, the quicker her way back to recovery. The EU Brussels anti european, anti identitarian, race mixing nuclei has nothing to offer to France and other nations like her.
Manuel Valls was speaking warmly for immigration today, referring to himself as an immigrant from Spain.
As if the Spaniards were the problem of today.
If the french political leaders are "Scrupulously Destroying France" and are an "army of traitors", then what will you do, my belowed members of the counterjihad movement? Will you put car bombs near their offices and use assault rifles at their outside meetings, like Anders Behring Breivik did?
DP111 wrote..
EU apparatchiks never fail to remind us that we need immigrants from outside Europe to support pensions, and the health services, as the population of Europe is falling.
But the question is how such immigrants are going to support European pensioners, when the first thing they do when they are in Europe, is to register with the Benefits agency.
Mr. Krebs,
This is at least the second time you have brought up Breivik, as if you think I, or my readers, identify in some way with this killer who has been declared insane by the Norwegian authorities. In case you are unaware, insane people are not rational, even though they may follow an internal logic of their own, and Mr. Beivik is not an exception. To regard him as a "patriot", a "conservative", a "traditionalist", or as an "anti-jihadist", as some have done and continue to do, is evidence of ignorance, for his deed is in no way patriotic, conservative, traditionalist or anti-jihad. He is a dysfunctional violent personality and is a threat to society and has to be locked up or, preferably, executed, except for Norway's liberal laws. His so-called Manifesto, which I have not read, has been thoroughly analyzed by others, and has been shown to be a hodgepodge of references to people and websites covering a wide spectrum of belief systems, not just anti-Islamists, or right-wing writers, but others as well, such as Aristotle, Churchill and Mohammed.
Read Daniel Pipes:
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2012/07/left-distorts-breivik
Breivik's inner agitation, frustrations, and desires fed on a wide variety of advanced and difficult reading material, that prompted him in some way to commit an atrocity. And you dare to say that I, or my readers, are like that? If I bring up the possibility of future violence, it is because we are in a civilizational struggle of great magnitude, as you well know, and we all envision with horror the possibility of future violence, which could easily be prevented by declaring immigration over, repatriating Muslims to their proper homelands, and re-educating our children to believe in their past, their culture, their religion, and the values that made Western civilization. But we are nowhere near that longed-for day. We are still in a situation of invasion and take-over by elements alien to our Judeo-Christian-Hellenic-Roman roots. Islam, Feminism, Communism and Socialism, Homosexualism, Atheism, and other alien ideologies threaten us and force us into obedience. At some future point, we may have to fight, and I hope we have the courage to fight bravely to the end.
As you have done in the past, out of ignorance, I presume, you have associated me and this website with wanting to kill innocent people, as Breivik did. I reserve the right to ban such comments, and to refuse to answer any e-mail you may send pretending to be surprised that your comments are banned.
We are fighting for our survival, mostly with words for now. Breivik was acting out a violent self-aggrandizing fantasy. If you do not know what it means to fight for survival, you are not a very good jihadist.
When they have succeeded in destroying France, what is their plan for their children and their future?
"At some future point, we may have to fight, and I hope we have the courage to fight bravely to the end." (tiberge)
What is the meaninig of "fight" in this sentence?
"you have associated me and this website with wanting to kill innocent people, as Breivik did." (tiberge) I am sorry, I made a mistake. I do not think that you want to kill people, I do not know if you want to kill people. I did not want to claim or to imply that you want to kill people. My appologies.
"wanting to kill innocent people, as Breivik did." (tiberge) Are you claiming that the people Breivik wanted to kill are innocent in your opinion?
"We are fighting for our survival, mostly with words for now." (tiberge) This is very interesting, since it imply that you and the counterjihad movement could fight with more than words, today or later.
"If you do not know what it means to fight for survival, you are not a very good jihadist." (tiberge) Are you claiming that I am a jihadist?
If the french political leaders are "Scrupulously Destroying France" and are an "army of traitors", then what will you do, my belowed members of the counterjihad movement? Will you put car bombs near their offices and use assault rifles at their outside meetings?
Mr. Krebs,
What is the meaning of "fight" in this sentence?
"Fight" means "fight". A battle to save our civilization. It will no doubt be an uneven fight, since we have so many enemies, both within and without our boundaries. We are guilty of not protecting our borders, our national institutions, our education systems, our religious and ethical principles. Therefore, we are the underdogs, and we will probably lose. But I hope nonetheless that we will fight if we have to. It may be that violence can still be averted. Or it may be that violence will not be necessary because nobody will be willing or able to fight.
wanting to kill innocent people, as Breivik did." (tiberge) Are you claiming that the people Breivik wanted to kill are innocent in your opinion?
As far as I know they were not engaged in warfare. They were not soldiers. They were not thugs or gangsters. They were mostly young people gathered on an island. Their views and beliefs may not be mine, but that is not the point. You do not kill someone who does not share your beliefs. Yes, they were innocent. And what are you implying? That they were guilty and deserved to die???
If you do not know what it means to fight for survival, you are not a very good jihadist." (tiberge) Are you claiming that I am a jihadist?
Of course I assume you are on the side of Islam. On the side of the Islamic infiltration into our institutions. You may not be an active jihadist in the sense of being a suicide bomber but you are not on the side of the traditional Western civilization. If you are not a jihadist, but only a sympathizer, please say so. If you are not a sympathizer, say so. If you are anti-jihad, say so. State what you are. You come here and interrogate me as if you do not understand what my beliefs are, although I have made that perfectly clear. Now you tell us who you are and what you believe.
P.S. If you are not a jihadist, or a sympathizer with the jihad, then I apologize for implying you are. However, if you are not pro-jihad, then what is your point in interrogating me. Are you with Western civilization, or against it? As I said above, tell us where you stand.
« "Fight" means "fight" » (tiberge)
From http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fight%5B2%5D
"Definition of FIGHT
1
a : a hostile encounter : battle, combat
b : a boxing match
c : a verbal disagreement : argument
2
: a struggle for a goal or an objective"
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fight
"a purposeful violent conflict meant to weaken, or establish dominance over the opposition, or to kill the opposition, or drive the opposition away from a location where it is not wanted or needed. [...] the more general term "fighting" can refer to any violent conflict between individuals or nations. [...] Combat may take place under a specific set of rules or be unregulated. Examples of rules include the Geneva Conventions (covering the treatment of soldiers in war), medieval Chivalry, the Marquess of Queensberry rules (covering boxing) and several forms of combat sports. [...]"
"You do not kill someone who does not share your beliefs." (tiberge) Indeed, I do not kill someone who does not share my beliefs.
"Yes, they were innocent. And what are you implying?" (tiberge) This claim that the people Breivik wanted to kill are innocent in your opinion is contradicting with your claim that Manuel Valls (and the previous French Interior ministers?) is "Scrupulously Destroying France" (and more broadly your claims about the Europeans governements and Europeans political parties). Does it bother you? Are you used to doublethink? Have you changed your mind? Do you now disagree that the Europeans governements and Europeans political parties are guilty of bad politics since decades?
"Of course I assume you are on the side of Islam." (tiberge) This tell how your judgments can be accurate. This also remind me the famous "You are either with us or you are against us".
"State what you are." (tiberge) I am an European, a Frenchman, and I am against people and organisations that spread lies, misinformation, hate speech (and sometime rampage) angainst me, my country (my continent) and my compatriots, whether from muslim fundamentalists or from the counterjihad movement.
"You come here and interrogate me as if you do not understand what my beliefs are, although I have made that perfectly clear." (tiberge) On the contrary, you are not clear. You claim you disgust of the current European population and its intelligentsia, but you do not say what you want to do to them, if you want to kill them, to brainwash then, or something else. One day you claim European leaders are "Scrupulously Destroying France", the next day you claim they are innocent. I do not understand what are your beliefs.
"Are you with Western civilization, or against it?" (tiberge) I am with Western civilization. With current Western civilization. I do not want to go back to the Middle Ages. I don't want to burn witches and hang blacks. I support freedom of tough, education of children, birth control right for both men and women, accountability of goverments. I am not a fascist, a creationist or a racist, especially not toward my country, which I am proud of. I do not call my compatriots garbage, antisemite, emasculated men, surrender monkeys, decadent (even when they don't kill Muslim at sigh or aren't before-Vatican 2 catholic churchgoer).
Are Jens Stoltenberg and Manuel Valls innocent?
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home