83% of French Back Deporting Criminal and Long-Term Unemployed Foreigners as Remigration Debate Goes Mainstream

 

Deportation Flight via Wikipedia

A new CSA poll shows that 83 percent of French people—including as many as 90 percent of young French adults—support deporting certain categories of foreigners already living in France, including delinquents, criminals and the long-term unemployed.

This polling data isn’t representative of some kind of passing mood. It is a national verdict on decades of mass immigration, failed integration and political cowardice from an establishment that has treated France as a dumping ground for the rest of the world, particularly the third-world.

The survey, conducted for Europe 1, CNews and the JDD, asked whether specific categories of foreigners already present in France should be returned to their countries of origin. More than eight in ten respondents said yes.

That popular verdict comes despite years of globalist, anti-Western propaganda. The French people are no longer asking for another symbolic immigration reform from their anti-national political class. No, they are demanding mass deportations, enforcement, and the restoration of national control.

Support was nearly identical among men and women. According to the poll, 82 percent of men and 84 percent of women backed deporting foreign delinquents, criminals, and the long-term unemployed.

The numbers also spanned various social categories. Support reached 78 percent among higher-income professionals, 84 percent among lower socioeconomic groups and 87 percent among inactive respondents.

The strongest figure, which may come as a surprise to many, came from the youngest cohort. Among 18–24-year-olds, 90 percent supported what the survey called “negative immigration” for targeted categories of foreigners.

That number destroys one of the left’s most comfortable myths. The young, increasingly, are far from sold on open borders; most have grown up inside the catastrophic consequences of mass immigration and are now demanding a harder line than their elders.

The political spread was just as revealing. On the left, 69 percent of voters backed the removal of foreign delinquents, criminals. and the long-term unemployed.
Even among voters of the far-left, communist-adjacent Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s La France Insoumise, support stood at 66 percent. Socialist voters backed the measure at 75 percent, while Green voters supported it at 68 percent.

On the right, the consensus was overwhelming. Among center-right Les Républicains voters, 96 percent supported the measure, while national-conservative National Rally voters followed at 93 percent.

What can be extrapolated from these kinds of numbers is quite clear. Remigration is no longer some kind of slogan used among radicals; it is the democratic demand of a country that wants its borders, streets and welfare system back.

For years, a globalist, out of touch, nearly permanent, ruling class told the French people that any serious discussion of mass deportations, remigration, national preference or immigration restriction was immoral. Now the voters are overwhelmingly saying that the immoral policy is leaving foreign criminals and permanent welfare dependents in the country while French citizens pay the price.

The term “negative immigration” has gained force because the public no longer believes that slowing arrivals is enough. Many French people now want a net reduction in the foreign population where crime, delinquency, non-integration or long-term dependency are involved.

That gets to the core of remigration as an idea. It means that residency in France is not an unconditional entitlement, and that foreign nationals who abuse the country’s hospitality should be removed.

France has spent decades expanding the language of welcome while shrinking the rights of its own people. Working-class communities, small towns, schools, hospitals and housing markets have absorbed the costs while the managerial globalist class congratulated itself on its compassion.

That arrangement—and national betrayal—is now ending. Ordinary French citizens increasingly understand that mass immigration is not just an economic issue, but a question of national survival, cultural continuity, and democratic consent.

The anger already felt by most French people—and the vast majority of people living in Western countries—has been intensified by the state’s repeated failure to enforce deportation orders already on the books. In case after case, foreigners with criminal records or expulsion orders remain in France because of legal obstruction, bureaucratic weakness or non-cooperation from countries of origin.

Every preventable crime committed by someone who should have been removed becomes another indictment of the rotten, anti-national system. These are the predictable result of a state that has chosen procedure over protection.

The polling also comes as the globalist French state continues to issue residence permits at record levels. According to Interior Ministry figures cited in reporting, France granted 384,000 first residence permits in 2025, an 11.2 percent increase from the previous year.

Those numbers, for critics, confirm that France is being rapidly demographically transformed without the clear consent of the French people. Elections come and go, promises are made and broken, but the demographic change machinery keeps chugging along.

Éric Zemmour has long argued that France must go beyond cosmetic restrictions. Appearing on Europe 1, he said he supports “zero immigration” but also “negative immigration.”

“I think we need to start remigration,” Zemmour said. His position, once treated as unspeakable by establishment commentators, now looks closer to the national mood than the open-border dogmas of Paris and Brussels.

Zemmour has also warned that legal immigration fuels the broader immigration system, especially through family reunification. That argument now sits at the heart of the nationalist critique: even legal channels can become engines of demographic replacement when the state refuses to defend the continuity of the nation.

The CSA poll shows that the French public is far ahead of its rulers. Voters are no longer satisfied with speeches about integration while crime, dependency, separatism, cultural fragmentation, and social disintegration continue unabated.

They want foreign criminals removed. They want welfare dependency ended. They want borders enforced. And above all, they want the principle restored that France exists first for the French.

These numbers, for the globalist class, represent a stark warning that the old regime of silence is collapsing. For the national right, they are proof that remigration has become nothing more than common sense.

Democrats COPE Over Self Inflicted Communist Extremist Takeover of Democrat Party

 Van Jones and James Carville are both publicly coping about the self inflicted fact that radical socialists embraced by Democrats is now causing a full‑blown civil war inside the Democratic Party. Jones, posting on X after New York primaries that boosted DSA’s influence, said “reasonable Democrats” must “get off their couches” and organize real voters on the ground instead of relying on television ads, digital spend and distant donations.

He cautioned that DSA has patiently built an army of local organizers who meet regularly, support one another, study together and then turn out voters, giving socialists “a bigger army, every time, win or lose.” Describing the night’s results, Jones called it “a battle between the establishment and this insurgency” and warned that “the roof is collapsing on the Democratic Party establishment,” signaling an internal crisis for moderates. 

Against that backdrop, longtime Democrat looney strategist James Carville is now openly coping, urging moderate Democrats to consider a formal break from DSA‑aligned candidates and the party’s far‑left faction. On his Politics War Room podcast, Carville said it is time to talk about the “S‑word: schism,” insisting that some victorious socialist candidates are so extreme that “Lady, I ain’t in the same party as you.”

He singled out New York democratic socialist Darializa Avila Chevalier, citing her attacks on the American flag and interracial relationships as examples of positions he refuses to accept under a big‑tent Democratic label. “There’s just some sh*t I can’t be in the same tent with,” Carville said. Carville has urged establishment Democrats to negotiate explicit terms of separation, pressing DSA‑backed politicians to run as democratic socialists under their own banner rather than using the Democratic brand while “wishing Democrats poorly.”

Cope harder, morons, you did this to yourself.

DOJ Launches Grand Jury Investigation into Far-Left Millionaire Neville Roy Singham’s Dark Money Machine Funding Marxists and Chaos

 

Screenshot

The Department of Justice has launched a federal grand jury investigation in Manhattan targeting Neville Roy Singham, the China-based Marxist tech tycoon whose fortune has bankrolled a vast network of pro-communist, anti-American activist groups for years.

According to Fox News, citing sources familiar with the matter, the grand jury in the Southern District of New York has already begun issuing subpoenas for bank records and financial documents.

The investigation, authorized by Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche and led by U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton, is examining potential wire fraud, bank fraud, money laundering, and other financial crimes tied to the movement of roughly $278–285 million through Singham’s elaborate dark money web since 2017.

 

Fox News outlet:

The grand jury action follows a Fox News Digital investigation published in mid-March, documenting how Singham pumped $285 million from his base in Shanghai into a Goldman Sachs philanthropy fund and two shell corporations that then fed the money into a constellation of nonprofit organizations, media operations and activist groups pushing sectarian division, identity politics and support for socialist politicians.

The investigation is examining the movement of the money in Singham’s financial network and attempting to determine if Singham, the organizations he funded or their leaders committed wire fraud, bank fraud, money laundering or other financial crimes, according to sources familiar with the matter.

Prosecutors have presented evidence to the grand jury, which has issued subpoenas seeking bank records and other financial documents from organizations in Singham’s network. Federal prosecutors use grand jury subpoenas as an investigative tool to compel the production of documents and testimony as they determine whether sufficient evidence exists to pursue criminal charges.

The investigation marks a major escalation after years of mounting concerns from Republicans in Congress over Singham’s financial support for organizations promoting socialist, communist, and anti-American causes while allegedly maintaining close ties to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

Singham, the founder of ThoughtWorks, reportedly amassed a fortune after selling the software consulting company for approximately $785 million before relocating to Shanghai. Since then, he has become the subject of numerous investigations and congressional inquiries over allegations that he financed a sprawling network of activist groups and media organizations advancing pro-Beijing narratives.

As The Gateway Pundit previously reported, Singham has operated as a major funding vehicle for radical leftist causes. In May, far-left Twitch streamer Hasan Piker accidentally admitted on air that Singham has been bankrolling “a lot of political movements in the country, a lot of activism.”

Piker was speaking after Treasury and DOJ scrutiny hit groups tied to Singham’s network, including a Cuba solidarity convoy that delivered aid to the communist regime.

Earlier, in September 2025, House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer and Rep. Anna Paulina Luna called on Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to immediately freeze all of Singham’s assets, warning that the billionaire was using American nonprofits to fund anti-American political movements on behalf of foreign interests.

Congressional Republicans, including Ways and Means Chairman Jason Smith, Sen. Tom Cotton, and others, had already raised alarms about Singham’s $278+ million dark money empire spreading CCP-aligned propaganda through U.S. tax-exempt organizations. House committees investigated. Letters were sent. Yet under the previous administration, little meaningful action followed.

Another Man Indicted For Planning UFC 250 Drone Attack

 Authorities have arrested yet another man for his involvement in the planned attack on the UFC Freedom 250 event at the White House.

Twenty-year-old Alexander Iniguez Mercado of Chicago is charged with obstruction of justice related to his involvement in planning the attack. He served as the administrator of Signal chats where individuals communicated about planning the June 14 UFC attack, according to an indictment returned Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Authorities arrested him on Thursday and he is scheduled to appear in court on Friday at 3 p.m., according to the Justice Department.

Mercado is one of eight individuals who have been charged in connection to the attack, which authorities discovered ahead of time and put a stop to. His charge of obstruction of justice is punishable with up to 20 years in prison.

The attempted attackers planned to use explosive drones to cause panic at the UFC event and drive attendees out of specific entrances where snipers would then open fire. Authorities discovered the plot after 19-year-old Tycen Proper’s mother called about her son’s recent firearms purchases and his communications with concerning individuals online.

Proper was planning the attack with a group of nearly two dozen others, according to a criminal complaint, many of whom have not yet been arrested. His parents told law enforcement that their son had recently quit his job and appeared to have become radicalized online.

 

(Photo by Cooper Neill/Zuffa LLC)

One day before the UFC event, according to the DOJ, a special agent from the FBI spoke with Mercado on the telephone and said he was calling to “discuss online threats regarding the UFC event,” asking whether Mercado was planning to go to D.C. to help with the attack.

Mercado denied that he was planning to go to D.C. and said he wouldn’t meet with the agent, then uninstalled the Signal app on his phone, deleting the data that would include his Signal messages, according to the indictment.

“Obstructing justice in a law enforcement investigation into a planned violent domestic attack is a profoundly serious offense,” U.S. Attorney Andrew Boutros said on Friday.

“The investigation in this case involved serious threats to public safety, including the safety of President Donald J. Trump, the 45th and 47th President of the United States of America, other members of government, as well as the many attendees and athletes who attended the event at the White House,” he added. “Any obstructive conduct to interfere with this investigation undermines the integrity of the justice system as well as the rule of law.”

The Daily Wire reported last week that the mastermind of the attack, Abraham Alvarez, who was “responsible for planning, organizing, and directing the planned attack,” was an illegal immigrant who had overstayed his visa after being brought into the United States as a child.

“This illegal alien from Mexico should never have been allowed in our country,” DHS Acting Assistant Secretary Lauren Bis said earlier this month. “He was the ringleader of a failed terror attack targeting UFC Freedom 250 at the White House.

The Battle Over AI Dominance Starts With The States

 As artificial intelligence transforms the global economy, America faces a choice that will shape our economic and national security future for decades to come. Will we build the infrastructure needed to lead the AI age here in the United States, or will we allow regulatory barriers, political opposition, and short-sighted policymaking to push investment elsewhere?

The resistance we’re seeing to data center development in some states is concerning from both national security and economic perspectives. Data centers are the physical infrastructure that powers everything from cloud computing and financial transactions to military operations and artificial intelligence.

This fact makes data centers critical national security infrastructure. Furthermore, states that embrace data center investment will be rewarded with jobs, tax revenue, and long-term economic growth, while states that reject it risk being left behind. The bottom line is that we must keep data centers on U.S. soil.

Data centers house and process some of the most valuable information in the world. They support government operations, financial institutions, healthcare systems, defense contractors, communications networks, and the growing AI ecosystem that is becoming increasingly important to America’s economic and military strength. Allowing critical computing infrastructure to be hosted overseas would create strategic vulnerabilities precisely at the moment when technological competition with China is accelerating.

If America fails to expand domestic data center capacity, we risk becoming dependent on infrastructure located beyond our borders and potentially subject to foreign influence, disruption, or control. Every breakthrough in artificial intelligence depends on massive computing power. Every AI model requires enormous amounts of data storage and processing capacity. That capacity comes from data centers.

National security in the 21st century requires military strength, energy security, and digital infrastructure. Data centers are now part of that equation.

States that welcome data centers will win in the next economic boom. Yet, we’re seeing a tale of two states when it comes to data center policy: those that are putting out the welcome mat — and those pushing bans. In fact, 11 states are considering bills to pause the construction of data centers. Such resistance is foolish. Data centers represent one of the greatest economic development opportunities available to states today. The evidence is already visible. 

Virginia, which hosts the largest concentration of data centers in the world, has become a model for how states can benefit from embracing digital infrastructure. According to a 2024 report by Virginia’s Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission, the state’s data center industry supports approximately 74,000 jobs annually, generates $5.5 billion in labor income, and contributes $9.1 billion to Virginia’s economy each year. Last year alone, data center investment accounted for roughly 84% of all announced capital investment projects in the Commonwealth.

Those numbers are not an accident. Virginia built a policy environment that welcomed investment. State leaders recognized early that data centers would become essential infrastructure for the digital economy and worked to create a competitive environment for development.

Other states face a similar choice. Some are pursuing policies that encourage investment by streamlining permitting, supporting workforce development, modernizing infrastructure, and maintaining competitive tax policies. Others are considering moratoriums, burdensome regulations, and restrictions, erroneously blaming data centers for rising energy costs and other community concerns.

Companies building AI infrastructure have options. They can invest in Virginia, Texas, Ohio, Georgia, and other states that welcome growth — or they can move projects to competing states or even competing countries. States that make it easier to build data centers will attract billions of dollars in private investment, create thousands of high-paying jobs, expand their tax base, and position themselves at the center of the AI economy. States that choose obstruction instead of opportunity will watch those benefits flow elsewhere.

China recognizes that America’s ability to build large-scale data centers is essential to maintaining leadership in AI, cloud computing, and advanced technologies, which is why it has been aggressively pushing misinformation on social media about environmental impacts, power consumption, and water usage of data centers. The most effective lies fueling the Not In My Backyard (NIMBY) movement are that data centers drive up energy prices and are transferring their costs onto Americans. Both are false but are, nevertheless, taking hold among the American public.

The reality is that data centers are already regulated at the local, state, and federal levels. There is no data center exemption to environmental and nuisance laws.

Beijing has spent years investing heavily in artificial intelligence, advanced computing, semiconductors, and related technologies, and views technological leadership as a core national objective. America cannot maintain leadership in AI without the infrastructure to support it. The states that choose to lead will help secure America’s technological future, with the added benefit of attracting jobs, investment, and economic growth.