France expels illegal Roma immigrants
French President Nicolas Sarkozy on Wednesday ordered authorities to expel gypsy illegal immigrants and dismantle their camps, amid accusations that his government is acting racist in its treatment of the group known as Roma, the Associated Press reports.
Sarkozy called a government meeting Wednesday after Roma clashed with police this month after the shooting death of a gypsy youth fleeing officers in the Loire Valley.
Sarkozy said those responsible for the clashes would be "severely punished" and ordered the government to expel all illegal Roma immigrants, almost all of whom have come from eastern Europe.
He pushed for a change in France's immigration law to make such expulsion easier "for reasons of public order." He said illegal gypsy camps "will be systematically evacuated," calling them sources of trafficking, exploitation of children and prostitution.
French Roma representatives were not invited to Wednesday's presidential meeting, which included the interior, justice and immigration ministers and top police officials.
Community leaders contend the very principle of the meeting — which singled out an ethnic group in a country that is officially blind to ethnic origins — is racist and warn of grave consequences if their side isn't heard. France's government does not count how many of its citizens are of a certain ethnicity; everyone is simply considered French.
"Today ... I am afraid we're preparing to open a blighted page in the history of France, which could sadly lead to acts of reprisal in the days ahead," said lawyer Henri Braun said at a Wednesday news conference by French Roma leaders. "There is a huge problem of racism in France towards this population, there is enormous discrimination."
France has two main populations often termed gypsies. One, known as "traveling folk," includes several hundred thousand French citizens who have lived in France for centuries, and were traditionally nomadic but have become increasingly sedentary in recent years. The others are recent immigrants who come mostly from Eastern European countries like Romania and Bulgaria, usually illegally, and are often seen begging on the streets of French cities.
Those in the more established communities say they are being unfairly lumped together with illegal new immigrants.
Alice Januel, whose organization represents Catholics among the French Roma, warned that "If Mr. Sarkozy thinks that by clamping down he is going to calm the youth, I don't think that he will succeed. We have a youth that is rebellious."
Sarkozy also proposed that France bring in about 20 Romanian and Bulgarian police to work in the Paris region and send French police to Romania and Bulgaria, to help fight trafficking and other crime by Roma.
Comments
Well here is one country who knows what to do good for you France.
Posted by: kwolf443 | August 1, 2010 6:02 PM
The immigrant issue really brings a lot assumptions to the fore. It also flushes the really xenophobic out of the bushes too, and highlights their contradictions. Our situation in the US really mirrors that in Europe in some ways, but not in others. But the similarity is that it makes clear who the really unthinking right-wing nuts are, and who are the garden variety ones. The Catholic blogger Michael Sean Winters wrote probably his most clever piece of analysis yet on this very topic. It is worth quoting in full:
"Rank Hypocrisy
by Michael Sean Winters on Aug. 02, 2010 Distinctly Catholic
Last week, Bishop John Wester of Salt Lake City, who chairs the USCCB Committee on Migration, issued a statement praising the ruling by Judge Susan Bolton that stayed certain aspects of a viciously anti-immigrant law in Arizona from going into effect.
Last week, I noted that there were legal concerns about the ruling, but with Bishop Wester, I completely concur that the essential justice of stopping an unjust law was served.
Along comes conservative blogger Thomas Peters, who spent much of the year criticizing Sr. Carol Keehan for being “disloyal” to the bishops because of her support for health care reform legislation. Peters, as well as others, have suggested that some penalties be inflicted upon Sr. Carol because she disagreed with the bishops as to whether or not the health care law included federal funding of abortion. These have included vile personal attacks, of which the nastiest was the comparison of Sr. Carol with Richard Rich, the villain whose lies helped convict St. Thomas More.
Now, it is Peters who criticizes Bishop Wester’s understanding of Judge Bolton’s decision, citing an article in National Review by Rich Lowry. I firmly believe that Mr. Peters – and Mr. Lowry – have every right to disagree with Bishop Wester on whether a given court ruling does or does not meet the demands of justice. On the merits, I think Wester is right and Peters and Lowry are wrong, but when it comes to praising or damning a court ruling based on its legal reasoning, bishops have no special charism giving them the kind of privileged position they do hold when interpreting the moral law.
But, how or why is Peters’ criticism of Bishop Wester any different from Sister Carol’s – I had almost written criticism, but Sr. Carol did not criticize the USCCB, she merely disagreed with them. Peters is at pains to point out that he agrees with the bishops on the need for immigration reform; he is only calling out the bishop for praising a ruling that he thinks deficient. I need hardly point out that this is precisely the stance that Sr. Carol took. Peters says he agrees with the bishops on immigration, but they misunderstand the law, in this case a judge’s ruling. Sr. Carol said she agreed with the bishops on the need to keep federal funding of abortion out of the health care reform, but that they misunderstood the law, in this case complicated legislative language.
So, I guess it turns out that the “parallel magisterium” that conservatives have been warning us about does not exist at the CHA. It is found at National Review via Thomas Peters instead. Conservatives are wont to criticize liberal Catholics for exercising what they call “cafeteria Catholicism,” but they have their own cafeteria too. In the case of Peters, given his relentless attacks on Sr. Carol, the hypocrisy is too great to ignore".
Score!!!!!
Posted by: Peter Paul Fuchs | August 2, 2010 10:54 AM
Sarkozy is a spineless hypocrite--he is trying to save France for the French and he targets the Roma people with the viciousness of a French imperialist.. The old Roma blame the new immigrants as the problem causers but can't they see Sarkozy will scapegoat them in a heart beat if the new entrants did not exist? The man has just been caught in a corruption scandal--he will do anything including create controversies galore to keep France's eyeballs focused on trivia--anything to divert the public from his own political tango dances with the corrupt and the rich. I hope the guy is placed in an ice box and floated out to sea so all 54 inches of him will never be found again.
R Anon
Posted by: Anonymous | August 3, 2010 9:16 PM
HELLO,I'M DETI OF KOSOVO,AND I HAVE QUESTION ABOUT IMMIGRATION IN FRANCE! DO ACCEPT YE FRANCE IMMIGRANTS,ASYLUM SEEKERS THANK YOU SINCERILY DETI...KOSOVO...
Posted by: DETI | August 4, 2010 8:04 AM