Expulsion of Roma Gypsies From France

P. Breathnach

Deleted User wrote: »

And as I have said repeatedly making the Roma a priority does not mean that the deportation will only concern them

This is a politics forum, and I think it reasonable to interpret things from a political point of view. If a policy is made and applied as a priority to one identifiable group than to others, it is reasonable to interpret that as meaning that they are more likely to be affected by that policy -- in the longer as well as in the short term.

and that it makes sense for the Roma to be targeted, due to the points I raised above....

I really cannot find a point that you have raised, other than that there are more of them (and I'm not sure that is true).

P. Breathnach

Laminations wrote: »

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.

It's not merely supposition that the crackdown on illegal encampments is being focused initially on the Roma. It's a matter of targeting some illegals more than others.

When the Roma encampments are broken up and the drive runs out of steam before the others are tackled, I doubt if you'll jump in and criticise. I'm not suggesting that you are hypocritical; it's just that you won't come to hear of it, because it will no longer be news.

Answer me this: why is it a good thing that an illegal Roma encampment be dealt with earlier than an illegal encampment of Senegalese?

Memnoch

Memnoch wrote: »

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.

Well, actually the appeal process would be regardless of ethnic background and be about the individuals valid legal status in the country. If they could prove that they fulfill the requirements needed to reside in France, then they wouldn't have to leave.

Oddly enough you're arguing with me about such an appeals process even though 1) we don't know if it does or does not exist, and 2) if it does exist it would benefit any of the deportees that could prove their right to stay.

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.

No. The ethnicity debate is based on the prioritising of the Roma in the deportation process... This deportation does not solely target the Roma, and no matter how many times you try to make it sound like it does, you'll continue to be wrong.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

This is a politics forum, and I think it reasonable to interpret things from a political point of view. If a policy is made and applied as a priority to one identifiable group than to others, it is reasonable to interpret that as meaning that they are more likely to be affected by that policy -- in the longer as well as in the short term.

If you're hellbent on thinking about this from a political viewpoint, then you should have no problem recognising the need to assign priorities in any government based initiative and it does not necessary mean a definite guideline for future endeavors. Unless of course, its successful, whereby the Roma's would have been deported along with the other people in the camps, and the French government will have a working template to use for future cases.

P. Breathnach

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It's not merely supposition that the crackdown on illegal encampments is being focused initially on the Roma. It's a matter of targeting some illegals more than others.

They're still illegals in any case (by your own words) so why does it matter? They should be deported regardless.

When the Roma encampments are broken up and the drive runs out of steam before the others are tackled, I doubt if you'll jump in and criticise. I'm not suggesting that you are hypocritical; it's just that you won't come to hear of it, because it will no longer be news.

Funnily enough I was thinking the same about you, since so far this hasn't been about the Roma's and the Deportation, but rather this possible discrimination even though such supposed discrimination does not change the fact that the people involved have apparently no right to be in the country.

Answer me this: why is it a good thing that an illegal Roma encampment be dealt with earlier than an illegal encampment of Senegalese?

I'd go with whatever camp held the most people. Their ethnicity means absolutely nothing to me.

P. Breathnach

Deleted User wrote: »

... I'd go with whatever camp held the most people. Their ethnicity means absolutely nothing to me.

So there is no case for prioritising the Roma, then? Why have we been arguing?

Laminations

Memnoch wrote: »

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!

Funnily enough I see your argument as racist. You are unable to discuss a topic even-handedly once it involves something sensitive like race. You give the benefit of the doubt even when the evidence is overwhelming because race is involved.

Just in that post.
Yes many nigerians that come here are spongers, it's not racist to recognise that, the racist part comes if you conclude that all nigerians are spongers or if you can't bring yourself to admit that there are Nigerian spongers. And the spongers who are here of any race, no it's not my fault.

You mention illegal camps, yes I want them deported even if they are all Roma, not because they are Roma but because they are illegal. You on the other hand see an illegal camp 100% Roma and don't dare to deport, because they are Roma, you make allowances for race, you discriminate while I'd treat any illegal the same.

No I don't want yellow brown or black people to 'go home' or stop emigrating here nor does anyone in this thread I suspect but you like to paint your opponents that way, I want illegals to be dealt with regardless of race and I accept France has the right to deport illegals and protect it's Borders. You seem to disagree with national Borders or the idea of sovereignty. I want tourism and emigration but I want workers, people who want to contribute to Ireland (of any race or creed) you are happy to accept spongers and seem to specifically turn a blind eye if the spongers happen to be of certain ethnic minorities. We can actually have a debate on immigration in a grown up way, without generalisations or racism but not with people like you.

babybrian

I agree totaly with France and I hope we do the same here with our Roma's.. We already have our own 'travellers' 'gypsies' sponging off the state and partaking in crime so why do we have to deal with another crountries problem....

Vive la France

AlekSmart

Vive la France

...Mar a dúirt Babybrian.

Perhaps there is indeed some sense in M Sarkozy`s droll response to the increasingly solitary looking Vivane Reding that perhaps her country (Luxembourg) could take the Roma...

Will those irish citizens who espouse the awfulness of the French approach, consider sponsoring one or more of the Roma families concerned to come to Ireland and share in our bounty ?

We are told that these unfortunates have little worldly possessions and are subject to the most awful discrimination wherever they go

On the surface we have much to offer them,plenty of good quality accomodation,some brand new,a relatively lassiez-faire to laws and their enforcement and a provenly charitable indigenous population.....I`d suggest that even the most robust Roma would find something for them here right now ?

If this were done on a sponsorship basis,with the Native Irish sponsor assuming responsibility for their Roma guests then it might just work.

It would also allow those,such as myself,who support the French approach,to maintain our stance,whilst giving free-rein to those of opposing views to back them up in a tangible fashion ?

P. Breathnach

P. Breathnach wrote: »

So there is no case for prioritising the Roma, then? Why have we been arguing?

You seem to have this continued incapacity to read what I actually write. Their ethnicity means absolutely nothing to me. We're arguing because you've got this discrimination belief in your teeth, and can't let go.

AlekSmart

AlekSmart wrote: »

Will those irish citizens who espouse the awfulness of the French approach, consider sponsoring one or more of the Roma families concerned to come to Ireland and share in our bounty ?

TBH they won't need to. While not eligible under French law to be citizens, they're still members of the EU, and can still enter our country on their own. And its likely we'll see more of these kind of camps since we're incapable of acting decisively against such behavior.

We are told that these unfortunates have little worldly possessions and are subject to the most awful discrimination wherever they go

Again, TBH, they're self created. They have as much problems as anyone with letting go of the past, and have created a culture about themselves which promotes them to be different. And the problem with large numbers of strangers who speak different, look different, and act different will be treated with suspicion, especially now with the economic downturn and the difficulty for local people to get jobs.

On the surface we have much to offer them,plenty of good quality accomodation,some brand new,a relatively lassiez-faire to laws and their enforcement and a provenly charitable indigenous population.....I`d suggest that even the most robust Roma would find something for them here right now ?

They're already here... just not to the degree that they need to set up camps of their own. Yet.

If this were done on a sponsorship basis,with the Native Irish sponsor assuming responsibility for their Roma guests then it might just work.

hahahaha... That might be difficult.

It would also allow those,such as myself,who support the French approach,to maintain our stance,whilst giving free-rein to those of opposing views to back them up in a tangible fashion ?

Sounds good. Lets do it. Its going to happen at some stage anyway regardless of whether these people take responsibility or not.

P. Breathnach

Deleted User wrote: »

You seem to have this continued incapacity to read what I actually write.

Perhaps that is because you are unclear.

Their ethnicity means absolutely nothing to me.

How does that statement clarify anything? My position is that ethnicity should have nothing to do with a policy or its implementation, and suddenly you seem to take a similar view to mine. But now you say that you don't.

We're arguing because you've got this discrimination belief in your teeth, and can't let go.

The discrimination is fact: a directive was issued by the French Interior Ministry to the police telling them to deal with Roma encampments as a priority. I thought the argument was about whether discrimination in applying the law was justified or justifiable.

P. Breathnach

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Perhaps that is because you are unclear.

Hardly.

How does that statement clarify anything? My position is that ethnicity should have nothing to do with a policy or its implementation, and suddenly you seem to take a similar view to mine. But now you say that you don't.

Suddenly? haha.. you're proving my point that you haven't really read my posts properly. I've argued from the beginning that the ethnicity of the Roma has no bearing, but rather their legal status is what is important. Seriously. Read back.

The discrimination is fact: a directive was issued by the French Interior Ministry to the police telling them to deal with Roma encampments as a priority. I thought the argument was about whether discrimination in applying the law was justified or justifiable.

Personally, I see no discrimination since the end results are the same for all parties involved. The only thing that is different (in this example) is who is prioritised to go first.
That to me is not discrimination.

P. Breathnach

Deleted User wrote: »

Hardly.

Suddenly? haha.. you're proving my point that you haven't really read my posts properly. I've argued from the beginning that the ethnicity of the Roma has no bearing, but rather their legal status is what is important. Seriously. Read back.

Okay. I read back. Frankly, it is difficult to interpret your position.

Personally, I see no discrimination since the end results are the same for all parties involved. The only thing that is different (in this example) is who is prioritised to go first.
That to me is not discrimination.

And my point is that the end results might well not be the same for different groups -- a point which you seemed to accept, while maintaining that it still made sense to concentrate on the Roma. See http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68037032&postcount=345

Instead of disparaging my intelligence, I suggest that you put forward a coherent position, one that I might understand.

P. Breathnach

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Okay. I read back. Frankly, it is difficult to interpret your position.

I can't honestly see why. I've repeated it enough times in various different ways.

And my point is that the end results might well not be the same for different groups

And where do you get this from?

-- a point which you seemed to accept

And where did I agree that the end would be different for the Roma and the other Illegals?

, while maintaining that it still made sense to concentrate on the Roma. See http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68037032&postcount=345

Yup, that's me.

Instead of disparaging my intelligence

How exactly have I done that? If anything it has been you that has been throwing out such comments against my posts.

, I suggest that you put forward a coherent position, one that I might understand.

Case in point.

Laminations

P. Breathnach wrote: »

And my point is that the end results might well not be the same for different groups -- a point which you seemed to accept, while maintaining that it still made sense to concentrate on the Roma. See http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=68037032&postcount=345

Instead of disparaging my intelligence, I suggest that you put forward a coherent position, one that I might understand.

It is inappropriate to take a stance based on possible outcomes, I'm sure it leaves you open to fallacious arguments like jumping to conclusions or confirmation bias

Laminations

Maybe this sheds light on why Roma are a priority

BBC wrote:

What prompted the latest government action?
In July, dozens of French Roma armed with hatchets and iron bars attacked a police station, hacked down trees and burned cars in the small Loire Valley town of Saint Aignan.
The riot erupted after a gendarme shot and killed a French Roma, 22-year-old Luigi Duquenet, who officials said had driven through a police checkpoint, knocking over a policeman. Media reports suggested he had been involved in a burglary earlier that day.
Duquenet's family dispute the police version of events, saying he was scared of being stopped because he did not have a valid driver's licence.
The night before, there were riots in Grenoble after police shot an alleged armed robber during a shootout.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy called an emergency ministerial meeting, at which it was decided that some 300 illegal camps and squats would be dismantled within three months.
A statement from the president's office said the camps were "sources of illegal trafficking, of profoundly shocking living standards, of exploitation of children for begging, of prostitution and crime".
Dozens of camps have since been shut down. Those found to be living illegally in France are being sent home.
The move is part of a raft of new hardline security measures recently announced by the government, which has struggled with low approval ratings in the opinion polls.

P. Breathnach

Deleted User wrote: »

I can't honestly see why. I've repeated it enough times in various different ways.

In so many different ways that you seem to be saying different things at different times -- and then you suggest that my failure to understand your position is a failing on my part.

There seems to be little point in pursuing this line of discussion.

Memnoch

Laminations wrote: »

Maybe this sheds light on why Roma are a priority

Ah, it all makes sense now. So the police shoot a 22 year old dead(the exact circumstances of this remain in dispute.), and this provokes a reaction from SOME Roma. And this justifies targeting an entire ethnicity, based on the actions of a few.

Yes, I can see how race is not at all an issue here. Nor are people being tarred with the same brush and singled out based on ethnicity. Just as it wouldn't have been if the police in London had rounded up and deported all the Irish because of the actions of the IRA.

Please continue your sensible stand against illegal immigrants.

P. Breathnach

Third time to try responding to this. Weird.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

In so many different ways that you seem to be saying different things at different times -- and then you suggest that my failure to understand your position is a failing on my part.

I've kept to the same points. But I'll put numbers on them to make it easier for you to understand.
1) The Roma and others are there illegally.
2) French immigration law provides them with the option of changing such a status dependent on being able to gain employment. [Which is why I asked about the existence of an appeal process]
3) That we have only one leaked document to base all this discussion on, and it would be worthwhile to have access to the other documents/memo;s regarding this subject since it would shed some light on the definitions, and the reasons behind the decision of which camps to target.
4) The declaration of placing priority on the deportation of the Roma does not constitute discrimination since all deportees (Roma or otherwise) will receive the same end results.

Think that's all of it.

There seems to be little point in pursuing this line of discussion.

/sigh.

Memnoch

Memnoch wrote: »

Please continue your sensible stand against illegal immigrants.

How about my stance?

They're illegal and show no inclination to change that status since the illegal camps were well established and the people living there had plenty of time to avail of the admissions under French Immigration law.

Memnoch

Deleted User wrote: »

How about my stance?

They're illegal and show no inclination to change that status since the illegal camps were well established and the people living there had plenty of time to avail of the admissions under French Immigration law.

Who is they? How do you know all of the Roma are there illegally? Do the police know this BEFORE the go rounding up entire dwellings of inhabitants? Is there a general law that allows police to search people for identification and determine their legality? On what basis is this being done.

The answer to all of these seems to be only one. That they are Roma. That is how they are being selected and treated, as separate from the rest of the population of France. In that context, their legality or lack thereof is inconsequential.

As an analogy, this is like the Garda walking around Dublin and stopping every single "brown," person they meet and asking them to provide proof that they are not in the country illegally. I.E. Targeting and INDIVIDUAL based on their ETHNICITY.

Memnoch

Memnoch wrote: »

Who is they? How do you know all of the Roma are there illegally? Do the police know this BEFORE the go rounding up entire dwellings of inhabitants? Is there a general law that allows police to search people for identification and determine their legality? On what basis is this being done.

They being the deportees. Who else would I be talking about?

On the same basis that everything on this thread has been about. The articles online and the leaked document. And I'm fairly sure that any police force in Europe has the right to check the legal status of any individual in their respective countries.

The answer to all of these seems to be only one. That they are Roma. That is how they are being selected and treated, as separate from the rest of the population of France. In that context, their legality or lack thereof is inconsequential.

Except that it is the camps that are being targeted and there are more than just the Roma concerned. And their legality is the core element of this whole discussion.

IF they were legally entitled to stay in France, then the French government would be unable to deport them, so therefore the legality of their stay in France is of the utmost importance. For Gods sake, use a bit of common sense.

As an analogy, this is like the Garda walking around Dublin and stopping every single "brown," person they meet and asking them to provide proof that they are not in the country illegally. I.E. Targeting and INDIVIDUAL based on their ETHNICITY.

No, it is like going to a makeshift camp which was made by foreigners just outside of any Irish town/city (on land not owned by the foreigners), and checking if they're in the country illegally, and then making a stand to remove them rather than ignoring the problem.

And I've said it many times. They're not basing anything except the priority of the deportations on ethnicity. They're basing the whole operation on those INDIVIDUALS living in ILLEGAL camps. Hence a targeting on a LEGAL REQUIREMENT. [Yes, I can use caps too]

Laminations

Memnoch wrote: »

Who is they? How do you know all of the Roma are there illegally?

All the Roma are not being targeted, illegals (many of which are Roma are being targeted).

Do the police know this BEFORE the go rounding up entire dwellings of inhabitants?

How is this specific to Roma, this would be an issue whatever strategy or priority the police put on deportations. For example, the method of dealing with large camps first (a method you and others seem to accept) would inevitably lead to the same 'how do you know all the campers are illegal? The French have said they'll still go case-by-case.

And you are showing ridiculous levels of benefit of the doubt to suggest that there may be legal Roma living in illegal camps, but hey thats your style.

Is there a general law that allows police to search people for identification and determine their legality? On what basis is this being done.

The basis that the people are residing in illegal dwellings.

The answer to all of these seems to be only one. That they are Roma.

Lol, not that they are illegal?
If Roma A commits a crime, it is unwarranted to search out all Roma to punish or discriminated against, Roma B may be perfectly innocent.

If Roma Group A are all illegal immigrants it is legitimate to deport them but unwarranted to generalise and deport Roma Group B who are legal.

If elements in Roma Group A (who again are all illegal) are causing trouble (moreso than elements in Pakistani Group A (who are also illegal) it is appropriate to prioritise the deportation of Roma Group A, afterall they are all illegal so you are not discriminating or generalising a specific punishment or outcome to innocent Roma.

That is how they are being selected and treated, as separate from the rest of the population of France. In that context, their legality or lack thereof is inconsequential.

Wrong, the illegal Roma are only being treated slightly differently (in terms of expediency not consequence) from the rest of illegals, who are all being treated differently from the general population BECAUSE they are illegal.

As an analogy, this is like the Garda walking around Dublin and stopping every single "brown," person they meet and asking them to provide proof that they are not in the country illegally. I.E. Targeting and INDIVIDUAL based on their ETHNICITY.

Again no it is not. Every brown person would have to be resident in an illegal dwelling to qualify themselves for questioning. The French will not be searching houses and shops trying to pick out Roma - afterall how do you pick out a Roma?

Its closer to this analogy. You qualify for the dumb class in school. There are 4 dumb classes and 4 clever classes. The dumb class dont get to do higher maths because they are dumb, so when a higher maths class takes place the dumb kids all get brought to the yard for PE. Before being brought to the yard, boys in your class begin to mess so the teachers decide to bring your dumb ass class out first - Now maybe you werent messing so you might feel hard done by but at the end of the day you are dumb and would be heading to the yard anyway. Are the teachers discriminating here by proritising an order among groups whose members self qualified? Not because they were brown, black, white or yellow but because you were all dumb

Just as all the Roma who will be targeted are all illegal


Analogy Key:
Replace dumb with illegal, clever with legal, yard with deportation and Teachers with French and hey presto

ebbsy

We should do the same over here.

Fair play to the French, better to weed 'em out before crime/littering/etc spirals out of control.

Nodin

Laminations wrote: »

Maybe this sheds light on why Roma are a priority

As they're French Roma and thus citizens who can't be deported, not really no.

Rioting is not - and this might come as a shock - a habit confined to minorities in France.

rugbyman

i have read through most of this thread with interest. There are posters on here who mirror my own beliefs and othere like P.Breatnach ,whose stuff i have read over the last year and have some regard for.

posting from France , though that does not give me any more right to an opinion than a poster at home, i thoroughly support th expulsion of Roma.
i fear that those who say it is being done by Sarkosy for political reasons may well be a bit right, but i am happy that it is being done.

i feel that all the debating about who should be first is hair splitting.

P Breatnacht,
though a lot of your stuff is arguing over the exact meaning of what someone said ,i dont think you have shown your cards on whether you feel anybody should be deported from anywhere.
you mentioned that you have friends in France how do they feel about the deportations, do they feel that all the Roma who want to come to France and live there, either in fields or homes should be welcomed?

By the how come ye are all good typists ? ,

regards Rugbyman

rugbyman

Laminations, I am stil chuckling over the guys in class, a bit deep for me at first, the analogy helped, but I think in this PC world maybe dumb and clever is a bit "sharp".

I take it taking prisioners is not your thing.!

Regards ,Rugbyman

P. Breathnach

rugbyman wrote: »

... i feel that all the debating about who should be first is hair splitting.

P Breatnacht,
though a lot of your stuff is arguing over the exact meaning of what someone said ,i dont think you have shown your cards on whether you feel anybody should be deported from anywhere.

Well, I know what I think, and I thought I had indicated it. No, I see nothing wrong with deporting illegal immigrants. But I do not think the argument about who should be first is hair splitting, because I am quite sure that, like many such policies, it won't be followed through to the end. I believe that the law should be applied equally to everybody.

you mentioned that you have friends in France how do they feel about the deportations, do they feel that all the Roma who want to come to France and live there, either in fields or homes should be welcomed?

I don't know what they think, because I haven't been in France since this story broke. I know from past experience that they are not particularly opposed to gens de voyage or tziganes; they are part of French life. We have never discussed illegal immigrant Roms or unauthorised encampments. My guess is that their attitude would not surprise you, that they would be against them. I suspect, however, that they would be against any policy that targets one group of wrongdoers more than others.

By the how come ye are all good typists ?

Lots of practice.

P. Breathnach

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I suspect, however, that they would be against any policy that targets one group of wrongdoers more than others.

What like targeting murderers more than pickpockets?

joseph brand

AlekSmart wrote: »

...Mar a dúirt Babybrian.

Perhaps there is indeed some sense in M Sarkozy`s droll response to the increasingly solitary looking Vivane Reding that perhaps her country (Luxembourg) could take the Roma...

What is a Luxembourg?

Just wondering now if Luxembourg has any Roma population?

From my experience of working with Eastern Europeans, the Roma do not have a good image (to put it as mildly as possible) in countries such as Slovakia, Bulgaria and of course Romania.