Supprimer les références cachées à l'esclavage

[Mauro Casarotto]

You are right.

[Lars Næsbye Christensen]

La boîte à outils constitutionnelle ne fait pas référence à l'esclavage, mais explique que cela sert à donner aux États un peu de temps avec leur configuration actuelle avant qu'une politique d'immigration commune ne soit mise en place (p. 210). Ce délai pourrait être de 3 ou 5 ans, par exemple.

Je ne pense donc pas qu'il soit problématique pour cette raison spécifique, mais il n'est probablement pas nécessaire dans tous les cas.

[Jakub Jermar]

Well neither does the US constitution, but the reason this strikingly similar formulation is there is to keep the slave trade going for some time.

See:
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed42.asp

My argument is: since we don’t have slave trade in Europe, we don’t need this paragraph. Or at least don’t make it look like it is the redressed US one (which for sure is about slave trade).

[Lars Næsbye Christensen]

Yes, lets remove it.

[Herbert Tombeur]

Yes, I join you both. Let us delete Aricle III, Section 3, par. 1, about immigration. I add this argument to yours: entry, stay and residence of non-nationals on the State territory may likely stay a Member State competence. Why? I observe that there is a very narrow common ground for any EF concerning immigration from outside the Federation, as European countries are very different in territorial size, population density, social system and economic strength. If any constitutional stipulation about migration would be maintained, it could concern only the/some internal migration policy between the Member States of the Federation.

[Auteur]

Messages