Can we talk about immigration in a calm and nuanced way, dare we add in a civilized way? At a time when public debate suffers from few subtleties, when the subject itself points to an existential challenge for the soul of a country and calls for – this cannot be ruled out on principle – responses that are radical because they are substantial, the bet is bold.
The fashionable Macron “at the same time” has shown its limits, as if the question made impossible any balanced approach summed up by the famous firmness-humanity tandem. The procrastination of the government around its bill and the dialogue, or rather the absence of constructive dialogue, have reinforced the impression of an impossible agreement between officials attached to a certain republican conception of political action. The rantings are so tempting, under the gaze of an opinion which hardened considerably, as the problems posed became acute and painful.
Interior Minister Gérald Darmanin never misses an opportunity to point out that the very people who make strong statements against illegal immigrants are not the last to ask for regularization when they find themselves confronted with reality.
Discuss immigration better, but do not dodge the theme in all its dimensions: Edouard Philippe, who has not been the most talkative of all up to now, lends himself to the exercise in the interview that he grants to L’Express, with the desire to “not be clever”. The former Prime Minister recommends denouncing the agreement concluded with Algeria six years after its independence on the regime of entry and stay in our country, which sends France back to its past as much as to its present. The proposal will be controversial. But it’s not what we say about immigration that prevents the debate, it’s often the way we say it. To find the right actions, you should not be reluctant to look for the words to talk about them.