Expulsion of Roma Gypsies From France

Nodin

opo wrote: »

Fine by me. Next time we deport twenty (say) Nigerians illegally here, I trust you will demand the removal of equal numbers of illegals of every nation so-as not to be racist.

A rather confused notion, in that presumes that we're targeting illegals by nationality, rather than illegality. I'm unaware of any such directive by the irish government. You may be able to inform me otherwise, however.

opo

Nodin wrote: »

You have what might be called a medieval idea of things - killing fellow christians is wrong, but killing heretics/infidels/followers of the wrong Jesus is a-ok.

About half past two.

Nodin

Laminations wrote: »

What are you waffling on about? THEY ASRE ALL ILLEGALS!

Yep, thats what we're trying to tell you.

opo

Nodin wrote: »

A rather confused notion, in that presumes that we're targeting illegals by nationality, rather than illegality. I'm unaware of any such directive by the irish government. You may be able to inform me otherwise, however.

Pick any deportation you like where more than one person was put on a plane to any one country. I gave for example - twenty Nigerians deported to ..... Nigeria.

P. Breathnach

Laminations wrote: »

What are you waffling on about? THEY ASRE ALL ILLEGALS! Generalising from bad apples to good is not acceptable, but they are all bad apples when you consider the state of the apples corresponds with legality.

What? All Irish people living abroad are illegals?

[Or is simply that you are not actually reading the posts to which you are responding?]

opo

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Wow! Pejorative labelling combined with a suggestion that people should not be equal in the eyes of the law.

But they are Dear - you want every last one there; illegally resident to be kicked out - I agree. The French in the main do too

All you are p1ssing and moaning about is the order of expulsion. I get it.

VIVA LE P. Breathnach

Laminations

Nodin wrote: »

Yep, thats what we're trying to tell you.

:rolleyes:

I'm irish but not in the IRA, Jose is spanish but not in ETA. We are both in London. The British government have said they will crack down on terrorist gangs, the IRA pose more of a threat, not because they are irish but for a multitude of other reasons, so the British government prioritise dealing with the IRA. They deport or detain all known IRA members regardless of whether they are currently planning an attack, they crime is membership of a paramilitary organisation. They do not detain all Irish, that would be discrimination.

So yes there are many illegals, the Roma have the worst camps and are most noticable on the streets, agressively begging and involved in crime - this is what the French are saying.

If the British in my example were to prioritise the deportation of IRA members would you try and argue they were doing it simply because they were Irish?

Laminations

P. Breathnach wrote: »

What? All Irish people living abroad are illegals?

[Or is simply that you are not actually reading the posts to which you are responding?]

To clarify, for the slower amongst us.

All illegal Roma are illegal. That is therefore no way comparable to your example of irish legal citizens being deported for the behaviour of other (either legal or illegal) irish.

What are the good apples you refer to in the Roma situation in France, or do you just like to wax lyrical about apples with no connection to the actual topic?

Nodin

Laminations wrote: »

So yes there are many illegals, the Roma have the worst camps and are most noticable on the streets, agressively begging and involved in crime - this is what the French are saying..

They've no stats to prove that though, funny enough. This idea that one bunch are worse than the other is speculative.

Laminations

Nodin wrote: »

They've no stats to prove that though, funny enough. This idea that one bunch are worse than the other is speculative.

No i have the word of the French government, what do you have, where are your stats? Your have your confirmation bias and you think thats a sturdy position from which to argue.

Even if its simply french perception that one group of illegals is worse that justifies prioritisation, because no one innocent will be punished by this operation

OhNoYouDidn't

Laminations wrote: »

All illegal Roma are illegal.

And the problem here is rounding up ALL Roma, legal or otherwise, and kicking them out with none of the normal legal process the French system usually has when deporting.

If you can't see what the issue is with that, well good luck and hopefully someday they don't come for you

Nodin

Laminations wrote: »

No i have the word of the French government,

...which previously stated it wasn't targeting one ethnicity and lo and behold.....

Laminations

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

And the problem here is rounding up ALL Roma, legal or otherwise, and kicking them out with none of the normal legal process the French system usually has when deporting.

If you can't see what the issue is with that, well good luck and hopefully someday they don't come for you

???????????????

Who is rounding up all Roma? even legal ones? God, if you are gonna jump into this thread, do it feet (not arse) first

Nodin

Laminations wrote: »

Even if its simply french perception that one group of illegals is worse that justifies prioritisation, because no one innocent will be punished by this operation

...whilst the camps are illegal, its far from certain that everyone in them is, so thats another one down the tubes.

opo

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

And the problem here is rounding up ALL Roma, legal or otherwise, and kicking them out with none of the normal legal process the French system usually has when deporting.

If you can't see what the issue is with that, well good luck and hopefully someday they don't come for you

Again I ask. Can you link to the legal process you are referring to.

Laminations

Nodin wrote: »

...which previously stated it wasn't targeting one ethnicity and lo and behold.....

And they are still saying they are not targeting one ethnicity.

From just a few days ago

Sarkozy said French authorities would continue to dismantle "all illegal camps," whoever they belonged to.

Prioritising is just ordering those who are targeted, the consequence is the same for all illegals

Laminations

Nodin wrote: »

...whilst the camps are illegal, its far from certain that everyone in them is, so thats another one down the tubes.

And if you read what the French have said, they are doing this on a case-by-case basis. I'm quite sure no legals will be deported, even if they are living in illegal camps, their camps however will be dismantled

opo

Laminations wrote: »

And they are still saying they are not targeting one ethnicity.

From just a few days ago

Sarkozy said French authorities would continue to dismantle "all illegal camps," whoever they belonged to.

Prioritising is just ordering those who are targeted, the consequence is the same for all illegals

Perhaps Nodin wants all the planes to take off at the same time?

Nodin

Laminations wrote: »

And they are still saying they are not targeting one ethnicity.

...despite there being evidence that such is not the case. Nor can they admit they are, because that would be a breach of French and European law.

OhNoYouDidn't

opo wrote: »

Again I ask. Can you link to the legal process you are referring to.

French, European or UN?

OhNoYouDidn't

Laminations wrote: »

And if you read what the French have said, they are doing this on a case-by-case basis. I'm quite sure no legals will be deported, even if they are living in illegal camps, their camps however will be dismantled

With respect, you being 'quite sure' isn't really enough, now is it....

opo

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

French, European or UN?

Tout.

Laminations

Can you actually tell me what your personal experience of Roma beggars is? I'm interested to see whether you'll deny or ignore your own direct experience in favour of staying PC. Where is your evidence that illegal Roma are not relatively worse? At least I have anecdotal evidence* on my side

* used to prioritise an already illegal cohort, not to generalise to an entire ethnicity

Laminations

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

With respect, you being 'quite sure' isn't really enough, now is it....

Yes it is, for me. And the existence of a small likelihood of them carting off legal resident Roma should not prevent them from trying to deport illegals. Its a case-by-case basis, what would you want them to do? and even if they did what you want there still remains the chance for mistakes

Scofflaw

Prioritising is just ordering those who are targeted, the consequence is the same for all illegals

In that case there would be no meaning to the term 'prioritising', and no reason for the term to have been used.

Say you had resources sufficient to deport 10,000 illegal immigrants. You believe that there are 7,500 Roma in the country, and 12,500 other illegals of various ethnicities. Under those circumstances, "prioritising" the Roma means deporting all the Roma and some of the other illegals, and the consequences are clearly not the same for all.

Alternatively, you believe that your policy may be open to challenge - you estimate you can get away with it for 3 months before the bleeding hearts tie it up in court, and you also estimate you can deport 3000 illegal immigrants per month. Again, "prioritising" the Roma will have the net result of definitely deporting the Roma, while potentially leaving other ethnicities, and the consequences are, again, not the same for all.

cordially,
Scofflaw

OhNoYouDidn't

Laminations wrote: »

Yes it is, for me. And the existence of a small likelihood of them carting off legal resident Roma should not prevent them from trying to deport illegals. Its a case-by-case basis, what would you want them to do? and even if they did what you want there still remains the chance for mistakes

Christ on a honda. If it was case by case, do you think anyone other than a lunatic fringe would care?

Do the EU get involved with the tens of thousands deported from the EU on a case by case basis every day?

Something is by definition different here because we are even talking about it ffs.

Scofflaw

Scofflaw wrote: »

In that case there would be no meaning to the term 'prioritising', and no reason for the term to have been used.

Say you had resources sufficient to deport 10,000 illegal immigrants. You believe that there are 7,500 Roma in the country, and 12,500 other illegals of various ethnicities. Under those circumstances, "prioritising" the Roma means deporting all the Roma and some of the other illegals, and the consequences are clearly not the same for all.

And yet if you consider that the numbers used in most of the articles regarding the composition of the camps, 200 of the 300 illegal camps are "Roma", so your example is skewed slightly with the numbers of the Roma coming up short. Perhaps flip the Roma in your example with the "other" illegals?

Also it is not the country at large that is being targeted in this instance. It is the inhabitants of the Illegal camps. If the French place a priority on the other camps (non-Roma), then it is the others that are being discriminated... by your logic. So the French cannot win either way as long as they place any priorities at all.

So whats the alternative? How would you deport 300 camps of various Ethnic backgrounds?

EDIT: Sorry I should have said for my question at the end... 300 camps of various Ethnic backgrounds, of which 200 are Roma.

Laminations

Scofflaw wrote: »

In that case there would be no meaning to the term 'prioritising', and no reason for the term to have been used.

Say you had resources sufficient to deport 10,000 illegal immigrants.all the Roma and some of the other illegals, and the consequences are clearly not the same for all. You believe that there are 7,500 Roma in the country, and 12,500 other illegals of various ethnicities. Under those circumstances, "prioritising" the Roma means deporting

Alternatively, you believe that your policy may be open to challenge - you estimate you can get away with it for 3 months before the bleeding hearts tie it up in court, and you also estimate you can deport 3000 illegal immigrants per month. Again, "prioritising" the Roma will have the net result of definitely deporting the Roma, while potentially leaving other ethnicities, and the consequences are, again, not the same for all.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Thats all fine, but to relate all that to the French situation you need to provide some evidence that the Roma make up only a minority of the illegal immigrants. If they account for 200 of the 300 camps under threat, then they make up the majority. Your second paragraph paints a scenario that purposely puts the French resources at just enough to get through the Roma, that is pure hypothetical

@OhNoYouDidn't - The French government has repeatedly said Roma have been expelled on a case-by-case basis.

Polls in Le Figaro, a newspaper that backs the president, showed his decisions to have majority support, although similar polls in other publications offered less conclusive scores. Le Monde, which doesn’t much like Mr. Sarkozy and questioned the legality of his action, insisted all the same that the integration of foreign Roma in France was improbable and that ignoring this reality would be “radical chic in its most unbearably flimsy” form.

It appears that even liberal Le Monde recognises that Roma and non-Roma are not exactly the same in terms of likelihood of integration. Is it discrimination to treat the illegals differently if there are fundamental differences in behaviour?

OhNoYouDidn't

Laminations, why do you think there is a fuss over this particular series of deportations?

P. Breathnach

Laminations wrote: »

To clarify, for the slower amongst us.

All illegal Roma are illegal....

In what sense "illegal"? The formal policy is to tackle illegal encampments. All those in illegal encampments are there illegally. That includes non-French Roma, French Roma, French citizens who are not Roma, non-Roma aliens who have a legal right to live in France, and non-Roma aliens who have no right to be in France. But all are "illegal" on the basis of being in illegal camps.

Some are also "illegal" in the sense that they have no right of residence in France. That includes Roma and non-Roma (for example, some African economic migrants).

What some people find objectionable is the idea that a Roma who is illegally resident in France is, as a matter of government policy, more likely to be deported than other categories of illegal immigrant.

Additionally, a French Roma in an illegal camp is more likely to be evicted from that camp than a non-Roma.

That is therefore no way comparable to your example of irish legal citizens being deported for the behaviour of other (either legal or illegal) irish.

So much for trying to get at the principles without being distracted by the noise created by people's attitudes to the Roma.

What are the good apples you refer to in the Roma situation in France, or do you just like to wax lyrical about apples with no connection to the actual topic?

I have no idea how many illegally-resident Roma are decent people, but I am sure that they exist. I have encountered tziganes (French Gypsies) who seemed to me to be decent people -- but I might have misjudged them. But of this I am sure: it is a fundamental injustice to presume that all members of an identifiable group are bad people simply because they are members of that group. If you want to establish that a person is bad, it must be done on the basis of that person's own behaviour, not on the basis of being a member of an ethnic group.