EXPEL THE GYPSIES?
Saturday, May 17, 2008 at 09:46PM 68% of Italians wish to see all of the country's 150,000 Gypsie, expelled, according to a new opinion poll. The survey, published as mobs in Naples burned down Gypsy camps this week, revealed that the majority also wanted all Gypsy camps in Italy to be demolished. On the attacks in Naples, Umberto Bossi, the head of the Northern League party said: "People are going to do what the political class cannot." Meanwhile the defence minister, Ignazio La Russa, said he would consider deploying soldiers to Italian streets to help fight crime, while a group of Bosnian Gypsies in Rome said they were mounting night guard patrols of their camp to defend against vigilante attacks.
Bang on cue, Europe's leading ..ahem...human rights watchdog urged the government to prevent attacks on Roma communities. Christian Strohal, head of Vienna-based OSCE's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, said: "The current stigmatisation of Roma and immigrant groups in Italy is dangerous as it ... increases the potential for violence."
You can say what you want about the Italians but the fact remains that Italy is their country and if they want to see the Romas expelled from it, isn't that their right? Who speaks for Italy if not the Italians? If they seem intolerant, perhaps one needs to live there before criticising them? The reality is that Romania has and is exporting criminality on a considerable scale and Italy is not the only country with this problem. I spoke to a man in Dublin a few weeks ago who was telling me the various financial crimes that the Romas in Dublin are scamming in the Irish capital. Crime has been falling in Romania as its criminal class spread out across the European Union, perhaps Italy is merely giving a foretaste of what lies ahead when a political class ignores the will of the people?
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (39)
"You can say what you want about the Italians but the fact remains that Italy is their country and if they want to see the Romas expelled from it, isn't that their right?"
Countries should have an absolute right to decide which foreign nationals they allow in, but from the article they appear to want all Gypsies expelled including those that are Italian citizens many of whom were born there. That is simply ethnic cleansing.
Viva Italia!
I agree with Ross.There is a world of a difference between expelling foreign criminals (the right thing to do) and cleansing Italy of all 'gypsies' - presumably including native Italan born ones (The wrong thing to do)
Well that's democracy, folks, where 51% can vote themselves the right to kick 49%. Umberto Bossi has finally got his teeth into state power and will damn well use it, against African and gypsy immigrants mainly. He might get his way, but hey ho, we live in a time when democracy is revered and we can't pick and choose which laws we obey.
This story evokes an "Old World" feel, the Italians versus the Gypsies.
We're still all quite tribal aren't we? A shame the governments can't seem to get a clue on this seemingly timeless fact.
>>You can say what you want about the Italians but the fact remains that Italy is their country and if they want to see the Romas expelled from it, isn't that their right? <<
OK, hands up all of you who think the Nazis had a right to expel Polish Jews in 1938!
I'm going to Italy in August. Looks like it might be fun !
Noel
Well strictly speaking thay had the right to expel Polish Jews from Germany if they wished, but obviously not from Poland. The comparison with Italy expelling genuine foreign criminals from their sovereign territory with Nazi Germany's treatment of native Jewish citizens is not merited .
What is with you people and nazis?
Nearly every topic has nazi stories, references, slurs, insults or recipes. You're obsessed.
Gypsies and Italians, Noel.
Daphne
What do you mean 'you people'. ?
"What is with you people and nazis?"
Nazi analogies are overused. The comparison that I immediately thought of was the expulsion of Asians from Uganda by Idi Amin which is still fairly unpleasant.
Colm,
My inner xenophobic racist anti-UK bigotry is bubbling to the surface. :-)
Daphne
Well let me burst all those fizzing little bubbles of yours :)
Ross, that's because you have a refreshingly original mind that hasn't mired itself in traditional triteness.
>>The comparison with Italy expelling genuine foreign criminals from their sovereign territory with Nazi Germany's treatment of native Jewish citizens is not merited .<<
Colm, You are right. Which may be the reason nobody made any such comparision.
>>but obviously not from Poland. <<
Heh? How? the war hadn't even begun in 1938!
My comparision is justified (and, Daphne, the reason is to expose hypocrisy). The Nazis expulsion of Polish Jews in 1938 was based on ethnic/racist selection. There were many Poles living in Germany at the time, only the Jews were kicked out (and this event had awful consequences).
Similarly, of all the Bosnians, Rumanians etc. living in Italy, only the Gypsies will be kicked out because some individal gypsies have committed crimes.
You're obsessed Noel. :-)
Noel
I agree with you that expelling cultural groups in unison is entitely wrong , but I do believe that nation states have the right to expel foreign individuals who have voluntarily entered their countries and commited crimes.
The gypsies are living together as a distinct group within Italy whilst the Romanians, who share a similar bloodline and culture to Italians, simply assimilate such that they are sufficiently indistinguishable from the host population.
The Italians can kick out whoever they want: that is the right of a nation.
Of course, Colm, that goes without saying, but it isn't the subject of this post or thread.
I hope you got my point about hypocrisy. And I think it's tasteless to say the least for David to present this proposal, and the majority it commands, in the context of mobs burning down Gypsy camps in Italy.
BTW, has anyone else noticed how some of David's posts have titles that could be just as appropriate for another post close by, which then would put a whole new slant on the message.
For example, David recently posted a story about the lack of strawberry pickers in Britain, and how farmers have to import Polish labour to fill this need, which for him was an evil thing. This was then - with fine irony - immediately followed by a post with the title "The Market Prevails", about falling house prices, which was then deemed to be a good thing. I would dearly have loved to have Troll's et al powers of editing the site and switched these titles!
Similarly here: we have "First they came for the Jews..." as a title, and now a story where it would be even more appropriate but where David's pitch is exactly the opposite.!
Either I've been working too much lately or this is David's Christian subconsciousness, which must be in there somewhere, unknown to himself guiding his hand.
Noel, David has a meme going here at atw. I think you cold sum it up as "The Western World Is Going To Hell In A Hand-basket And The Idiot, Greedy Ruling Class Are To Blame."
He's angry and he's right.
"For example, David recently posted a story about the lack of strawberry pickers in Britain, and how farmers have to import Polish labour to fill this need, which for him was an evil thing."
Noel, farmers give jobs to Poles because they are cheaper - there was never a 'gap' which the locals couldn't fill. The strawberries were picked by locals before the Poles got unrestricted access to the UK.
I know this because that is what happened in Angus, where I come from.
Good comment Daphne. I agree.
But you and David seem content to ignore the willful destruction of the environment in the name of unrestricted capitalism.
And I'm not referring to global warming but to habitat loss, over-fishing and pollution. Rightworld ends up supporting all of these.
>>Noel, farmers give jobs to Poles because they are cheaper <<
Allan, yes, that was my point. That's why the heading "The market prevails" would have been perfectly appropriate for that post.
But Noel, the nation should prevail and priority should be given within a nation to those who are of that nation. Poles have no right to British jobs.
>>the nation should prevail and priority should be given within a nation to those who are of that nation.<<
Maybe, according to protectionist anti free-market politics. But David normally sees himself as a champion of the free market, which was my point. It was a case of his nationalism overriding his principles.
Noel, there are free markets within nation states and these internal free markets should be protected. Those countries which have had protected internal free-markets have superior ecomomic performance to those which have huge trade deficits. Exactly what is wrong with protection? We (used to until recently) protect our societies from crime by having police; we (used to until NuLab) protect our borders and wider interests by having armed forces; we protect our families by locking our doors at night so why should we not protect the jobs of our fellow-countrymen?
Noel Cunningham -
About your Polish strawberry pickers and the This was then - with fine irony - immediately followed by a post with the title "The Market Prevails", about falling house prices, which was then deemed to be a good thing thing - if only there existed a market!
The state removes 5 million Britons from the job market by paying them to stay at home while promoting the immigration of hundreds of thousands of foreigners.
The petit-bourgeoisie landowning farmers (I want to keep your interest afterall) are income supplemented by the state to produce more of this, so much of that, none at all of the other, a bit more to preserve meadows with a top up for the hedgerows.
What is produced is supplied or denied according to government diktat.
Gartantuan farms are owned by industrial-agricultural corporations which wouldn't have had a hope of growing to such a size without the state inventing laws of incorporation which seperate ownership, control and responsibility and which suppress competition.
So great is the state intervention and distortion that there is nothing like a free market in agriculture at all. It's much closer to being what all commerce and industry now is - largely a collection of corporatist entities allowed to exist so long as they serves ends laid down by government.
Peter, I do ignore global warming. I think it's a diversionary canard and money grab at this point. I admit I'm not convinced.
I care very deeply about clean air, water, soil, protected undeveloped land preserves, parks and wildlife. On a personal level I practice conservation of resources in our habits and purchases, give to conservation causes I believe to be beneficial, refrain from using unnecessary chemicals in my house and yard, and don't shoot the deer and coyotes that are overtaking my neighborhood and eating my landscape to nubs, not to mention my cats.
Some environmental groups use newts and polar bears as tools to further an agenda, not to truly protect them, you need to use discernment in your desire to live an environmentally/earth friendly life Peter. Not all causes are good or honest.
Daphne @ 10.23 & 10.42-
It's not tribal. British football fans/criminals get kicked out of Italy pretty damn quick.
And your Nazi query is called Godwin's Law; and it's rife on this website unfortunately.
Bernard, I'll humbly leave superior knowledge of Italy up to you. I was speaking in a more general sense, people like to be with their kind, however they choose to define that particular familiarity, and define others outside their circle as dangerous or sub-par.
Big yes on the Nazi thing. I wish they would stop, it's annoying beyond belief. Entire topics gets sidetracked into a discussion of world war 2 or who is or isn't a Nazi, who's more of a Nazi, who said the most Nazi thing, etc. It's incredibly boring.
This may be seen in time as an early skirmish in the European race wars of the 21st Century.
Noel has a point regarding the contradiction between pro-market and anti-immigrant sentiment. But I think there is an explanation. Both the market and immigration are being pushed by the business establishment but they are happening in a Europe dominated by a social democratic welfare system.
So workers are expected to subsidise the people who are coming to compete for their jobs. That is not free and fair competition.
If you were a businessman running a shop and the state subsidised your competitor by paying him part of your profits every week until he was in a position to drive you out of business it would hardly be a contradiction of your free-market principles to cry foul.
Pete,
"hey ho, we live in a time when democracy is revered and we can't pick and choose which laws we obey."
Actually we live in a time when governments can be taken to court for overstepping their powers, despite the howls from 'small government' conservatives who want to throw all that away.
"Exactly what is wrong with protection? "
Apart from the fact that it often doesn't work (if the people cannot be imported then the jobs will often be exported), it drives up the cost of goods and services that we want to import. It is like throwing rocks in your own harbor.
Frank
That is certainly true of manufacturing jobs but the strawberry pickers and the people working in shops have to live locally. I'm for trade and competition but why should native workers see the social security funds they paid for their own security used to undermine that security?
The market is effectively being rigged against the workers with their own money.
Henry,
I don't really understand your point - in what way is social security subsidising immigrants, especially if they work?
Actually we live in a time when governments can be taken to court for overstepping their powers, despite the howls from 'small government' conservatives who want to throw all that away.
Street conservatives often being too stupid dont even see the link between thatchers "small government" era and the current state of the economy. She is the one who liberalised the economy so that capital and labour could flow about further and easier. The result? An increase in the money sectors and a decrease in actual industry and production. Or put even more simply, a growth in those who take and a drop in those who give.
Also an another irony, to expand on noels original contention, is that the liberisation of our markets has led to unprecedented levels of foriegn ownership of local enterprises, which if left unchecked is a bigger threat to the nation state than any amount of immigration.
Frank
Social security is available to immigrants in most European countries from the day they arrive. That is what enables them to compete for jobs in the first place. So workers are subsidising their own replacements.
The rate of immigration is so high because it is so easy to get set-up when you arrive. If welfare was not available the immigration rate would be driven by natural economic growth. Employers would look for workers abroad rather than so many workers coming in to look for work.
The process would be slower more natural and less likely to cause the kind of dangerous discontent that Europe is now experiencing.
By effectively subsidising immigration rather than taking a neutral stance states are destabilising themselves. Population decline in Europe makes immigration inevitable and necessary but the scale of it can be slowed down.
For a free trade in goods to take place between two countries someone in Country A has to want to sell and someone in Country B has to want to buy.
But an immigrant can move of his own volition with no demand for him if a subsidy exists. Subsidies distort trade and they distort migration.
Frank O'Dwyer -
There's no need to tell me that government power is limited and that they can and ought to be held within those limits!
I was being sarcastic with my 'hey ho ...' comment towards those who tell me often that Parliamentary power is unlimited and that we are obliged always to obey it.
>>The rate of immigration is so high because it is so easy to get set-up when you arrive. If welfare was not available the immigration rate<<
Henry, immigrants find it easy to "get set up" simply because there are enough jobs for them. I happen to know some Poles who live in Dublin. Can you tell us how or where they pick up your "subsidies"? You can take my word for it that none of them has received as much as a Cent apart from their wages since arriving in Ireland. They are in fact "subsidising" the Irish state to no small extent through income tax and contributing to economic growth. The Irish worker is also on average much more likely to have received "subsidies" than the immigrant (free education and healthcare as a minor, more likely to have family receiving education and healthcare, etc.)
So how are you calculating?
Daphne,
David is partly to blame for this. I cited Godwin's Law to him some time back. He replied that this is HIS site and he refuses to recognize Godwin's Law.
So look forward to continued misplaced references to the N*zis, from David included.