I wouldn’t go that far. I get that it implies a world view where there is such a thing as “illegal immigration”, i.e. that countries have the right to set rules on who gets to come live there and who doesn’t. The alternative world view is “everyone has the right to move to any country they want”. This is a “feel good” story in the former world view, but not in the latter. Tthe latter world view is a minority position even in traditionally immigration-based societies like the US, Canada or Australia (hint: most other places don’t work that way)
The one thing that’s different about the honor student gun violence victim is that everyone really agrees that everyone has the right to be safe from gun violence. The prevailing opinion is that not everyone has the right to live in France. Of course you can label prevailing opinions “problematic” in order to help change them, but it’s a different kind of “problematic” than the honor student, where the wording seems to reveal unspoken value judgements that most people will agree are “problematic”.
It’s kind of hard to hop over a division when you are busy holding on to a dangling toddler.
From Paris balcony boy family thank Mali 'Spiderman' Mamoudou Gassama :
But the neighbour told Le Parisien newspaper that he was holding on to the boy’s hand but could not pull him up because of a divider separating the two balconies.
“I didn’t want to take the risk of letting go of his hand, I thought it better to do things step by step,” he said.
How could he!
Well, as long as it’s just the French president following French law, it’s actually OK, but I shudder to think what would happen if American presidents were to start following American law. 
