Expulsion of Roma Gypsies From France

gurramok

wes wrote: »

Some examples, where people referred to the French in such a way. I must have missed it.

They haven't mentioned the R word yet, but it nearly always props up in these kind of things

wes wrote: »

Yes, hyperbole is always helpful....

What else could it be? They had no problem with the Irish deporting the Roma from the M50 but have a problem with the French doing the exact same thing.

RandomName2

Sarcozy's pro-European integration makes him looks like an idiot when he attempts to take charge of his national borders. A fool or a knave. Or both.

opo

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

I'm goint to try one last time. The issue is not about France deporting illegal immigrants.

The issue is explicitly targetting an ethnic group and deporting them en mass without due legal process in violation of French, EU and UN law.

Where in French, EU and/or UN law does it state that any legal due process is required to deport someone who clearly does not satisfy the most basic conditions of residency in a fellow European country and what is the function, nature and reason for such a legal process?

caseyann

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

I'm goint to try one last time. The issue is not about France deporting illegal immigrants.

The issue is explicitly targetting an ethnic group and deporting them en mass without due legal process in violation of French, EU and UN law.

Then how should they go about removing those who are undesirable to France and creating shanty towns and prostitution and other crimes? I mean how much can you actually force on them in the ways of the laws of France?
They live in tribal gangs are controled by same tribal gangs and are orgainised.
If their children are not attending school under the laws of france and they do now abide by the laws of france then France has every right to deport them.
Because of the large shanty towns and crimes they have been apparently proven to be involved in,i see no discrimination,i see justice been served.

How would you suggest they have them removed?As obviously they as a people are causing that much crime in the areas and France is fed up with it.
I remember reading this in 2007.
http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=83318

Problems with Roma gypsies have been encountered across Europe for years. Last year the French authorities uncovered a baby-selling ring operated by Roma gypsies, six of whom were convicted of buying 23 babies in Bulgaria for sale to desperate couples in France. The children were all given birth to by young women, all believed to have been enslaved in the Eastern Europe sex trade.

None of the Bulgarian mothers identified sought the return of their children, it is believed because of fear that the children would be abducted or killed.

Gardai in Dublin city centre say that over the past year Roma gypsies have been arrested for a variety of crimes ranging from highly organised ATM fraud, involving cards either stolen or copied in other EU states, to handbag snatching, shoplifting and pilfering.

While i am not blaming them all and luckily enough alot of the roma seem to have sought proper employment here.
The amounts are lower here so it is alot easier to handle.

France has every right t say enough is enough dont you think?

MarkGrisham

Throwing out the Roma by itself isn't going to do much in the long run. The Roma will just slip back into France and the whole thing will start again! Illegal camps can be put back up in days. Pointed out here.

The problem is that the Roma have no vested interest in society and society has no vested interest in them. If they're sent back to Romania or Bulgaria or wherever, there needs to be something for them there. The Roma themselves need to cop on too, their ****ing about is going to bring worse and worse upon their heads until they do.

Laminations

MarkGrisham wrote: »

Throwing out the Roma by itself isn't going to do much in the long run. The Roma will just slip back into France and the whole thing will start again! Illegal camps can be put back up in days. Pointed out here.

The problem is that the Roma have no vested interest in society and society has no vested interest in them. If they're sent back to Romania or Bulgaria or wherever, there needs to be something for them there. The Roma themselves need to cop on too, their ****ing about is going to bring worse and worse upon their heads until they do.

Well the French are making efforts to try and get the Roma to integrate in their home countries and so make it less likely they can just return.

http://www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/newsbriefs/setimes/newsbriefs/2010/09/10/nb-03

The likelihood of any illegal immigrant just returning should not disuade the French (or any country) from deporting anyone who is illegal and protecting their borders.

Laminations

Seeing as people here are happy to make repulsive comparisons with the holocaust....

I dont think the Jews going to the gas chambers would have taken any solace in the fact that Roma may have been first in line. The consequences for all of them were unfortunately the same.

The selection of people to be gassed was based on ethnicity.

In France today, the selection of people to be deported is based on legal status.

The order after that makes little difference.

MarkGrisham

Laminations wrote: »

Well the French are making efforts to try and get the Roma to integrate in their home countries and so make it less likely they can just return.

http://www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/newsbriefs/setimes/newsbriefs/2010/09/10/nb-03

The likelihood of any illegal immigrant just returning should not disuade the French (or any country) from deporting anyone who is illegal and protecting their borders.

Well, good then I suppose if they're serious about it. They obviously have the right and responsibility to throw out illegal immigrants out of France, but it did strike me as pointless unless the Roma have a reason to stay out.

gurramok

Laminations wrote: »

Seeing as people here are happy to make repulsive comparisons with the holocaust....

I dont think the Jews going to the gas chambers would have taken any solace in the fact that Roma may have been first in line. The consequences for all of them were unfortunately the same.

The selection of people to be gassed was based on ethnicity.

In France today, the selection of people to be deported is based on legal status.

The order after that makes little difference.

It really was insulting to the French nation what that EU commissioner said. Even the European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso has distanced himself from Reding.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11323053

bbc wrote:

Mr Sarkozy was said to be scandalised by Ms Reding's criticism, mockingly suggesting the Roma should go to her country, Luxembourg.

With tension rising to an unprecedented level, European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso on Wednesday distanced himself from Ms Reding's comparison with World War II deportations.

He said Ms Reding had his full support, but "one or other of the expressions used in the heat of the moment may have given rise to misunderstandings".

"Vice-President Reding did not want to establish any parallelism between what happened in the Second World War and the present," he said.

France's Europe Minister Pierre Lellouche said Ms Reding's comments were "not appropriate".

"A plane ticket back to the European Union country of origin is not the same thing as death trains and the gas chambers," he said.

Italy's Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi said she should have raised her concerns in private, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel said she found "the tone and especially the historical comparisons unsuitable".

France says its policy respects EU laws. It denies that the expulsions target an ethnic group, saying they are done on a case-by-case basis. It also insists that most of them are voluntary.

Many of those deported are offered cash payments of about 330 euros ($423, £274) per adult and 100 euros per child.

P. Breathnach

Laminations wrote: »

... In France today, the selection of people to be deported is based on legal status....

That's simply not so. There was a directive to start with the Roma, so the selection is based on legal status and ethnicity. And that second criterion is what so exercises most or all of the people that you disagree with here.

Laminations

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That's simply not so. There was a directive to start with the Roma, so the selection is based on legal status and ethnicity. And that second criterion is what so exercises most or all of the people that you disagree with here.

No selection was based on legal status alone

Ordering is being based on ethnicity but this matters little as the consequence for all is the same.

P. Breathnach

Laminations wrote: »

No selection was based on legal status alone

Ordering is being based on ethnicity but this matters little as the consequence for all is the same.

God! You really are trying very hard to defend the indefensible.

If a law-enforcement officer is faced with two miscreants, and decides to deal with one immediately because of a criterion such as ethnicity, and says to the other "I might get around to dealing with you sometime in the future" that is selection.

And I am sure that you know as well as I do that policies such as clearing unauthorised encampments and deporting illegal immigrants are not followed through anything like 100%. You get a flurry of activity, and then things settle down as before, with those who escaped the initial flurry breathe a sigh of relief. So what you call ordering results in different outcomes for different ethnic groups.

Laminations

P. Breathnach wrote: »

God! You really are trying very hard to defend the indefensible.
.

Rich coming from someone who finds it acceptable to make comparisons between deporting illegal immigrants and gassing ethnic elements of a population.

I've asked what order would suit you and you haven't given a satisfactory answer.

I mean can you at least wait until you have facts rather than speculating that the French will stop after the Roma. Going back to my office analogy, if I was firing both employees, would you jump out at the point of me pointing to the black guy first and accuse me of some kind of possible future racism because you suspect that after I fire the first guy, I'll stop and give the second guy a reprieve? Calls of discrimination Minority Report style.

A right old 'jump the gun' knicker twist

P. Breathnach

P. Breathnach wrote: »

God! You really are trying very hard to defend the indefensible.

If a law-enforcement officer is faced with two miscreants, and decides to deal with one immediately because of a criterion such as ethnicity, and says to the other "I might get around to dealing with you sometime in the future" that is selection.

And I am sure that you know as well as I do that policies such as clearing unauthorised encampments and deporting illegal immigrants are not followed through anything like 100%. You get a flurry of activity, and then things settle down as before, with those who escaped the initial flurry breathe a sigh of relief. So what you call ordering results in different outcomes for different ethnic groups.

From what I can gather the majority of the camps consist of the Roma Gypsies... so by placing a priority on them the French Authorities are aiming to deport the most numbers within the time available to them. As you say, there will be a flurry of activity and then it will settle down until something sparks it to start again. But the point remains, that placing a priority on the Roma makes common sense to remove the largest concentrations of these kind of camps.

P. Breathnach

Laminations wrote: »

Rich coming from someone who finds it acceptable to make comparisons between deporting illegal immigrants and gassing ethnic elements of a population.

I didn't. But don't let that bother you.

I've asked what order would suit you and you haven't given a satisfactory answer.

Such a demand is undeserving of an answer. Any order that does not involve inappropriate discrimination will do: size, proximity to police station, date of creation, whatever.

I mean can you at least wait until you have facts rather than speculating that the French will stop after the Roma.

Yeah, right. And if my judgement is correct, I can say "I told you so". But Sarkozy's goal will have been accomplished (his goal being to get political credit for tackling the Roma problem; the fact that many of the same Roma or other ones will filter back into France over the next couple of years doesn't matter; political gestures are short-term things).

P. Breathnach

Deleted User wrote: »

From what I can gather the majority of the camps consist of the Roma Gypsies... so by placing a priority on them the French Authorities are aiming to deport the most numbers within the time available to them. As you say, there will be a flurry of activity and then it will settle down until something sparks it to start again. But the point remains, that placing a priority on the Roma makes common sense to remove the largest concentrations of these kind of camps.

There is a discontinuity in your argument. If, for argument's sake, 60% of the camps were Roma, where is the logic in dealing with 100% of those camps and 0% of the others?

If other criteria were used, you might deal with about 60% of the Roma and about 60% of the rest.

As a matter of interest, the rest include North Africans (mostly Arab) sub-Saharan Africans (many from former French Colonies) but the largest numbers of those illegally camped are French citizens, those known as gens de voyage, many of whom are Roma (gitanes, tziganes).

wes

gurramok wrote: »

They haven't mentioned the R word yet, but it nearly always props up in these kind of things

We are 24 pages in so far....

gurramok wrote: »

What else could it be? They had no problem with the Irish deporting the Roma from the M50 but have a problem with the French doing the exact same thing.

Except they didn't do the same thing.

Laminations

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I didn't. But don't let that bother you.

Sounds to me like to find it acceptable, disproportionate but 'less than offensive'

P. Breathnach wrote: »

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.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It is a disproportionate comparison, but the fact that Roma were, in significant numbers, victims of the holocaust makes it less than offensive.

Do you think that antisemitism in Germany in 1920 amounted to a consensus that all Jews should be killed?

And ordering is a logistical issue and is important, your solutions may be highly inappropriate and ineffective

Such a demand is undeserving of an answer. Any order that does not involve inappropriate discrimination will do: size, proximity to police station, date of creation, whatever.

Yeah, right. And if my judgement is correct, I can say "I told you so". But Sarkozy's goal will have been accomplished (his goal being to get political credit for tackling the Roma problem; the fact that many of the same Roma or other ones will filter back into France over the next couple of years doesn't matter; political gestures are short-term things).

Ok so your way is far better, preemptive judgements and measures. What if your judgement is correct? Then you deal with it then, but you dont just suppose and take action based on your bias. What if you were to suppose that a sex offender was likely to commit another crime? would we find you beating his face in just because if you didnt and then if he did commit another crime, it'd be too late to stiop him? It shows waht you really think of rights.

Thats so many ifs it makes for an iffy argument

P. Breathnach

Laminations wrote: »

... Thats so many ifs it makes for an iffy argument

Life is full of ifs, and not amenable to simple-minded solutions based on ethnicity.

In some respects Sarkozy is an able politician, but he panders to that right-wing element in France that might otherwise vote for Le Pen, and in doing so he seems quite willing to play the race card. Such an approach needs critics, not cheerleaders.

gurramok

wes wrote: »

We are 24 pages in so far....

They're been careful! The word is just bursting to come out

Still, we managed to have the Holocaust brought in!

wes wrote: »

Except they didn't do the same thing.

Oh boy, perhaps re-read what happened in both cases.

P. Breathnach

P. Breathnach wrote: »

There is a discontinuity in your argument. If, for argument's sake, 60% of the camps were Roma, where is the logic in dealing with 100% of those camps and 0% of the others?

Actually I continued with your logic... That this initiative would run out of steam and be dropped after some time. So therefore it makes sense to target the largest concentrations of Illegals to make the biggest impression for voters.

If other criteria were used, you might deal with about 60% of the Roma and about 60% of the rest.

Which would mean splitting your attention. Considering the culture that the Roma live by, including their own rules against the mixing of their blood with others, its likely that camps where the Roma reside, would have mostly Roma gypsies living in them. So it makes sense to target those camps from the beginning, since there wouldn't be a need to divide the resources available for the deportations.

As a matter of interest, the rest include North Africans (mostly Arab) sub-Saharan Africans (many from former French Colonies) but the largest numbers of those illegally camped are French citizens, those known as gens de voyage, many of whom are Roma (gitanes, tziganes).

Really? Can i get the linkie as to where you got those details?

wes

gurramok wrote: »

They're been careful! The word is just bursting to come out

Still, we managed to have the Holocaust brought in!

Still, 24 pages and no one has said it.

gurramok wrote: »

Oh boy, perhaps re-read what happened in both cases.

Perhaps you need to do that. You seem to be unable to tell the difference between the 2.

Laminations

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Life is full of ifs, and not amenable to simple-minded solutions based on ethnicity.

In some respects Sarkozy is an able politician, but he panders to that right-wing element in France that might otherwise vote for Le Pen, and in doing so he seems quite willing to play the race card. Such an approach needs critics, not cheerleaders.

And I'll be extremely critical IF it ends up being simply an operation to eject Roma but the approach IS to deport 300 camps of illegal immigrants of various ethnicities. This IS the approach, IF he plays the race card, i'll be sure to jump in and criticise. You are working on supposition and assigning ill intent while I'm working on fact, and fact is they said they are targeting illegals.

gurramok wrote: »

They're been careful! The word is just bursting to come out

Still, we managed to have the Holocaust brought in!

Does race card count? You are right, they are being careful

P. Breathnach

Deleted User wrote: »

Actually I continued with your logic... That this initiative would run out of steam and be dropped after some time. So therefore it makes sense to target the largest concentrations of Illegals to make the biggest impression for voters.

Do you mean that you recognise that this policy is being targeted on Roma?

Really? Can i get the linkie as to where you got those details?

It's mostly my own knowledge, because I go to France quite often, and have friends there with whom I sometimes discuss French political life.

P. Breathnach

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Do you mean that you recognise that this policy is being targeted on Roma?

Back to this again? :rolleyes:

This policy is being targeted towards those who are residing illegally within camps in France. It just happens that a large number of those targeted are Roma Gypsies. I recognise that the Roma Gypsies (along with others) who have failed to adhere to the immigration laws of the country are placed under scrutiny and being deported.

It's mostly my own knowledge, because I go to France quite often, and have friends there with whom I sometimes discuss French political life.

I would have preferred something a little more concrete considering the topic we're discussing.

P. Breathnach

Deleted User wrote: »

Back to this again? :rolleyes:

This policy is being targeted towards those who are residing illegally within camps in France. It just happens that a large number of those targeted are Roma Gypsies. I recognise that the Roma Gypsies (along with others) who have failed to adhere to the immigration laws of the country are placed under scrutiny and being deported.

Yes, I'm back to it. I'm back to it because the issue is the targeting is of Roma as a priority, and not on the same terms as others are being targeted. See, for instance, http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=120113 to verify that.

I would have preferred something a little more concrete considering the topic we're discussing.

Well, I'm not giving you the contact details of my French friends! I don't think what I posted about the makeup of the illegal encampments should be regarded as surprising or controversial. It was a remark I made for the information of readers who might not know very much about France. If you have been to Paris, then you might have been pestered by Roma or North Africans or Sub-Saharan Africans. Many of them live in illegal encampments, and many have no right to be in France. You are more likely to find the gens de voyage outside the big cities.

P. Breathnach

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Yes, I'm back to it. I'm back to it because the issue is the targeting is of Roma as a priority, and not on the same terms as others are being targeted. See, for instance, http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=120113 to verify that.

And as I have said repeatedly making the Roma a priority does not mean that the deportation will only concern them, and that it makes sense for the Roma to be targeted, due to the points I raised above.

Well, I'm not giving you the contact details of my French friends! I don't think what I posted about the makeup of the illegal encampments should be regarded as surprising or controversial. It was a remark I made for the information of readers who might not know very much about France. If you have been to Paris, then you might have been pestered by Roma or North Africans or Sub-Saharan Africans. Many of them live in illegal encampments, and many have no right to be in France. You are more likely to find the gens de voyage outside the big cities.

Yes, I have been to France many times. I've also lived in Germany which had their own problems with various groupings similar to those in France or Italy. But it was the content of the remark that I found interesting, which is why I asked for a link for reference.

Memnoch

gurramok wrote: »

They're been careful! The word is just bursting to come out

Still, we managed to have the Holocaust brought in!



Oh boy, perhaps re-read what happened in both cases.

The truth is that nowadays there are no such things as racists.

There are people who are happy to discriminate against others based on race/ethinicity/origin. But they aren't racist, not really.

They wouldn't use words like '******,' or 'Paki,' or say things like, 'Eff off you Black Basterd.'

They don't have anything against Blacks but its not their fault if so many of the Nigerians coming to Ireland are thieving spongers. They don't have anything against yellow or brown people either, but would rather those Chinese, Indians and Pakistanis didn't continue to emigrate here. And they definitely don't have anything against the Roma, but it's high time all those illegal camps (that happen to be 100% Roma in make up) are dismantled and their residents deported regardless of individual circumstance.

No, there are no racists anymore. Just people who want to have a sensible and necessary debate on immigration because it's just so out of control and well we just don't have the resources for all those spongers coming here and profiting off our ancestor's hard work!

Oh, and go back to your own country!

Memnoch

Memnoch wrote: »

And they definitely don't have anything against the Roma, but it's high time all those illegal camps (that happen to be 100% Roma in make up) are dismantled and their residents deported regardless of individual circumstance.

I'm curious since I don't have any details myself on this. But I assume that there is an appeal process (since most western countries have such) in place whereby any of those picked for deportation (Roma or otherwise) would have the opportunity to show how they don't fall into the category being deported? i.e. that they already fill the obligations of French Immigration law by having work.

Anyone know if such an appeal process exists?

Memnoch

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm curious since I don't have any details myself on this. But I assume that there is an appeal process (since most western countries have such) in place whereby any of those picked for deportation (Roma or otherwise) would have the opportunity to show how they don't fall into the category being deported? i.e. that they already fill the obligations of French Immigration law by having work.

Anyone know if such an appeal process exists?

Ah right, so it's perfectly okay to target a particular ethnic group, just as long as there is an appeal process somewhere down the line. Glad we cleared that up.

Innocent until proven guilty, unless we've decided you happen to belong to an ethnicity we aren't to keen on today and happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.