The campaign is like few before it in France, because of the looming question of whether the far-right candidate, Marine Le Pen, will do the once-unthinkable, and win. She has already pushed the discourse rightward and made a visceral promise to voters: to protect not just France, but Frenchness. Whether the menace is defined as Islam, immigration or globalization, her vow to voters is the same: I am the woman to preserve the French way of life.
"The visible decline of so many historic city centers is intertwined with these anxieties. Losing the ancient French provincial capital is another blow to Frenchness — tangible evidence of a disappearing way of life that resonates in France in the same way that the hollowing out of main streets did in the United States decades ago."
And from there the article goes on to talk about loss of businesses in city centers, vacancy rates, and malls. The point is protecting France, not against immigrants, but against the change of lifestyle.
So, my "zero" claim was wrong. I still assert that the gist of the article is very much not about immigration, Marine Le Pen, police violence, minorities, or incarcerations.
This article appears here because of a larger political context, which is explicitly mentioned in the article. My comment is relevant for this reason. I'm sorry you disagree. It would be great if you could respond to what I said instead of picking a nit about what percentage of the article would have to be related to my comment for it to be relevant to you.
The context of that paragraph was that the author had visited the city before, in the context of a political campaign, and this time wasn't. Rather, this time the author was there to look into the change in culture caused by the decline in city centers in provincial cities. And that is the last mention of national politics in the article. There's a bit of discussion of city-level politics in the creation of shopping malls outside of the city center, but nothing more about national politics.
So I've read the article carefully enough to be confident in my assertion - that you are projecting your perspective onto the article. You're taking what is only peripherally mentioned, and trying to make it a central issue.