The least we can say is that this is not selfevident

The President of the Republic is, it seems, that can be deprived of their nationality those who will be an attempt on the life of a custodian of the public authority. The least we can say is that this is not self-evident.

The first article of the Constitution proclaims that the Republic "ensure equality before the law for all citizens, without distinction of origin...". . All, without distinction of origin, that's fits of the institutionalization of two categories of citizens, the same Act would not cause the same sanctions as they were born French or become.

Of course, article 25 of the civil Code already provides forfeiture, in very limited cases that it contains. Of course again, until 1998, the forfeiture was even incurred for the perpetrators of a crime sentenced to at least five years ' imprisonment. But that provision had never been referred to the Constitutional Council that would have censored it probably. Although Finally, the Council, in July 1996, was accepted, the tip of the lips an extension to terrorism, "in view of the gravity special that are by nature acts of terrorism", and not without prior recalled that "under the nationality law, persons who have acquired French nationality and those to which the French nationality has been attributed to their birth are in the same situation."

Anything else would be a new extension, this time in common law.

Observe, first, that this is not the seriousness of the facts, yet put forward, which explains the lapse. One that takes on a police officer commits a terrible crime. Is more serious than those of the persistent offender who, after having raped and murdered ten children, will be not exposed to the loss of nationality

Then note that forfeiture is only an administrative action by a decree. It requires a consistent view of the Council of State, and it is the least. But the judicial authority, guardian of individual freedom, did not say. Then that would be met conditionality, as is the Executive could choose, discretionary to the lapse of one but not the other.

Finally, add that nationality is part of the identity of any individual. The extract is a measure of exceptional gravity, which, even assuming that legitimate, there is doubt that it can proceed in a simple administrative decision without judgment and guarantees that it implies, that it is a sanction.

Beyond these questions, to which the Constitutional Council would have to answer, can we seriously believe that the proposed change would result in punitive or repressive effects

In any case, must be already identified stakeholders, with enough evidence to be sentenced. Then it must be that they have acquired the nationality for less than ten years. And should also have another Passport, because neither the civil code nor our international commitments we make stateless persons.

Without even mentioning the compulsory intervention of the State Council, which would be very cautious, or discuss the difficult questions of application of the Act in time, how many people could accumulate all of these conditions If it was some every ten years, it would be without doubt the most, and this reform would add to the already long list of those arising over the noise they generate for the efficiency they provide.