Sunday, December 02, 2012

Opening the Floodgates


It looks like Interior Minister Manuel Valls (above) is going to be very firm with illegal immigrants. The longer they remain illegally in France, the greater the risk he will make them French citizens! At least that is the implication of the reforms contained in a circular sent to the ministers. Novopress reports:

The circular from the Interior Ministry on amnesty for illegal aliens was presented on Wednesday to the Council of Ministers and published on Thursday (November 29) in the Journal Officiel (similar to the Federal Register). New criteria for amnesty have been established. The families of the illegal aliens will be amnestied on the condition they have been residing on French territory for five years and their children have been enrolled in school for three. Illegal workers must have been present in France for at least five years, and must have worked the last two years consecutively. Finally, young adult illegal aliens who attended school at least three years in France before their 18th birthday will be amnestied.

The most notable new feature is the slackening of certain rules. Illegal workers formerly had to work one year with the same employer. Moreover, interim activities and work from home were not counted in. Henceforth they are. As for family reunification, eighteen months of family life are now enough to be legalized, whereas before five years were necessary. Last, the test of French competency has been abandoned. It is no longer necessary to master the French language to receive your papers.

Note: It remains to be determined if those who do master French will be denied amnesty on grounds they are too French.

What will be the impact of this text on the number of legalizations? According to Manuel Valls, there will not be a significant effect on the variations in the flow of those sent back and those amnestied. Expulsions of illegal aliens were already so few and far between that it will probably not change in any way the number of those sent back.

Not surprisingly, Marine Le Pen denounced Manuel Valls' plans. This communiqué is posted at Nations Presse.

The new circular published by the Interior minister on the criteria for legalizing illegal aliens is in keeping with the policies of massive legalization begun by the Left in 1981 (130,000 amnestied) and in 1997 (more than 80,000).

Following in the footsteps of his UMP predecessors, Manuel Valls is acting as an ideologue and a fanatical immigrationist guided by one objective only: the general easing of the conditions for legalization.

This lax State policy, elevated to the level of an operational rule, is economically irresponsible at a time when unemployment is reaching new records and politically disastrous because it encourages and accelerates the ever-more-massive flow of illegal migration.

At a time when our country has been struck by an unprecedented crisis and when poverty is striking more and more Frenchmen, bleeding heart egoism from the Left should be banished.

As for illegal immigration, the State must be of unwavering firmness and apply one rule only: any illegal alien who violated the laws of the Republic by entering illegally onto French territory and staying there must be expelled and all chances of amnesty must be removed.

Labels: , , ,

5 Comments:

At December 02, 2012 11:16 AM, Blogger magnus123 (at) live.se said...

Due to an article in Dispatch International, Marine Le Pen wants a ban on all Muslim veil, and the Jewish kippa. Is this correct?

http://www.d-intl.com/articles/international/2012-09-27/jihad-work-muslims-spontaneously-rampage

"Marine Le Pen, too, uses Jews as leavening but she is more open about it. Her big issue of the moment is the total ban of headscarves and kippas in public."

I've read your blog occasionally, and I can understand a support for parts of Front National's politics, but do you support a veil- and kippa ban? I think it would be totalitarian.

 
At December 02, 2012 8:21 PM, Blogger tiberge said...

@ magnus123:

A few points (I will no doubt go far beyond the pale of your question):

You must know that the 1905 law bans all religious symbols in public places. This has been interpreted more or less leniently to mean that a small item, like a kippa, worn in a public building may be allowed. The spirit of the law was obeyed, and the spirit of the law was anti-Catholic. The other religions in France in 1905 posed no threat to the Republic.

Marine Le Pen backed off a little from her original statement and admitted she had no problem with the kippa. She did not change her basic position, but she indicated a personal preference.

Her position is an attempt to appear "fair", but is in reality very unfair because it lumps together Judaism and Islam, and because it implies that Islam can stay in France provided it obeys the laws of the Republic.

In truth Islam must not remain in France except as an infinitesimal minority. We are as far from that as we are from the planet Pluto. There are 12 million Algerians in France. This does not take in Moroccans and Tunisians or blacks. One third of all new-borns in France are either black or Maghrebin, according to recent medical statistics. ONE THIRD!!! (There are only about 400,000 Jews left in France, as they flee to Israel or elsewhere.)

In truth, Jews have been in Europe, as contributing citizens (not necessarily full-fledged citizens) for centuries. They were, before WWII, very well assimilated into French society, all the while maintaining their Jewish identity. Jews are not on a jihad to conquer the world and force the inhabitants of the planet into submission, despite what many antisemites say about Jewish "imperialism". Jews and Muslims cannot be treated in the same way because they do not act in the same way.

For decades, despite the 1905 law separating Church and State, the Republic was lenient towards the kippa because no one really cared that much. The major concern was to prevent the Catholics from ever gaining an advantage, not prosecuting a Jew for wearing a kippa, and I understand that many Catholics were persecuted for violating the 1905 law. That all changed as the Muslim population grew. Muslim girls were forced to remove their headdress in schools, but that in no way changed the overwhelming presence of Islam in France. It did not reduce Muslim demands, it did not stop the proliferation of mosques, it did not stop Muslim criminal activity (gang rapes, drug dealing, etc…). All it meant was that a girl did not wear a scarf in a republican school. The Muslims played taqqya. They went along with the law of the Republic to fool everybody into thinking they were compliant.

Go on to Part 2.

 
At December 02, 2012 8:23 PM, Blogger tiberge said...

Part 2

But the Muslims continued to grow in numbers and then burqas became more and more visible. The French began to complain and demands were made by politicians for a law banning the burqa. A useless law, but it was passed nonetheless. Who obeys it? I don't know. Many burqas are visible in France, and the police cannot arrest all these people. Arrests that are made often result in threats against the police. Muslims are gaining strength, they can wear the burqa and break the law, make threats, do anything they want, because the problem is not the burqa, the problem is Islam.

So Marine Le Pen had an opportunity to make a distinction, but she chose instead to fall back on legality. She had an opportunity to say that the law was, as written, too easily skirted because of its loopholes, and needed to be reworded, but she chose instead to obey the law strictly. Therefore, I disagree that her position is "totalitarian". For me it is too lenient, and naively legalistic, at a moment in France's history when legalities are less important than realities. She has still to tackle Islam AS A POLITICAL IDEOLOGY, not as a religion; as a threat to the security and identity of the French nation, not as a religious minority that has to be assimilated.

But Marine Le Pen is a realist, and she knows she is walking on eggshells. So she took a seemingly infallible course: obedience to the existing law of the Republic that bans religious symbols in public places. She could have mentioned the case of Fanny Truchelot, a women persecuted and threatened because she asked a Muslim woman to remove her veil in the public room of the bed-and-breakfast she (Fanny) operated. The Muslim refused, and Fanny, accused of racism, hunted down like a criminal, lost everything. She had to give up her bed-and-breakfast, and now campaigns for a stop to the Islamization of France. Proof that this law invoked by Marine Le Pen is not workable when it comes to Muslims who are protected by the State.

Marine Le Pen's defensive position is also proof that attempting to enforce the unenforceable results in ever-greater violations and the ever-increasing impossibility for enforcement.

 
At December 03, 2012 3:41 PM, Anonymous Ciccio said...

There was a similar situation in Ontario, Canada. The Muslims had demanded sharia and cited the fact that the Jews were permitted a religious court for family arbitration. The government agreed with their contention that this mounted to discrimination and passed a law banning ALL religious courts. Like the kippa, the Jewish courts bothered no one but when they were used to try wedge an opening for Islam they were onjectionable.

 
At December 03, 2012 4:25 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

tiberge wrote: Marine Le Pen's defensive position is also proof that attempting to enforce the unenforceable results in ever-greater violations and the ever-increasing impossibility for enforcement.

It also makes French law into a mockery as far as Muslims are concerned, and gives them the feeling, quite rightly in my view, that France is already dal al Islam in all but name.

Wakey wakey France. Its time. High time.

DP111

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home