Expulsion of Roma Gypsies From France

OhNoYouDidn't

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.

First off, it is the inhabitants of Illegal camps that are being targeted, so the numbers of legals living there are likely to be low. Do I have numbers to back that up? Nope. But every time I've asked for numbers or links to prove that legals are living in these camps, its been ignored. Perhaps, you have such information on hand? (I'm open to being corrected on these things)

Secondly, as part of EU & the domestic laws of France, any person that is legally within the country can appeal a sentence to deport them. All they have to do is show their Visa documentation itself, and proof that they have employment within the country. This goes for any person that has obtained the legal right to stay in the country, and that legal confirmation needs to be withdrawn before they can be deported.

Lastly, its likely that newcomers (within the three month period) that have chosen to live in these camps are going to be hit by this deportation order. So, in my eyes, these are the only people really being discriminated against, although i suppose it depends on how long they've been in the country, and their attempts at getting work. But in either case, if they hadn't chosen to live in the camps, then they wouldn't be hit by this initiative. - Unless you have some links/references which show that immigrants within this time frame, living outside of the camps, are also being focused on?

Laminations

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

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.

The media may be focused on this round of deportations, but France sent more than 11,000 Roma packing in 2009, and 8,000 in 2008. So whats changed? Where were the posts in 2008?

The crime link, meanwhile, is not imagined. Roma-related crime has spiked in the EU in recent years, perhaps because it’s getting harder for this minority group to earn a nomadic living (selling merchandise or doing seasonal work, for instance).
Crime increases could also be related to the increased difficulty in finding places to camp. Mayors don’t want their towns to become Roma magnets. In France, even Roma leaders admit that petty crime is a problem, though they vigorously reject the branding of their entire minority as criminals.

Like the Roma leaders say, you cant use this fact to brand all Roma, but you can and should use it to prioritise illegals

Laminations

P. Breathnach wrote: »

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).

I dunno what all this confusion is about. The camp is illegal - the camp gets dismantled, regardless of the legality of the residents. The residents are illegal, the residents are deported.

I have no idea how many illegally-resident Roma are decent people, but I am sure that they exist.

My goodness, people dont get to flout the law because they are decent people. I'm sure there are decent illegal Roma but I dont care. They are illegal, that is the group they fall into. They are entitled to be deported.

Laminations

Laminations wrote: »

The media may be focused on this round of deportations, but France sent more than 11,000 Roma packing in 2009, and 8,000 in 2008. So whats changed? Where were the posts in 2008?

Just curious, but have you any links showing how many other people (of various ethnic backgrounds) were deported during those years?

Anyone? I've done some digging, but I haven't found anything as yet. It would be interesting to see. However it turns out.

OhNoYouDidn't

Laminations wrote: »

The media may be focused on this round of deportations, but France sent more than 11,000 Roma packing in 2009, and 8,000 in 2008. So whats changed? Where were the posts in 2008?

Thats kind of my point.... What has changed? Could it be that the French are doing something different this time round?

P. Breathnach

Laminations wrote: »

I dunno what all this confusion is about. The camp is illegal - the camp gets dismantled, regardless of the legality of the residents....

But if those in the camps are Roma, their camps are dealt with first. No confusion: ethnic targeting.

OhNoYouDidn't

Deleted User wrote: »

Secondly, as part of EU & the domestic laws of France, any person that is legally within the country can appeal a sentence to deport them. All they have to do is show their Visa documentation itself, and proof that they have employment within the country. This goes for any person that has obtained the legal right to stay in the country, and that legal confirmation needs to be withdrawn before they can be deported.

To me this is the key bit, and I have this direct from a Parisian who teaches French to migrant kids. That appeal procedure is closed in this action. You are in a camp, you are gone, and its up to you to come BACK to France if you are legal.

This is the problem. The CRS are going to rock up to the place that the Roma live and boot them all out without making any effort to establish if they are legal, illegal or pending review. That is in violation of lots of things.

OhNoYouDidn't

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

To me this is the key bit, and I have this direct from a Parisian who teaches French to migrant kids. That appeal procedure is closed in this action. You are in a camp, you are gone, and its up to you to come BACK to France if you are legal.

An appeal process is part of French and European law. IF it had been suspended it would be in every news story. Have you seen it in any?

This is the problem. The CRS are going to rock up to the place that the Roma live and boot them all out without making any effort to establish if they are legal, illegal or pending review. That is in violation of lots of things.

Aye, I can see that happening. But lets be practical. If someone is told to leave they will have the money to call for legal aid (since they're working and getting paid). I haven't seen any articles where people have been thrown out of their "homes" immediately on being told that the camps are being closed down. Have you?

Scofflaw

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

Actually, that Roma are the majority makes it worse, not better, because then prioritising the Roma under any conditions of limited time/resources/political will means that it is fundamentally just targeted at the Roma.

In my examples, the prioritising of the Roma didn't prevent other ethnicities being deported after the Roma had been finished with - if they're 200 out of the 300 camps, then it's quite possible that prioritising the Roma means that the process will have ground to a halt before it ever gets to the others.

cordially,
Scofflaw

OhNoYouDidn't

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Thats kind of my point.... What has changed? Could it be that the French are doing something different this time round?

TBH, I actually don't know whats different. There's only a difference of about 500 Roma between last year and this year.. I just figured the Media had decided they needed a story to run.

So what is different? Seriously.

[preferably links to articles or such highlighting the difference. No assumptions or things that are obvious to you. - The reason for this is to avoid confusion. If you have the reference/links, then it'll silence many of the objections]

Scofflaw

Scofflaw wrote: »

Actually, that Roma are the majority makes it worse, not better, because then prioritising the Roma under any conditions of limited time/resources/political will means that it is fundamentally just targeted at the Roma.

In my examples, the prioritising of the Roma didn't prevent other ethnicities being deported after the Roma had been finished with - if they're 200 out of the 300 camps, then it's quite possible that prioritising the Roma means that the process will have ground to a halt before it ever gets to the others.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Yup. You're right. It is indeed possible. But then its possible that the French will manage to deport all the camps. Considering the French penchant for deporting illegals, and that the government received a 65% approval rating about the deportations, it's very possible that they'll deport them all. Unless, of course, the EU manage to step in and stop them.

And I'd still like to hear how you would deport 300 camps of which 200 are Roma..

opo

P. Breathnach wrote: »

But if those in the camps are Roma, their camps are dealt with first. No confusion: ethnic targeting.

Were the camps not ethnically targetted for illegal habitation by the Roma in the first place?

Scofflaw

Deleted User wrote: »

Yup. You're right. It is indeed possible. But then its possible that the French will manage to deport all the camps. Considering the French penchant for deporting illegals, and that the government received a 65% approval rating about the deportations, it's very possible that they'll deport them all. Unless, of course, the EU manage to step in and stop them.

And I'd still like to hear how you would deport 300 camps of which 200 are Roma..

The EU is only likely to step in and stop them on the basis that they're being targeted ethnically. Admittedly, that's pretty much beyond doubt - even people here are really only fundamentally arguing that it's OK to do that, since it's Roma.

It isn't, of course, and the parallels with the acceptance of Holocaust deportations by the general population are indeed quite striking, even if the intentions of the French government are very much less malign.

cordially,
Scofflaw

opo

Scofflaw wrote: »

It isn't, of course, and the parallels with the acceptance of Holocaust deportations by the general population are indeed quite striking

I must say, in one post - I have lost a huge amount of respect for you and what you do here and I completely reject your theory on this.

Scofflaw

Scofflaw wrote: »

The EU is only likely to step in and stop them on the basis that they're being targeted ethnically. Admittedly, that's pretty much beyond doubt - even people here are really only fundamentally arguing that it's OK to do that, since it's Roma.

Actually, I'm a bit suprised at this. The posters that are arguing that the deportations are fine, because this whole thing is about illegal immigrants living in illegal camps. I have yet to see any proof from any of the anti-deportation crowd to show that there are legal (regardless of numbers) residents that are being affected by this deportation.

I, and others, have said that the ethnic background is irrelevant. It is only due to the higher numbers of the Roma camps (which will consist mostly of Roma in those camps due to their own culture) that the priority was placed on them. Personally, I've kept away from the allegations of crime/violence by the Roma, but this is also a reason of some pro-deportation posters and the French government.

But Mainly it is their legal status that is the problem.

It isn't, of course, and the parallels with the acceptance of Holocaust deportations by the general population are indeed quite striking, even if the intentions of the French government are very much less malign.

I have to wonder about this comparison. Very much less malign. No tearing families apart from each other. No rapes. No object torture or object killings. No labor or death camps at the end. No extremists medical testings. Sterilisation experimentation. Mass executions. Nope. In fact, what is the only possible comparison? Yup, that they're being deported. In fact I don't remember the Nazi's offering money to every illegal man, woman and Child to leave the country..... UNLESS you're going to be able to show me some evidence that the above is happening today?

And I note you still haven't answered my question about your method of deporting these camp inhabitants. Is that because you can't, or just because you don't want to? - I thought it was a reasonable question to ask considering the way you have answered previously...

Laminations

Scofflaw wrote: »

The EU is only likely to step in and stop them on the basis that they're being targeted ethnically. Admittedly, that's pretty much beyond doubt - even people here are really only fundamentally arguing that it's OK to do that, since it's Roma.

It isn't, of course, and the parallels with the acceptance of Holocaust deportations by the general population are indeed quite striking, even if the intentions of the French government are very much less malign.

cordially,
Scofflaw

First it's not beyond doubt, I still maintain they are targeting by legal status, that's beyond doubt. I'm not arguing that it is ok to deport them because they are Roma, I'm saying it's ok to deport them because they are illegal. In my paramilitary example the IRA are not targeted because they are Irish, they are targeted for being a paramilitary organisation and the operation is targeting paramilitarism not irishness. The IRA are prioritised as members (not all members) pose more of a threat than ETA for example. Now ethnicity overlaps here so when they prioritise the IRA would you argue they are blindly targeting Irish?

The Roma in question are members of illegal camps and it is illegal camps being targeted, they are also illegals and illegals in general are being targeted. Now it may not be paramilitarism but it is ILLEGAL. Could the actions of (even a minority) of Roma justify priority status for all illegal Roma? It's not who they are that is why they are targeted (just like IRA members are Irish), it's what members of their collective (and I mean that in terms of camp not ethnicity) do.
Are you trying to say illegal Roma are not a bigger bug bear for the French than illegal Pakistanis or Africans due to what many of them do? Even sheer numbers make them a bigger bug bear as they contribute more to the problem. What has your own experience of Roma been? Could you for one second see that prioritisation could be happening for behaviours that overlap more strongly with the illegal Roma than non-Roma illegals? Using instances of individual behaviour to generalise and target whole populations is wrong because the rest of the people have done nothing wrong. In this situation, the Roma prioritised are all illegal.

Secondly, you should be ashamed for drawing parallels with the holocaust. As a mod you should know better. There is no comparison even when you are trying to equate public support. During the holocaust, people stood by and let thousands of legal and illegal be murdered simply for being a certain ethnicity and you think that equates to supporting a country enforce it's own laws on illegal immigrants, where they give money and fly them home and are in contact with the home countries to encourage integration.
Like I said, you should be ashamed and really reevaluate what you said.

OhNoYouDidn't

Deleted User wrote: »

what is the only possible comparison?

That the state is targetting an ethnic group and removing them, en masse, from the country and sending them east, suspending the rule of law in the process.

You might not agree that's whats happening, but its the perception in the EU (who ultimatly are the referee here) that that is the case and thats all that matters.

P. Breathnach

It is indeed an irony that those who excuse ethnic targeting pretend to be offended by any degree of comparison with other shameful events in European history. Perhaps they do not understand the importance of drawing a line that should not be crossed. Consider http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007392

Let's check some facts:

• 24 Jun 2010: The French Ministry of the Interior issued a circular to police chiefs ordering them to clear illegal encampments in accordance with the law. In the way of such things, most of the eight-page circular is technical stuff to ensure the police know and follow the law [See http://ovh.softdom.com/Circulaire_du_24_juin_2010.pdf, for a facsimile of the original -- in French, of course]. I think nobody here would take issue with that.
• 5 Aug 2010: A further circular was issued setting a target of 300 camps to be dealt with, "en priorité ceux des Roms". It is that circular that has provoked outrage among many, but not among a few here [See http://ovh.softdom.com/Circulaire_du_5ao%C3%BBt_2010.pdf].
• 13 Sept 2010: A new circular was issued that did not make specific reference to Roma, but indicated that the operation was focused on "toute installation illégale, quels qu'en soient les occcupants". Interestingly, this circular put a number of 441 on the illegal encampments url]http://www.lefigaro.fr/assets/pdf/circulaire-hortefeux.pdf[/url.

So the French establishment saw itself as dealing with 441 encampments, set the priority for dealing with the Roma ones, and gave the police a target of 300.

But that's not ethnic targeting, is it? Well, it's not if you don't like Roma, and believe that they deserve it.

Laminations

P. Breathnach wrote: »

But that's not ethnic targeting, is it? Well, it's not if you don't like Roma, and believe that they deserve it.

They deserve it because they are illegal not because they are Roma. The prioritisation is or was based on numbers involved and I wiuld guess the actions of a few illegal Roma. Would a crackdown on paramilitarism that prioritised the IRA have any other reasoning for that prioritisation other than the IRA are Irish?

P. Breathnach

Laminations wrote: »

They deserve it because they are illegal not because they are Roma. The prioritisation is or was based on numbers involved and I wiuld guess the actions of a few illegal Roma. Would a crackdown on paramilitarism that prioritised the IRA have any other reasoning for that prioritisation other than the IRA are Irish?

So it is effectively a crime to be Roma.

digme

P. Breathnach wrote: »

So it is effectively a crime to be Roma.

It's not who you are, it's what you do and we all know what the do part is. (illegal things)

Laminations

P. Breathnach wrote: »

So it is effectively a crime to be Roma.

Nope it's a crime to be illegal just like it's s crime to be in a paramilitary organisation. It's not a crime to be Irish or Roma but there are reasons (other than ethnicity) to prioritise irish paramilitaries just as there are valid reasons to prioritise Roma illegals

Or are you disagreeing and think for example that the British anti terrorist stance means it cannot prioritise IRA over ETA because that's simply anti Irish.

OhNoYouDidn't

Laminations wrote: »

They deserve it because they are illegal not because they are Roma. The prioritisation is or was based on numbers involved and I wiuld guess the actions of a few illegal Roma. Would a crackdown on paramilitarism that prioritised the IRA have any other reasoning for that prioritisation other than the IRA are Irish?

Its a facile comparison. If the British tackled terrorism and targetted all the Irish in Britain for deportation and ignored completely the Islamic threat, maybe, just maybe there would be a comparison.

The Roma acount for a very, very small proportion of the French illegal immirgrant population.

OhNoYouDidn't

digme wrote: »

It's not who you are, it's what you do and we all know what the do part is. (illegal things)

Every single one of them?

Surely though, that is for the courts to decide, not the politicians?

OhNoYouDidn't

Laminations wrote: »

Nope it's a crime to be illegal just like it's s crime to be in a paramilitary organisation. It's not a crime to be Irish or Roma but there are reasons (other than ethnicity) to prioritise irish paramilitaries just as there are valid reasons to prioritise Roma illegals.

So they HAVE targetted the Roma.

So why are we arguing this? We agree that that is what happened, but the difference is you don't care about ethnic targetting and I do.

Laminations

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

The Roma acount for a very, very small proportion of the French illegal immirgrant population.

Please provide sme stats or source to substantiate the claim that illegal Roma make up a minority of illegal camps (which is the issue) or indeed illegals as a whole

digme

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Every single one of them?

Surely though, that is for the courts to decide, not the politicians?

They broke French law.

Laminations

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

So they HAVE targetted the Roma.

So why are we arguing this? We agree that that is what happened, but the difference is you don't care about ethnic targetting and I do.

So prioritising the IRA in an anti terrorist strategy is only ever done on an ethnic anti Irish basis and never based on other important factors like pervasiveness, level of threat, likelihood of escalation of activities?

Illegals are being targeted, Roma are being prioritised not because they are Roma but because they make up the bulk and are perceived to contribute more to crime. The same way the IRA could be prioritised based on public perception of them and that wouldn't be treating them harshly because afterall they are still members of the IRA. The illegal Roma even if they are not contributing to crime are still illegal

opo

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Every single one of them?

Surely though, that is for the courts to decide, not the politicians?

For about the fourth time - can you link to the law(s) that states that the courts decide basic immigration issues such as legal status and what is the legal process you keep banging on about.

opo

P. Breathnach wrote: »

So it is effectively a crime to be Roma.

That's not what he said. Not that you give a toss.