France to expel Roma illegals - should we follow?

General Zod

28064212 wrote: »

Ok, if I ring them up and tell them I know where there are a load of illegal immigrants, and it's well known that they are, definitely, illegal, should they not enforce the law?

they should enforce the law. they shouldn't create new laws to make it easier for them to specifically target one section of the population based on race.

How do you know they are illegal? Honest question.

prinz

General Zod wrote: »

No, but I'd at least respect that they are using a fair and democratic way to do it. I'd do my best to ensure they didn't win, but it at least would be a fair fight...

But hang on, Sarkozy is using a fair and democratic method, yet you still have issues right?

General Zod wrote: »

So an illegal we can exploit is better than one we can't..

Great misinterpretation there. Start with the obvious, work your way down.

General Zod wrote: »

What oppertunities are there for them with society's current attitude towards them? Integration is a two way street remember.

...and what creates 'society's current attitude'? No problems with Roma coming here legally and trying to make a decent life for themselves here> None whatsoever.

prinz

General Zod wrote: »

they should enforce the law. they shouldn't create new laws to make it easier for them to specifically target one section of the population based on race..

Where has anything been said about creating new laws to specifically target one section?

General Zod

billy the squid wrote: »

where has the second version been published?

In Prinz's head.

prinz

billy the squid wrote: »

where has the second version been published?

So why was the reason for the riot called into question?

Wibbs

Anyone coming here with a view to work legally I have no problem with at all. Ditto with actual asylum seekers. Illegals or other guests who break our laws I would ship out in the morning. Roma(not Romanians) have a very bad rep europe wide, often for very good reason. So yes illegal Roma would be gone in a heartbeat if I had my way. Then again I am quite the Nazi on that score.

General Zod

prinz wrote: »

Great misinterpretation there. Start with the obvious, work your way down.

You're one to talk about misinterpretation. Here's Sarkozy's words regarding laws that target Roma

Sarkozy said those responsible for the clashes would be "severely punished" and ordered the government to expel all illegal Roma immigrants, almost all of whom have come from eastern Europe.
He pushed for a change in France's immigration law to make such expulsion easier "for reasons of public order." He said illegal Gypsy camps "will be systematically evacuated," calling them sources of trafficking, exploitation of children and prostitution.

as quoted in the article from the Associated Press I linked to on the last page.

28064212

General Zod wrote: »

they should enforce the law. they shouldn't create new laws to make it easier for them to specifically target one section of the population based on race.

But they haven't. The AP article you linked to mentioned Sarkozy wants to pass a law making expulsion of illegal immigrants easier, not making expulsion of Roma gypsies easier. Will this target one section of society more? Yes it will: illegal immigrants

General Zod wrote: »

How do you know they are illegal? Honest question.

Specifically the ones mentioned? I don't, first I heard of them was this thread. But in a general sense, if the police get a complaint about illegals, they should investigate. It's two minutes work to run a check to see if they exist in the system for definite. If they do, case closed, point that out to any further complaints. If they don't, investigate further

General Zod

prinz wrote: »

So why was the reason for the riot called into question?

Where was the second version you put forward published?

Fuuuuuuuuus

The roma gypsies have brought the negative view on themselves and its not racist to want a criminal element removed from your country its just common sense, zero tolerance and ship them out.

General Zod

28064212 wrote: »

But they haven't. The AP article you linked to mentioned Sarkozy wants to pass a law making expulsion of illegal immigrants easier, not making expulsion of Roma gypsies easier

No, it doesn't. Sarkozy called for the expulsion of all illegal Roma gypsies and called for changes in the law to make such expulsions easier.

Specifically the ones mentioned? I don't, first I heard of them was this thread. But in a general sense, if the police get a complaint about illegals, they should investigate. It's two minutes work to run a check to see if they exist in the system for definite.

The French police don't exactly have the best reputation for interaction with immigrant communities. Generally they go in hard and heavy and it usually ends up in riots.

Wibbs

Sarkozy said those responsible for the clashes would be "severely punished" and ordered the government to expel all illegal Roma immigrants, almost all of whom have come from eastern Europe.
He pushed for a change in France's immigration law to make such expulsion easier "for reasons of public order." He said illegal Gypsy camps "will be systematically evacuated," calling them sources of trafficking, exploitation of children and prostitution.

I see nothing wrong with that TBH.

General Zod

Wibbs wrote: »

I see nothing wrong with that TBH.

It's politicing. He's picking on an easy target to win support.

knird evol

Saab Ed wrote: »

No you see there's the problem. Its not the doing something about it , its the not doing something about it for fear of comments and comparisons like this thats the problem.

Right wing politicians and people with uber right wing vies actually grow in strenght when nettles aren't grasped. If the middle ground politicians dont sort the problem i.e illegal immigrants then ground support will swell for the extremist groups and their supporters.

If somethings illegal then deal with it. The problem only starts when its not dealt with

If you are so anxious to do "deal with it" then first of all get your head out of your ass and apprise yourself of the basic facts of the situation. The roma that are here are not 'illegal'. Unethical, amoral, parasitic etc yes, but not illegal. They make a spurious claim to seek refuge in our country from supposed oppression in their country of origin. The interpretation that has been taken is that under international law we were to give them refuge and all that this entails ie houses cars money etc.
You can hardly solve the problem Saab if you don't even understand it.

prinz

General Zod wrote: »

You're one to talk about misinterpretation. Here's Sarkozy's words regarding laws that target Roma as quoted in the article from the Associated Press I linked to on the last page.

Sarkozy wants a change in the law in future to expedite the current process in relation to all illegals. The move on the illegal Roma/Gypsy campes and the deportation proceedings seem to be going ahead under the current laws.

billy the squid

prinz wrote: »

So why was the reason for the riot called into question?

you haven't answered my question, where was the second version published?

prinz

billy the squid wrote: »

you haven't answered my question, where was the second version published?

:rolleyes: You having a laugh? It's called imaginative hyperbole, this is After Hours after all. Did I claim it was published anywhere but in my post?

empirix

Absolutely - these people are brought up as trained thieves/beggars and anything else they can get away with, i have no problem with asylum seekers etc but abide by our laws etc, these roma have no respect !!! out!

billy the squid

billy the squid wrote: »

you haven't answered my question, where was the second version published?

so you put out a version of events that was never put forward? why?

billy the squid

empirix wrote: »

Absolutely - these people are brought up as trained thieves/beggars and anything else they can get away with, i have no problem with asylum seekers etc but abide by our laws etc, these roma have no respect !!! out!

What? All of them?

prinz

billy the squid wrote: »

so you put out a version of events that was never put forward? why?

To entertain myself from my xenophobe's armchair.

billy the squid

prinz wrote: »

To entertain myself from my xenophobe's armchair.

So you admit that you lied when you put this version on the thread. an arguement supported by falsehoods isn't much of an arguement, wouldn't you agree?

prinz

billy the squid wrote: »

So you admit that you lied when you put this version on the thread. an arguement supported by falsehoods isn't much of an arguement, wouldn't you agree?

It wasn't an argument.

billy the squid

prinz wrote: »

It wasn't an argument.

the whole thread is an arguement. all discussion is arguement. just because people arn't throwing things at each other does not mean that it is not an arguement.

in this case it is an arguement either for or against what Sarcozy is doing, you supported your arguement in favor of the new measures with falsehood.

prinz

billy the squid wrote: »

in this case it is an arguement either for or against what Sarcozy is doing, you supported your arguement in favor of the new measures with falsehood.

No in this case I answered a clear question that was asked.... What caused the riot? I gave the answer and then added a light hearted if sarcastic other 'version' for others to choose if they so wish..

This isn't the Politics Forum. I never claimed the second version was published or was true. Pedantry at it's best worst. :rolleyes:

Fuuuuuuuuus

billy the squid wrote: »

the whole thread is an arguement. all discussion is arguement. just because people arn't throwing things at each other does not mean that it is not an arguement.

in this case it is an arguement either for or against what Sarcozy is doing, you supported your arguement in favor of the new measures with falsehood.

technically the discussion is on whether ireland should follow suit or not, sarcozy's actions in france are just the example.

Terry

Edit: It has been pointed out three times that the article I linked to is not connected to this case.
I apologise for making a mistake.
Please forgive me.

General Zod wrote: »

Why did they riot?

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2010/0724/1224275392929.html

The killing of Karim Boudouda (27), during a shootout which followed a casino robbery sparked three nights of rioting in the suburb of Villeneuve, where police were fired at and dozens of cars were torched.

Lovely people altogether.

Let's imagine some people rioted here. I wonder what the reaction would be towards the rioters.

General Zod wrote: »

Sorry to requote you, but here's an AP article from google news
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jGTyaphxCvA8txDXyvCeft54o_BAD9H8958O2

He pushed for a change in France's immigration law to make such expulsion easier "for reasons of public order."

Also from the same article

though the violence in Saint-Aignan earlier this month was in a community of traveling folk established in the region for years.

First one. Fair enough. I know we're not used to it here, but this is a politician acting in the interest of the people he represents.
Shocking stuff.
Second one. So they've been there for years. Doesn't make them any less illegal.

General Zod wrote: »

It's politicing. He's picking on an easy target to win support.

So what?
If this wins him votes, then what does that tell you?

It tells me that he's doing what the people want. Isn't this what politicians are supposed to do?

28064212

General Zod wrote: »

No, it doesn't. Sarkozy called for the expulsion of all illegal Roma gypsies and called for changes in the law to make such expulsions easier.

And? The law will not specifically target Roma gypsies (I'm assuming). Sarkozy is saying that there is one particular problem group that this law will be used against, that's not the same as saying that's the only group it will be used against

General Zod wrote: »

The French police don't exactly have the best reputation for interaction with immigrant communities. Generally they go in hard and heavy and it usually ends up in riots.

Which they shouldn't do. But that's an argument for changing the police procedures, it doesn't justify not charging and deporting illegals

General Zod

Terry wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2010/0724/1224275392929.html


Lovely people altogether.

Heh. you do know you're referencing a completely different riot, right?

edit

Doesn't make them any less illegal.

France has an indiginous travelling community also, which is what the camp in Saint Ignan is mostly made up of, and would almost all be french born. but hey, why let facts get in the way of a good oul darkie roundup.

IvyTheTerrible

Terry wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2010/0724/1224275392929.html


Lovely people altogether.

Let's imagine some people rioted here. I wonder what the reaction would be towards the rioters.




First one. Fair enough. I know we're not used to it here, but this is a politician acting in the interest of the people he represents.
Shocking stuff.
Second one. So they've been there for years. Doesn't make them any less illegal.



So what?
If this wins him votes, then what does that tell you?

It tells me that he's doing what the people want. Isn't this what politicians are supposed to do?

The riot you're mentioning is a different case. That guy was of North African origin and that shooting took place inGrenoble. And the main reason that the locals were pissed off was because the police left the body out in the open and uncovered for 3+ hours.