ASTI, an association aimed at supporting immigrant workers, has expressed concern over the use of seemingly nationalistic language in the revision of the Luxembourg Constitution.

Whilst ASTI reacted positively to the Luxembourg Chamber of Deputies' drafting of a new Constitution and its launching of a public consultation procedure, the association has criticised the resulting revision in terms of its representation of the situation in the Grand Duchy.

That is, whilst the proposal for a new Constitution strives to be in line with the values of the European Convention on Human Rights, ASTI has argued that the text "contains incomprehensible elements taking into account the realities of the country that is 21st-century Luxembourg". The association particularly criticised the inclusion of the line "Luxembourgers are equal before the law", a statement that has been similarly criticised by the Venice Commission, an advisory body of the Council of Europe made up of independent constitutional law experts. The latter has recommended replacing this line with one that emphasises "the principle of equality before the law in general", and rather than exclusively for Luxembourg nationals.

Although ASTI has recognised the Parliament's decision to include such a provision as a potential attempt to maintain a sense of national identity for Luxembourg nationals, the association has nonetheless maintained that such language would "raise a feeling of rejection and disregard for our fellow citizens abroad", thus threatening rather than strengthening social cohesion.

Another provision in the proposal for a new Constitution, which posed a problem for both ASTI and the Venice Commission, concerns the language regime of the country. According to Article 4 of Parliament's proposal, "The language of Luxembourg is Luxembourgish". ASTI has argued that it would be better to emphasise the multilingual character of Luxembourg, a country where French and German historically dominated until the 1900s. The association has rejected the idea that this provision would be more "symbolic" than anything else, arguing that: "Anchoring a supposed monolingualism in basic law could involve a significant risk for a country that has the demographics of our [country] when the introduction of Luxembourgish in the Chamber of Deputies was to democratise political life. It should not be reversed at this level."

ASTI concluded that the Constitution should take into account the "Luxembourg context as a multilingual and immigration country".