While the immigration law arrives this week in the hemicycle, the deputies will first have to decide on December 11 on a preliminary rejection motion tabled by the left. The left needs the votes of the LR, who are still hesitant. Benjamin Lucas, the Nupes-Génération.s deputy for Hauts-de-France who will carry the sword on Monday, calls on LR not to give in to the “deadly bargaining of Gérald Darmanin”.
L’Express: On Monday, you will table and defend a motion to reject the immigration text, carried by Minister Gérald Darmanin. For what ?
Benjamin Lucas: For the simple reason that we are opposed to this text. The parliamentary debate as it has been organized by the government for a year is a bitter failure. Gérald Darmanin was unable to set a course and rally around his project. The reality is that this text does not have a majority. The national representation must therefore take note of this.
You sometimes complain that the Assembly never debates… Isn’t the motion for the opposition what 49.3 is for the government, ultimately depriving the National Assembly of fifteen days of debate?
I do not believe that France has lacked debates on the migration issue, neither in the Assembly nor on the media scene. I would even say that the public debate is saturated by the terms and themes that the extreme right has imposed on this issue.
“I will not provoke my LR colleagues unnecessarily nor will I betray my convictions.”
The French remain very critical of the management of immigration in France, and sometimes demand a tightening of the rules. In a recent BVA Opinion survey for RTL, 69% of French people questioned said they were concerned about the subject. Why dodge it?
But I’m not afraid to debate immigration! I even believe that there is a mass of people who adhere to the idea that inclusion and fraternity are better for everyone and that they need a standard around which to unite. But I clearly understood that we, the humanists, have the media wind in our face. The subject of migration is the point of easy crystallization caused by the downgrading experienced by our compatriots. The responsibility of the left is to respond to this anxiety with a new republican narrative, a narrative that recasts our social contract. And to bring reason back into the debate on migration. Nothing supports the thesis of “migratory submergence”. These same laws on immigration have been in effect for forty years, for what results if not always more money in the pockets of smugglers and always more corpses in the Mediterranean? The only major replacement that I see at work is that of local shops by Amazon, of tellers by machines, of the republican school by a system which is falling apart and where teachers are recruited at random. go quickly.
For your motion to be voted on, the votes of the left alone are not enough. We also need that of the Republicans. They, for example, have toughened the text in the Senate, say they are in favor of the revision of the AME from floor to ceiling and are opposed to the article on the regularization of undocumented immigrants in professions in shortage – a measure that you have supported loud and clear with some of the majority. What do you tell them?
I disagree with LR, with their project. This is not my vision of the migration issue, but I understand the coherence of theirs. Where is the coherence of Gérald Darmanin’s project? The “good with the good, and the bad with the bad,” as he once said? We don’t answer big questions about our idea of France with schoolyard slogans! LR filed a motion to dismiss, and the current draw ensured that the presentation was made by my group. I therefore understand that no one is included in Gérald Darmanin’s project, neither LR nor the left. And in a way, it’s healthy: there is therefore a left and a right in this country. Talking about immigration is talking about the Republic and it is normal that there are coherent visions of society which are put up for debate, face to face and with respect. We do not erase two centuries of the Republic at once “at the same time” as Emmanuel Macron believed to do, by bringing together renegades from both camps. Opportunism is not a compass for governing. Look at the government’s consistency on the AME: in the Senate, it gives its go-ahead for its removal, before taking the opposite route in the National Assembly. What strength of conviction!
Are you calling on LR to join your vote?
Monday’s vote is not a vote for or against Benjamin Lucas, for or against Nupes or his vision of immigration. There is no text or program attached to a rejection motion, we are simply asking our parliamentarians to vote for or against the rejection of the government’s project. On the platform, Monday, I will not make people believe in any convergence between LR and us, but I will not unnecessarily provoke my LR colleagues any more than I will betray my convictions. Moreover, basically, I am not only addressing LR deputies, but also those in the majority who have doubts. I am simply saying that this text is not worth examining. The right has already formulated its criticism of the text: they did not vote for it in committee. They had the courage not to fall into the deadly bargaining logic of Gérald Darmanin. I would have voted for LR’s motion to reject if it had been selected. This does not commit me to a joint project with LR.
.