A slogan can unite a political movement until somebody asks how it would work. That is the fault line running through a debate between Alain de Benoist and Jean-Yves Le Gallou published in Éléments on 5 October.
Both favour a much more restrictive approach to immigration. Their disagreement concerns the reach of return policies. De Benoist distinguishes removal for unlawful conduct from targeting people because of their identity. Le Gallou argues for stopping new immigration and pursuing a broader programme of departures, including voluntary incentives for some dual nationals. These are the participants’ proposals, not measures announced by the French government.
The discussion also turns to work. Le Gallou argues that employers facing shortages should improve pay and conditions. De Benoist challenges the economic model that treats continuing immigration as a requirement of growth.
Our view: make employers answer the difficult questions
There is a familiar escape route in the labour debate: declare a shortage, recruit abroad and leave the discussion about wages unfinished. A government should require a better account. What salary was offered? What training was available? Could the job support a household in the place where it is located?
We favour tighter immigration controls and a labour policy that gives people already living in the country a fair chance to earn a decent living. That means asking more of employers as well as ministers. It also means making the national interest broader than a company’s immediate recruitment needs.
A return policy needs equally concrete answers. An unlawful resident, a foreign national convicted of a serious offence and a citizen with immigrant grandparents are different cases. Calling all three “remigration” does not settle their different circumstances.
Strong borders require decisions that can actually be carried out. Clear criteria, individual responsibility and a workable process matter more than the applause a slogan earns. Europe needs the confidence to limit admission and enforce its rules. It also needs the discipline to say exactly whom a proposal concerns, what it would change and who would bear responsibility if it failed.
Independent reporting. A European perspective.
