Expulsion of Roma Gypsies From France

Laminations

Laminations wrote: »

How? They are clearly targeting by illegality. Not all Romas are illegal so not all Romas will be targeted. Not all illegals are Roma but all illegals will be deported. A majority (it seems) of illegals are Roma, they will go first. Where do you suggest they start?

Nodin wrote: »

At the camp thats causing the most inconvenience....mad idea I know.

Hahaha hilarious, and what if that camp happened to be a Roma or majority Roma camp? we'd be back here with you shouting 'RACISM!!' , 'DISCRIMINATION!' , 'WONT SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN!'

Nodin

Laminations wrote: »

Hahaha hilarious, and what if that camp happened to be a Roma or majority Roma camp? we'd be back here with you shouting 'RACISM!!' , 'DISCRIMINATION!' , 'WONT SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN!'

I'd suggest not taking up fortune telling as a career.

worded

wolfpawnat wrote: »

I am sorry to sound hateful, But I am sick of them constantly harrassing me everytime I wheel my buggy down Henry Street or up Grafton Street. If they contributed to society in ANY way other than robbing, begging, etc.

France are starting to reclaim their national pride, I cannot say I blame them. If you decide to move to a country, no matter for how long, you should respect the culture and also adhere to the law.

A lot of these Roma Gypsies are not sent home after illegal acts, they get their children to beg and are no where near paupers, they are often in better clothing than ourselves! I cannot afford Nike Air runners but they and their children are in them.

The reason people are supposed to be taken in from countries outside of the EU are for for employment, college or because their country is too dangerous for them to live in eg Sierra Leon and Rwanda in the 1990's. I believe in everyone having a right to a safe and happy life, but they do nothing here but make our streets look rough and harrassing others!

DO they even allow their children to be educated???

Two things certain, Death and Taxes.

Do any travellers in any country pay taxes?
It seems to be a one way street with these people.

Nodin

Nodin wrote: »

Why tackle the Roma first?

If they highlighted another ethnic grouping from the camps to be listed as a priority, would you have a problem? As far as I can see, this is solely about the Roma's being listed as a priority. Would you have any objections if they had said they wished to expel everyone in the illegal camps regardless of circumstances?

Why refer to them as Roma when they're citizens of other EU states?

Probably because they themselves call their ethnic background as such. They promote themselves as being different. Don't the Travelers in this country have a similar claim that while they are Irish, they are also something else, and should be protected as such?

Laminations

Nodin wrote: »

I'd suggest not taking up fortune telling as a career.

I'd suggest not wearing knickers, they wont constantly get in a twist then

worded

worded wrote: »

Do any travellers in any country pay taxes?

Well, yes, since they do buy goods & services which have taxes on them. As for other taxes, I dunno. I would assume they do, since I know a number of "settled" travelers which own their own homes, and thus by law pay tax on that.

It seems to be a one way street with these people.

It seems more like the usual stereotypes being used.

Laminations

Deleted User wrote: »

If they highlighted another ethnic grouping from the camps to be listed as a priority, would you have a problem? As far as I can see, this is solely about the Roma's being listed as a priority. Would you have any objections if they had said they wished to expel everyone in the illegal camps regardless of circumstances?

Look at the thread title sure, Expulsion of Roma Gypsies From France. Firstly it is misleading, all Roma gypsies are nbot being expelled, secondly what about the other illegals? why is this thread just about the Roma?

wes

wes wrote: »

There being targetted above and beyond other groups, so yes there is discrimination.

The only discrimination being that they're listed on some leaked document as being a priority. The other groups are still going to be deported. The end result is the same. The Roma's are being treated the same as the other groups, so its rather limited discrimination, if any.

Bottle_of_Smoke

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The issue is equality before the law. If the application of law is decided on the basis of ethnicity, then that equality is compromised. To defend such discrimination is to defend ethnic discrimination, and that can be a very slippery slope.

Actually I think his issue was people comparing a mass extermination with legal deportation. You keep changing the subject when someone points this out so one can only assume you now realise Godwin's law wasn't appropriate but don't want to admit it.

Laminations

Laminations wrote: »

Look at the thread title sure, Expulsion of Roma Gypsies From France. Firstly it is misleading, all Roma gypsies are nbot being expelled, secondly what about the other illegals? why is this thread just about the Roma?

Because it's designed to create a sensation.

Nodin

Deleted User wrote: »

. Would you have any objections if they had said they wished to expel everyone in the illegal camps regardless of circumstances?

As long as they receive due process, no, no objections. If they're illegally resident, then off they pop. However saying to target one particular grouping amongst them is clearly targeting an ethnicity.

Deleted User wrote: »

.
Probably because they themselves call their ethnic background as such.

What they call themselves makes feck all difference when they're being deported back to whatever country they're citizens of, which is what the French Government are doing.

Nodin

Nodin wrote: »

As long as they receive due process, no, no objections. If they're illegally resident, then off they pop. However saying to target one particular grouping amongst them is clearly targeting an ethnicity.

Highlighting since the Roma are not receiving any different treatment than the other groups.

What they call themselves makes feck all difference when they're being deported back to whatever country they're citizens of, which is what the French Government are doing.

Rubbish. If they call themselves "something", have demanded recognition of that "something", and then are later listed as that "something", how can you complain that they're called that "something" in an official memo?

You raised the issue with their ethnic name being used rather than their nationality...

Why refer to them as Roma when they're citizens of other EU states?

Laminations

I've two men outside my office, both of whom I'm going to fire. I come out to them, one is white, one is black and I say 'you first' and point at the black guy.

Nodin emerges from the plantern and shouts 'RACIST!' , 'DISCRIMINATION!'


In fact I'm sure I could find an instance of Alan Sugar doing this on The Apprentice.

wes

Deleted User wrote: »

The only discrimination being that they're listed on some leaked document as being a priority. The other groups are still going to be deported. The end result is the same. The Roma's are being treated the same as the other groups, so its rather limited discrimination, if any.

Still discrimination either way, and there is no reason for it.

Laminations

wes wrote: »

Still discrimination either way, and there is no reason for it.

Really, absolutely no reason for it?

No logistical or organisational reason?

I mean faced with deporting a nigerian who obviously comes from nigeria and a Roma who may come from any number of countries, there is absolutely no reason to try and disentangle the difficult deportation first. Do you suggest they just deport haphazardly? Nodin has suggested based on the most inconvenient camp - how would you define inconvenience? By criminality perhaps? And what if you happened to be a nice law abiding illegal immigrant in a very inconvenient camp, is it fair that you are stereotyped by association and deported first?

Jeez, pick your battles

wes

Laminations wrote: »

Really, absolutely no reason for it?

No logistical or organisational reason?

Did they mention any such reason in there memo? Oh wait they didn't. I would figure if they had such reason, they would have mentioned them and things would be based on fact and figures, which aren't mentioned at all.

Laminations wrote: »

And what if you happened to be a nice law abiding illegal immigrant in a very inconvenient camp, is it fair that you are stereotyped by association and deported first?

Jeez, pick your battles

So, your saying it is unfair to deport based on rates of criminality, so its better to do so by ethnicity? Your just digging a rather pointless hole imho. Better to make decisions based on facts, as opposed to picking on people based on ethnicity.

Laminations

wes wrote: »

So, your saying it is unfair to deport based on rates of criminality, so its better to do so by ethnicity? Your just digging a rather pointless hole imho.

I'm saying that certain people like to get touchy when it comes to deportations and will find any old excuse to complain

Better to make decisions based on facts, as opposed to picking on people based on ethnicity.

And its better to focus on the decisions that count - like the one that involves ALL illegals getting deported, and not the decision that doesn't - like who goes first in what bloody order.

wes

wes wrote: »

Did they mention any such reason in there memo? Oh wait they didn't. I would figure if they had such reason, they would have mentioned them and things would be based on fact and figures, which aren't mentioned at all.

Unless the reasons were part of a previous memo, and generally accepted by everyone the report/memo was supposed to be seen by. There is generally no requirement to spell out every definition every time a memo is issued.

So, your saying it is unfair to deport based on rates of criminality, so its better to do so by ethnicity? Your just digging a rather pointless hole imho. Better to make decisions based on facts, as opposed to picking on people based on ethnicity.

And yet, they're not being picked on by ethnicity. They're being "picked on" due to their legal status and the legal status of the camps they've chosen to reside in. And if they were indeed being picked on, then it would only be the Roma's that would be deported. The facts show that this is not the case, in spite of all your claims of discrimination.

Laminations

Someone has to go first wes, who do you suggest?

wes

Deleted User wrote: »

Unless the reasons were part of a previous memo, and generally accepted by everyone the report/memo was supposed to be seen by. There is generally no requirement to spell out every definition every time a memo is issued.

Well considering that I have seen no mention of figures at all during the entire affair, it is rather odd.

Deleted User wrote: »

And yet, they're not being picked on by ethnicity. They're being "picked on" due to their legal status and the legal status of the camps they've chosen to reside in. And if they were indeed being picked on, then it would only be the Roma's that would be deported. The facts show that this is not the case, in spite of all your claims of discrimination.

They are being singled out due to there ethnicity. The law is suppose to applied to all equally, and this isn't really the case here.

P. Breathnach

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Actually I think his issue was people comparing a mass extermination with legal deportation. You keep changing the subject when someone points this out so one can only assume you now realise Godwin's law wasn't appropriate but don't want to admit it.

Don't accuse me of ducking the issue, and take some care about what positions you ascribe to people.

I did not introduce the holocaust comparison, and I wouldn't do so because it is disproportionate. But a disproportionate parallel can still be a parallel. I entered the discussion when you swatted it aside without showing any sign of knowing that the Roma were also holocaust victims.

I have no problem with the law being applied in an even-handed way; I do have a problem with the application of the law being based on ethnicity.

Martin 2

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I've made my views of the typical roma lifesyle clear but it was wrong of the French government to target them by ethnicity. Haven't seen the memo, don't speak French and I'm open to corrections but from interpreting the articles on it, it would appear instructions were given to target Romas as a priority for simply being Roma. That isn't cool.

Perhaps if it was shown Roma camps typically had higher rates of crime it could be argued it made sense to target them as priority but I have not seen this brought up.

Any French speakers with acces to the leaked memo?

I don't think anyone responded to the above request so here you are:

Link to the memo/directive. This site is linked from this article in Le Monde.

The directive is from the Minister of the Interior etc. to the prefects (~chiefs) of police etc.

Here's my rough translation of the underlined sections:
The President of the Republic has set precise objectives, on the 28th of July last, for the evacuation of unlawful camps: 300 camps or unlawful settlements must be (literally, will have to have been) evacuated within 3 months, with priority those of the Roma.

The directive goes on to state that in each department (regional subdivision of France) it is for the prefect to take systematic steps to dismantle unlawful camps, with priority those of the Roma.


My view on this; the prioritising of one ethnic group for evacuation is wrong and quite possibly contrary to international laws. All credit to the EC for criticising the French government's actions and I would hope that it'd do same should the Irish government ever do something similar.

wes

Laminations wrote: »

Someone has to go first wes, who do you suggest?

They could decided by going with the largest camp first or the smallest, or any other criteria. No need to bring race into it at all.

KindOfIrish

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I'd suspect that a Roma holocaust survivor would be troubled by a policy of selecting illegally-resident Roma for expulsion rather than applying the policy equally to all illegal residents.

That is my question as well. In France tens of thousands illegal immigrants from Asia and Africa living freely and police know about it very well. But they chose mass deportation of Roma EU citizens. Why? as well it is 100% useless as all those deportees will be back in France in no time.

Laminations

wes wrote: »

They are being singled out due to there ethnicity. The law is suppose to applied to all equally, and this isn't really the case here.

The law IS being applied equally, all illegals will be deported. For the law to be applied equally in your eyes, are you suggesting all illegals have to be deported at the same time or haphazardly? Question remains, who goes first?

wes

Laminations wrote: »

The law IS being applied equally, all illegals will be deported. For the law to be applied equally in your eyes, are you suggesting all illegals have to be deported at the same time or haphazardly?

No, the is hardly being applied equally.

Secondly, the illegal camps can be dismantled by any number of other criteria. To suggest that the only proper way is to do so is by ethnicity is ridiculous. Alternative suggestions have been offered already.

Laminations wrote: »

Question remains, who goes first?

Question has been answered a couple of times already, actually.....

wes

wes wrote: »

Well considering that I have seen no mention of figures at all during the entire affair, it is rather odd.

Why would figures matter?

They are being singled out due to there ethnicity. The law is suppose to applied to all equally, and this isn't really the case here.

We're going around in circles here. You keep saying that they're being singled out due to there ethnicity, and yet the deportation is happening to everyone in those camps. The only singling out was the mention of placing them as a priority in the deportations, not that they would receive different treatment than the other deportees.

wes

Deleted User wrote: »

Why would figures matter?

To help make decisions........

Deleted User wrote: »

We're going around in circles here. You keep saying that they're being singled out due to there ethnicity, and yet the deportation is happening to everyone in those camps. The only singling out was the mention of placing them as a priority in the deportations, not that they would receive different treatment than the other deportees.

So why single out the Roma then? Is there any need to prioritize them above other groups? Seems like a pretty clear cut case to me.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Martin 2 wrote: »

I don't think anyone responded to the above request so here you are:

Link to the memo/directive. This site is linked from this article in Le Monde.

The directive is from the Minister of the Interior etc. to the prefects (~chiefs) of police etc.

Here's my rough translation of the underlined sections:
The President of the Republic has set precise objectives, on the 28th of July last, for the evacuation of unlawful camps: 300 camps or unlawful settlements must be (literally, will have to have been) evacuated within 3 months, with priority those of the Roma.

The directive goes on to state that in each department (regional subdivision of France) it is for the prefect to take systematic steps to dismantle unlawful camps, with priority those of the Roma.


My view on this; the prioritising of one ethnic group for evacuation is wrong and quite possibly contrary to international laws. All credit to the EC for criticising the French government's actions and I would hope that it'd do same should the Irish government ever do something similar.

Thanks for that. I would agree with your sentiments that to prioritise a group on purely ethnic grounds is wrong.

I just wonder was there a prelude to this. As in had it previously been established there were higher rates of crime on the Roma camps. If not then it was pure racism to give those camps priority

OhNoYouDidn't

Laminations wrote: »

The law IS being applied equally, all illegals will be deported. For the law to be applied equally in your eyes, are you suggesting all illegals have to be deported at the same time or haphazardly? Question remains, who goes first?

But thats patently not the case here. The French have targetted a specific ethnic group and are actively rounding them up for deportation WITHOUT DUE PROCESS.

Even if you agree with the action, as you clearly do, its in violation of French, EU and UN law.

No-one is disputing the right of the French to remove illegal immigrants, especially those who are involved in crime, but there is a clear problem with their approach on this one, and a bigger issue in terms of the linking of migrants to crime, when the stats show that is not actually the case.