What Fabrice spoke about.

Madam President, a few days ago in France, a young woman named Philippine was brutally assaulted and killed by a Moroccan national. He was convicted of rape and subject to a deportation order. Similar tragedies happen every week in France and in many European countries. I denounce here the culture of laxity that disarms our national and European legislation. This laxity is the result of an ideology infiltrated into the institutions of the European Union and which gives ever more rights to migrants, in defiance of the right of the French and other Europeans to live in safety at home, protected by borders. This ideology promotes preference for foreigners and its propaganda claims that it is forbidden to ban illegal crossings of our borders. This ideology weakens our ability to return illegal immigrants to their country. To prepare for expulsions of aliens, administrative detention was once the rule. But for years, lobbying by pro-migrant NGOs and some political groups has made retention an exception. So we must act quickly and demand that European rules to expel illegal aliens be tougher.

Madam President, on 4 October, the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered an unrealistic decision, exposing the Member States to an unprecedented migratory surge. Unfortunately, the right to asylum has already become a vast channel for legalizing illegal immigration, whereas it should only be granted on the basis of an examination of individual cases of persecution. However, this decision of the Court risks exacerbating the abuses of the right of asylum. In fact, it decided in its judgment that, in order to obtain refugee status, it is no longer necessary to establish that an Afghan asylum seeker is actually and specifically at risk of persecution if returned to her country of origin. For the Court, all Afghan women can obtain asylum solely on the basis, I quote, of "their gender and nationality". If the situation of Afghan women is tragic and we must support them in their fight for freedom, the European Union has neither the vocation to welcome them all, nor the vocation to welcome their whole family under family reunification, especially since there is not really a very reliable civil status in Afghanistan. I therefore ask you, ladies and gentlemen, to vote in favour of a debate on this judgment of the Court of Justice and its consequences.

Madam President, Commissioner, there is a debate today on Hungary's residence and work permit to attract foreign labour from outside the European Union. However, this debate shows the duplicity of the European Commission and certain political groups when it comes to immigration and the security of the external borders of the Schengen area. In the LIBE committee a few days ago, the Commission admitted that the Hungarian system was technically in line with EU law and in this context, Commissioner Ylva Johansson repeated several times that the question for her was whether or not to trust the Hungarian authorities. This issue of trust is eminently political. So I return it to the Commission to see if we can trust it. For years, Mrs von der Leyen's Commission and Mrs Johansson have been explaining to us, together with the left, the centre and their NGO friends, that migrants who illegally cross the external borders of the European Union must not be prevented from setting foot on our territory, even though in doing so they are violating European law. Preventing migrants from violating the borders of the European Union was, according to Mrs Johansson and her political friends, I quote, 'push back'. Hundreds of thousands of migrants have entered Europe illegally every year over the last five years because of your ideology that wants us to believe, I quote friends of some NGOs, that "migrants have an unconditional right to set foot in Europe". This ideology, your ideology at the European Commission, threatens the security of Europeans because these illegal crossings let in migrants too often involved in criminal acts and sometimes, alas, involved in terrorist acts against our citizens. So I ask the question: Who preferred to make the interests of illegal immigrants prevail over the interests of Europeans and against the national security of our States? This is the Commission of Mrs von der Leyen and Commissioner Johansson. Moreover, she acknowledged this on the day of the adoption of the Pact on Asylum and Migration, stating that it was a victory for migrants. But the Europeans have disavowed at the polls your policy of supporting illegal migrants. So no, we cannot trust the outgoing von der Leyen Commission and no, nor can we trust the incoming new von der Leyen Commission. The accusations against the Hungarian residence and work permit are a smokescreen to make people forget that the Pact on Asylum and Migration seriously harms the identity and security of French and Europeans in general.