Expulsion of Roma Gypsies From France

Laminations

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

For some people it seems only Roma, Travellers, Northern Irish nationalists and palestinians can be discriminated against...;)

I didn't see threads of outrage at the suggestion that british drunkards would be a priority in the clampdown on drunkeness on the costa del sol. The way some people choose their battles, in their attempt to come off as anti-racist, makes them look quite racist in my eyes. This prioritisation in France is a problem for them because Roma are involved. Other prioritisations (within an illegal cohort) based on nationality would not garner their attention - thats discrimination for you.

P. Breathnach

Laminations wrote: »

I didn't see threads of outrage at the suggestion that british drunkards would be a priority in the clampdown on drunkeness on the costa del sol....

So start one, rather than attempt to derail this thread.

Laminations

Answer these questions.

Is it wrong for a crackdown on drunkeness to prioritise british drunken louts when other nationalities may be drunk and disorderly too? Can you see any other reasons then simply a prejudice towards british?

Is it wrong for a crackdown on terrorism to prioritise Al Queda when other groups may be members of terrorist organisations? Can you see any other reason other than a prejudice towards muslims?

You've said yourselves that there has been trouble in France with the gens de voyage (the naturalised legal Roma) as well as saying that the French government provides for them. So under such circumstances why wouldn't the French prioritise when it comes to illegal immigration? Give me a breakdown of the camps to show that Roma are a minority problem.

P. Breathnach

Laminations wrote: »

Answer these questions....

No. You are trying to derail the thread (and it's bad enough already).

opo

P. Breathnach wrote: »

No. You are trying to derail the thread (and it's bad enough already).

And you are trying to carve a role for yourself having exhausted your less than convincing argument.

Jeboa Safari

P. Breathnach wrote: »

No. You are trying to derail the thread (and it's bad enough already).

It's relevant is it not? You're willing to comment on its comparison to the holocaust

Laminations

P. Breathnach wrote: »

No. You are trying to derail the thread (and it's bad enough already).

How is it derailing the thread? I'm asking you to comment on other instances where dealing with illegal behaviour was prioritised based on nationalities. That is your problem with the French approach to the Roma illegals is it not?

Nodin

opo wrote: »

And how did you come to that conclusion?

...because the Government gave a directive to target one. Therefore, logically......

P. Breathnach

It's difficult to explain why, but the sense of being mobbed like this amuses me greatly.

opo

Nodin wrote: »

...because the Government gave a directive to target one. Therefore, logically......

Target one what?

opo

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It's difficult to explain why, but the sense of being mobbed like this amuses me greatly.

This comment is an outrageous attempt at derailment of this fine thread.

A travesty if ever there was one

Laminations

Laminations wrote: »

I didn't see threads of outrage at the suggestion that british drunkards would be a priority in the clampdown on drunkeness on the costa del sol. The way some people choose their battles, in their attempt to come off as anti-racist, makes them look quite racist in my eyes. This prioritisation in France is a problem for them because Roma are involved. Other prioritisations (within an illegal cohort) based on nationality would not garner their attention - thats discrimination for you.

The thing I find interesting is that the French Government is handing out bribes/money amounts to those that are Deported through this initiative. Now, if the deportations run out of steam this time round (or get halted), they're definitely going to be started up again the following month, and the Government will probably not be as willing to pay people to leave their country. So are the other illegal immigrants (due to be deported after the Roma) being discriminated against because they won't receive the cash incentive to leave?

Oh, I'm just asking Laminations, and opo... I already can guess how the other crowd would respond.

Laminations

opo wrote: »

This comment is an outrageous attempt at derailment of this fine thread.

A travesty if ever there was one

He doesn't answer the questions because he cant. It would show up his argument as the sham that it is. He refuses to recognise any other reasons why Roma might be prioritised other than them just being Roma. I've presented him with other occasions where nationality has mattered in determining priorities for a clampdown on certain illegal behaviour because of overlapping motives and behaviours that are associated with that nationality..

He either says that these other instances were wrong and at least he's consistent but it would show his argument up for the naiveity and foolishness that it is. Or his says that the response was/is justified in those other instances, which is inconsistent and would show his argument up to be racist, as its only an issue when Roma are involved.

Nodin

opo wrote: »

Target one what?

It's obvious what I mean.

Nodin

Laminations wrote: »

He doesn't answer the questions because he cant. It would show up his argument as the sham that it is. He refuses to recognise any other reasons why Roma might be prioritised other than them just being Roma. I've presented him with other occasions where nationality has mattered in determining priorities for a clampdown on certain illegal behaviour because of overlapping motives and behaviours that are associated with that nationality..

None have been presented by the French government, at all. There wasn't even an arch reference to 'camps that display high levels of crime'. They targeted an ethnicity - Roma - who ostensibly are no more guilty than any other illegal.

mike kelly

Nodin wrote: »

None have been presented by the French government, at all. There wasn't even an arch reference to 'camps that display high levels of crime'. They targeted an ethnicity - Roma - who ostensibly are no more guilty than any other illegal.

well, Roma attacking a police station is what started all of this off

P. Breathnach

mike kelly wrote: »

well, Roma attacking a police station is what started all of this off

Really? French accounts described the rioters as gens du voyage, and there is room to argue about the start-point: there was an incident at a check-point when police opened fire on a car that was driven at them, and the driver was killed.

mike kelly

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Really? French accounts described the rioters as gens du voyage, and there is room to argue about the start-point: there was an incident at a check-point when police opened fire on a car that was driven at them, and the driver was killed.

gens du voyage = Roma

There is no excuse for attacking a police station. How would the Gardai react if it happened here? If someone drove a car at police they were perfectly entitled to kill him.

opo

Nodin wrote: »

It's obvious what I mean.

You mean target a race?

P. Breathnach

mike kelly wrote: »

gens du voyage = Roma

Yes and no. In particular, the French make a distinction, applying the term to French citizens of nomadic tradition -- typically, but not exclusively, people of Roma origins. And following an incident with French citizens of Roma background, the official response was to target non-French Roma first, gens du voyage second.

There is no excuse for attacking a police station. How would the Gardai react if it happened here? If someone drove a car at police they were perfectly entitled to kill him.

I think most people would nuance their position a bit more, taking account of the speed of the car, the apparent intent of the driver, the degree of threat to the police officers, and, most of all, the possibility of resolving the matter without using firearms. Granted, in a the very brief amount of time available, a wrong decision might be made, and that might be excusable. But an unlimited right to kill -- no.

mike kelly

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Yes and no. In particular, the French make a distinction, applying the term to French citizens of nomadic tradition -- typically, but not exclusively, people of Roma origins. And following an incident with French citizens of Roma background, the official response was to target non-French Roma first, gens du voyage second.



I think most people would nuance their position a bit more, taking account of the speed of the car, the apparent intent of the driver, the degree of threat to the police officers, and, most of all, the possibility of resolving the matter without using firearms. Granted, in a the very brief amount of time available, a wrong decision might be made, and that might be excusable. But an unlimited right to kill -- no.

come off it, police must be allowed to do their job. There are no French nomads, just Roma who have been in France long enough to get a French passport, they are still Roma.

opo

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Yes and no. In particular, the French make a distinction, applying the term to French citizens of nomadic tradition -- typically, but not exclusively, people of Roma origins. And following an incident with French citizens of Roma background, the official response was to target non-French Roma first, gens du voyage second.

.

Were they not already deporting Roma anyway?

P. Breathnach

mike kelly wrote: »

come off it, police must be allowed to do their job.

Using lethal force without restraint? I'm not actually making a judgement on the rights or wrongs of the St. Aignan incident, because I don't know enough about the details, but your views on the use of firearms by police do not seem right to me.

There are no French nomads,

There are estimated to be about 400,000 French nomads.

just Roma who have been in France long enough to get a French passport, they are still Roma.

There is no argument about the view that gens du voyage are generally of Roma background, but there is also no way of establishing that all of them are, because it is French practice not to make explicit distinctions. So a claim that they are all Roma is simply unprovable.

"Long enough to get a French passport" generally means that they were born in France. So they are French. They are also recognised as ethnically distinct, and are often officially referred to as Minorités Ethniques Non-Sédentarisées (non-sedentarised ethnic minorities). Note that the word "Minorités" is plural, meaning that the French government does not take the position that they are all of one ethnicity.

Nodin

mike kelly wrote: »

come off it, police must be allowed to do their job. There are no French nomads, just Roma who have been in France long enough to get a French passport, they are still Roma.

So you can't be French if you're Roma?

P. Breathnach

P. Breathnach wrote: »

"Long enough to get a French passport" generally means that they were born in France. So they are French.

Well, No. There are ways to get a French passport other than to be born there.

opo

Nodin wrote: »

None have been presented by the French government, at all. There wasn't even an arch reference to 'camps that display high levels of crime'. They targeted an ethnicity - Roma - who ostensibly are no more guilty than any other illegal.

The use of the word ostensibly and Roma does not conjure up an image of congenial immigrants for me. I think you need to show large swathes of any other ethnic group living illegally - in abject sqalor and indifference to their responsibilities - throughout Europe to sustain that statement.

Laminations has a perfectly valid point. There is more than a little racism shown in the affected sensitivities when discussing Roma that are non-existent when discussing others who utterly disrespect their hosts laws and mores.

AlekSmart

There is some good media coverage out there also,which is often quite difficult to find amidst the flurry righteuous indignation,especially amongst non-French folks....

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cac0f220-c7fe-11df-ae3a-00144feab49a.html

Again,just as with the Irish media,some between-the-lines reading is required....

Officials told the 25-year old that they would return to take her into custody if she did not leave “voluntarily”. So she agreed to sign papers she did not understand, accepted a €300 ($404) handout and boarded an aeroplane back to her native Romania.

So had she not agreed perhaps she could then have availed of the French legal system to appeal the request ?

To the chagrin of French politicians, Romania has failed to spend hundreds of millions of euros of EU funding earmarked for Roma and other vulnerable groups, which might have been put to good use in poor communities. The complexity of the application process, worries about co-financing and bureaucratic delays prevent projects getting off the ground. The issue is set to be addressed by a conference in Bucharest next month.

Looks like them Romanian Politicians are a bit Irish about this stuff......they don`t like the oul paperwork....

But one reason for the foot-dragging is that Roma projects are not a priority for ordinary Romanians. Even liberal-minded citizens bemoan their failure to integrate and the embarrassment caused by criminality at home and abroad. Surveys show that many Romanians would not want a Roma neighbour or their child to sit in the same class as Roma children. A crowd in Bucharest booed Madonna, the pop singer, last year when she urged greater toleration of the Roma.

Highly educated, successful Roma commonly opt not to reveal their ethnic background in Romania for fear of harming their careers.

The poor ethnic Romanians appear to be themselves a discriminated against group by the greater Liberal movement as the rights of the ordinary Romain to a quiet law abiding life appear to take second place to preserving the "wild raparee" ethos of Gypsy Culture

...and where does that leave Madge...

As far as I can see,many of the irate objectors to French domestic policy would be far better occupied venting their spleen in the direction of Bucharest,where the responsibility for much of this lies.

Another interesting article from the recent coverage...

http://euobserver.com/22/30806

It also raises a mathematical issue...

Over 440 Roma camps have been dismantled in the past month and more than 1,000 Romanian and Bulgarian citizens sent back to their home countries as part of the massive crackdown on "illegal immigration" ordered by President Nicolas Sarkozy at the end of July.

Hmmm,440 camps dismantled....1,000 individuals "deported"..thats leaving some camps as no more than a two-person tent ?

It also indicates that not all of the inhabitants were asked to leave the country.

In any itinerant or gypsy way of life the lack of a fixed-abode is just the thing to facilitate ambiguity especially when it comes to official monitoring or the service of legal documents,bills and other bothersome aspects of the Real-World.

Do we know how the French Authorities are processing those Gypsies who do not choose to accept the €300 and depart the country.

Could it be that the French are at a stroke getting these folks into the Identification and location net which ensures the rest of us enjoy the fruits of productive living ?

It`s worth noting that France has a (voluntary) National Identity Card scheme (CNIS) for all citizens and generally takes this stuff more seriously than our own version of a Republique...:P

P. Breathnach

Deleted User wrote: »

Well, No. There are ways to get a French passport other than to be born there.

Are you asking people to believe that the people recognised by the Frech state as gens du voyage are generally not born in France?

Nodin

Deleted User wrote: »

Well, No. There are ways to get a French passport other than to be born there.

You'll find that once granted citizenship, a person is considered as French as one born there. There are no two degrees of French citizenship.

P. Breathnach

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Are you asking people to believe that the people recognised by the Frech state as gens du voyage are generally not born in France?

I'm disagreeing with your ""Long enough to get a French passport" generally means that they were born in France." Perhaps the "gens du voyage" have all been born in France or the former colonies, but somehow I doubt it.

There are a number of ways to gain citizenship in France, and being born there isn't a requirement. Otherwise there would be a lot less French citizens (former immigrants) in that country.