A commentator analyzes the Constitutional Council's decision on France's immigration law, arguing it gutted anti-immigration provisions. The ruling allows people working illegally in high-demand professions to regularize their status, effectively making the law pro-immigration despite its stated intent.
Good morning, my friends. I've taken a plate with some stickers to tell you about the immigration law that was passed yesterday before the Constitutional Council. Well, the Constitutional Council issued its conclusions on the matter yesterday. These conclusions are really no surprise. And I told you about them in a video in December 2023. It was obvious. It was obvious that the far right had been fooled. Why? Because on the far right they work on the fly. They're not very smart when you watch them, and they work a lot on the fly. They don't have very in depth or in depth political analyses or anything like that. They get fooled like crazy. And sometimes you can see the trap they've fallen into weeks or months in advance, but they're incapable of seeing it. I wonder if I really do sometimes. I get the impression that they don't care at all. Okay? I have the impression that the far right policies they pursue are just slogans they use to survive in politics, to do business and all that, but that frankly, it's just an ideological niche that they occupy, but without much conviction in truth. Let me explain. The immigration law has a certain number of articles. It looks like this. We have articles. Each label here represents an article when it was prepared. Some of the provisions were pro immigration, I put them in glass. Others were anti immigration. For example, the idea of immigration quotas, for example, the idea that foreign students must post a deposit, things like that. So that's the package of legislation as it was prepared subsequently. The far right will accept it by telling their base. Yes, we know that there are elements in it that are favorable to immigration. Yes, we know that. But governing often means making compromises, trying to advance a few ideas now and then later we'll advance others. So the important thing for us is that despite everything, we shouldn't be too pessimistic. Despite everything, we were able to pass a certain number of very interesting ideas that today are far fetched articles. Okay, okay, okay. So after much discussion, redactions and all that, the law goes to the Constitutional Council. The Constitutional Council normally doesn't have anything to do with it. The French Constitution doesn't really talk about, isn't focused on immigration. Okay, so the Constitutional Council should normally vote on something like this, except that it has become politicized. In fact, everything is politicized these days. Even science has become political. Even the weather forecast you see on TV is politicized. So what's going on? The Constitutional Council will review its laws and say that there are a certain number of articles that are anti immigration. So we're going to remove them, we're going to filter them out. Oh, that's not constitutional. That's not constitutional. That one either. That. That one either, and that one either. Here is the immigration law now. So here we have an immigration law that is in reality pro immigration and also pro immigration. But in addition, it now has constitutional case law behind it. Because today, for example, there is an article that says that if someone works illegally in a profession in demand, we're talking about. Well, when I say profession in demand, of course we're not talking about neurosurgeons because then you'll rarely find them working illegally. We'll find people working in professions close to slavery. The forces of money need it. Because it is important to know that the French system is not pro immigration, as some people might think. They are not pro immigration, but they need cheap labor. They need labor that can be exploited by the forces of money. That is why they bring this labor there. And it is essential for them to protect the flow of labor. That is the first point. Secondly, there is an idea. There is a civilizational project behind it. In the 60s and 70s, it was decided to raze France as it was at the time it was decided. I am not in their minds. I. I do not know why, how or who. But it was decided that France was finished, that it had to be destroyed from the inside and the outside by using a lot, a lot of means. Immigration is just a way, okay, of creating an ethnic divide, of dividing society and ultimately changing its face. That was the goal. Well, the French approved of this project. We shouldn't see them 100% as victims either. There have been many elections that have each time turned into a referendum on this disastrous project. And each time they voted for it. So somewhere, somewhere they feel that they were consenting, even if individually they are against it, but in reality they are consenting. So that's the story. So now what is happening is that we have constitutional case law that will mean that immigration or immigration issues can no longer be a matter for politicians. Because constitutionally today any human being on earth has the right to come and work illegally in France and have their status regularized. They have an opposing right, okay? That's what the Constitutional Council says. We can't have a political party that says otherwise. It's more a matter of politics. Now. It's really a matter of the foundations of the nation, because the constitution and constitutional issues are at the top, at the top of considerations in every state, okay? They're really at the top of decision making elements and Today, anyone in the world, the 8 billion humans who live on Earth, have the right to come and work illegally. Importantly, working illegally. Working legally, you have no rights, of course, but working illegally is indeed a right that can be enforced against immigration and regularization in France. So there you have it. That's how it is. It's terrible. It's terrible. But I just wanted to explain this to you, and what shocks me is the amateurism, really the crass amateurism that borders on complicity in a way. I don't think that if I, a blogger from the uk, see it six weeks in advance. Okay. It's just that those who hang around the assembly, those who are on site in Paris, see it too. Let's not kid ourselves. They're not as stupid as they want us to believe. They're not as stupid as they seem either. So I think they know what they're doing. They're working hand in hand with Macron's party. And then, in any case, the goal is to last. The goal is to do politics for politics sake. And then to be there in 10 years, in 15 years, in 20 years, and then generation after generation, we are there. And we don't care. In the end, as long as we have political privileges, or as leaders or opponents who sit in the assembly and all that, it's fine. The rest, frankly, we don't care. So there you have it, my friends. This was just a short, explanatory video, and we'll see you in the next one.
