They are not refugees. They came on tourist visas.

It is also not, IMO, discrimination to require people to be gainfully employed if able should they seek to avail themselves of social programming, deny the dole to those not working without good cause, set a residency timetable for qualifying for social programming (Ireland requires a 2 year minimum residency immediately prior to entitlement, even for citizens) so long as such regulations are neutral in their language and apply across the board to everyone.

It would in fact be discrimination to allow the Roma to live off the dole and not give the same free ride through life to others and instead make the others pay for the free ride to the Roma.

Most are aware of that. We even have our own non-Roma gypsies, the Travellers.

The information came not only from the ambassador but also the mayor of the town where many of them lived. Most importantly, the information comes from intelligence learnt by Irish investigation officials who were tasked to get the full story about them and the overall situation.

As for the ambassador having such a motivation as you stated, it would make far more sense to have not said such things. All that did was help send them back to his country.

Moreover, you are challenging the ambassador without any facts to support it and crediting the gypsies without any supporting information and even giving them 'persecution' arguments they didn't even assert themselves.

Ireland's laws about living on the dole are ethnic-neutral. Thus, there is no case for discrimination and they conform with full equality. In fact, it would be discrimination to make exceptions based on race, religion, ethnicity, etc.

This is a false dilemma.

First, the Roma have not been persecuted in Ireland.

The Roma were never in Ireland at all until most recently and still aren't in large numbers. Personally, I never saw even one Roma gypsy in the nation until within the past 5 years and I don't know any of the older generations in my circle of family and friends who saw or spoke of them anywhere prior to the last few years.

In recent centuries, very few people of any non-Irish background ever immigrated into Ireland. Prior to the mid to late-1990s, the only foreigners to be seen were either tourists of Irish lineage looking to visit their ancestral homeland or relatives from abroad who were of Irish stock and local familiarity. Seeing anyone else was a culture shock and often a curious and attractive novelty.

Second, they came on tourist visas.

As I said, I would like to open the work doors for the Romanians, whether ethnically they be gypsy or otherwise. However, a migrant must work or otherwise have maintenance for themselves and obey the local laws to remain. If a migrant doesn't feel like doing that then they should promptly be shown the exit door, and I don't care who they are in that regard.

Before the recent fall of the once powerful Roman Catholic Church in the nation's politics, I'd say that Fianna Fáil used to represent a more conservative approach because of its links to the Church through its founder, Eamon DeValera, a devout conservative Catholic who even gave the Catholic Chuch a 'special position' in the Constitution (now removed from the document).

Today, the power of the Church is gone. The Celtic Tiger and the explosive 'enough is enough' revelations of paedophile priest acts and coverups, physical and psychological abuse in nun-run working houses, pressuring unwed mothers to give their children to the Church for adoption and even sending those children in many cases abroad under false identities to blot out their origin, and other shameful scandals, all of which blew the lid off the Church's dark sides and wound up shattering the entire glass. Ireland today is now remarkably secular compared to only 20 years ago. While 20 years ago the most stringent church morals were enforced in law and society and the Church effectively ruled the land, churches are largely empty now.

Today, there are some parties more centre than left and moving centre is usually on economic policies moreso that social policies (capitalism versus socialism), but IMO no party of any noticeable size is right of centre in the country at this time. It's just not where the country's head is at the present time from my observations and experiences.

This isn't inconsistent with what I said. Different societies often reach different conclusions for themselves. That is what makes them different societies. I also admitted that each society argues, using the democratic republic model for illustration, within itself all the time about enacting, amending, and withdrawing laws. Moreover, people on an individual level regularly disagree within a society about certain laws and wish 'the other guy' won an election, etc. But, the core value systems--the glue that binds each society together--remain intact to make it a society.

A society may also exist culturally and ethnically in the same regard and not have a border, although borders have mainly happened because they demarcated the boundaries of societies. If the Roma did not have those core bonds, then there would be no recognisable Roma still existing.

Most democratic republics have a constitution. That sets an agreement. Americans fight frequently on this site about George W. Bush. Some voted for him and find his actions generally desirous and wise; others did not vote for him and feel the opposite about his actions and decisions. Before that, some disliked Bill Clinton and voted against him and bashed him whilst others voted for him and liked his performance in office.

However, there was no massive revolt to kill or topple Clinton or Bush by those who wished they were not in office. Most people know that the society has agreed to an election procedure, however it comes out is how the chips fall, and to just gear up for the next 4 years. There is recognition of a social contract in that regard through the Constitution. People may argue what are the limits of the First Amendment (right to free speech, free press, free religion, free to petition the government, etc), but no one can deny they set forth an agreed set of principle beliefs. Thus, the arguments on those topics involve the details and extent of the concepts, but not the general concept itself for which there is a general admitted and enshrined agreement.

It's the same in Ireland. Ireland has a constitution. People battle over the details of it in court but the core concepts are admitted in it. Laws are enacted, amended and repealed in the debate process in the legislative branch. However, that is the agreed best way to express the voice of the people as admitted by the constitutional agreement and a set formula exists for carrying forth the laws of the land through an elected legislative branch.

No, I would not have turned the St Louis away. The Jews on board were not trawling around nation-to-nation looking to go flop on the most lucrative dole system they could get. Most on board were industrious individuals who had their possessions stolen and were facing extreme persecution and eventual extermination simply because they were Jews.

The St Louis this was not. Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves is more like it. The discovered facts upon investigation in this case is that these particular people were coming upon mistaken information that Ireland was a good place to flop and hop right onto a lucrative dole system and that others in their community were intending to examine how successful they would be for the purpose of doing the same should it prove profitable. That goes to what they intended to do, not who they are. As I said, I'd like to see opportunities for work given to Romanians of any ethnicity. But flopping and expecting the Irish taxpayers to hand them the dole, public housing and medical cards? No. To beg, squat, trespass, hustle, grift, steal, defraud, and any other blighting or unlawful conduct? No.

As for the child porn example, once again it was simply an easy example to show that being 'intolerant' on something does not necessarily have a nefarious connotation and may be even a good and proper thing depending on what exactly is not being tolerated. Too often people like to use the word 'intolerant' in a context suggesting impropriety. To the extent your comment intentionally or unintentionally suggested it, I made the differentiation.

__________________

OSB, almost every argument in your latest reply is based on the assumption that the Roma sought out Ireland to 'live on the dole', which you then decry because, I suppose, you don't believe in solidarity.
But the linked articles (The Irish News, The Belfast Telegraph and the Independent) are unanimous in stating that the original intent of the Roma was to seek work in Ireland. And that it was only when they heard this was not possible due to Irish legislation, that they sought other means of subsistence.
The only person in the articles claiming this is not the case is the Romanian Ambassador, whose credibility, in light of the situation of the Roma in Romania, is zero. (Why you would expect specifically him to corroborate with the Roma is unclear to me).
There is no mention of an investigation in any of the articles. Isn't calling people thieves without any substantiation libel in Ireland ?
So, do yo have any source that proves, beyond reasonable doubt, that the original intent of the Roma was to 'leech', 'live of the dole', or any of the other emotive expressions you've used ?

None of this establishes communality in values. What it shows is that there is an implicit social contract, if you wish, that allows one set of values to be temporarily the norm, which then may or may not be replaced by another set of values after the next election.
If you read through the articles, there are five or six Irish organizations that sought to help these people instead of wanting to deport them. Obviously these people have completely different core values than the people that want them out.
Unbelievable as it may be, some people do put humanitarian values above financial ones.

Read the articles again. Collectively they said what I said, and not what you are saying.

Majority of ousted Roma gypsies opting to fly home - National News, Frontpage - Independent.ie

And 'solidarity' on what? Explain what you mean. For starters I stand for any good cause and reject a bad one, so insofar as you intend a nefarious connotation it is specifically denied.

Not so. Read it again. Moreover, you are only denying the credibility of the ambassador without any evidence at all that she holds those opinions. Here is more precisely her opinions on the whole affair:

Extra 21 Roma gypsies jet in to join M50 campers - National News, Frontpage - Independent.ie

She does raise some good points about the smoke and mirrors being thrown about.

Yes there is. Read them again.

What I actually said is neither frivolously asserted nor libellous under several different defences to it, and certainly no more so than you attributing your claimed motives of the ambassador.

Do you have any proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Roma were not looking to do so as you claim? From what I read, I have far more to assert my beliefs from factual and testimonial evidence to draw reasonable inferences from evidence than for your conclusions, which is based solely on taking one's word for it and general and selectively parsed historical information. Whilst assuming someone to be untruthful from the git-go is not good form and practice, evidence and reasonable inferences to the contrary may override the initial presumption of truth.

You are expanding the basic statements into a broad and more detailed scope and then citing evidences to the contrary in order to allegedly debunk the entire observation. I already said people will differ on the details. But the reason the words like 'border' 'law' and 'custom' exist is because they explain what I said.

Do you seriously contend that there are not identifiable and attributable aspects in people such as the Afghans, Bantus, Amazon tribes, Zulus, Arab clans, Berbers, Maoris, Romas, Eskimos, etc, by languages, social and religious beliefs, structures, practices, understandings of rights and wrongs, customs, etc? To deny that each group has their own distinctions and customs in this regard is to deny the plainly obvious. You must recognise the point because you cited the different beliefs of the Roma in your own posts in this thread pointing out their different views on nationality, wandering, work, etc.

As for the different 'core values' of the support groups--a number of them gypsy or Traveller groups--they aren't that different at all insofar as the gyspies wanting to be in Ireland for financial reasons due to understandings about work, hustling and/or dole. They are different insofar as making materially false claims and encouraging illegal conduct for which they are now heading for hot water.

Lenihan warns M50 Roma support groups - National News, Frontpage - Independent.ie

Let's cut to the chase.

Tell me in detail how you think the Irish should have handled and currently handle these particular people squatting on the M50.

__________________

No special treatment for them. If Romanians are not allowed in its the same with the gypsies. If gypsies are allowed to stay thats discrimmination against Romanians and Bulgarians. It would be unfair

Thats what the Dept of Justice will tell Roma who enquire about staying in Ireland. They have no right to do so for more than 3 months.

What happens happens to Romas in Romania is NOT the sole responsibility of Ireland. How does the Romas going to Ireland solve a problem that Romania obviously has?

__________________
British teenagers score the highest in Europe - when it comes to teen pregnancy tests.

Agree 100% we all have our differences. How would one group get priority over another? For example Can I go into a country like America on the basis I have Celtic roots and therefore am from a different community? I d be told to go and apply like everyone else. Why should there be a difference for Roma gypsies in ireland?

__________________
British teenagers score the highest in Europe - when it comes to teen pregnancy tests.

That's certainly how I see it. Whether any particular Roma claim not to recognise a nationality is irrelevant. It's not the law or how it's done, and it would be a nightmare if it were done differently because anybody anywhere can play that game and borders and border control would become worthless. Either Romanians collectively as a whole get work entitlements or they do not get them collectively. And if a Roma is Romanian--or even a non-EU national for that matter--they are only eligible for whatever their nation of citizenship gets. If a Roma is a UK subject or from somewhere else in the EU where work opportunities are extended, then their citizenship at the present time offers them better offers.

If the government allowed them to stay, it would send the message back to Romania and elsewhere that Ireland is a wimp on enforcing its immigration and dole laws and the country would get gatecrashed. That can't be allowed to happen.

This is a Romanian problem for Romanians to fix. Ireland isn't even allowed to offer asylum even if it wanted to do so, which wouldn't be good policy in this case anyway in my view. It's now European policy for an EU nation to not entertain asylum petitions from people from fellow EU countries. The reasons should be obvious why that policy exists and Ireland is obliged to follow it.

The right way to handle any alleged discrimination is for Ireland and other EU nations to take all necessary measures to assure that Romania honours the human rights guarantees it agreed to meet when applying and receiving entry into the EU. That's how these problems need to be properly resolved.

As for the future, I hope that Ireland and the other EU nations gradually open the doors to Romania. Some controlled relief should be granted as we speak, and over time, as Romania grows its economy, the doors can be relaxed in a gradual manner depending on Romania's progress so that the EU nations won't wind up being flooded with poor immigrants that hurts Romania and the other nations in the short and long run.

Moreover, I would add and/or enforce requirements of all landing visitors and migrants to show exactly how they intend to maintain themselves whilst in the country. Unless a person can properly show they have a job waiting or otherwise have tourist or job-seeking self-maintenance, entry should be denied at the airport or ferry terminal. And if any such people clear the gates by fraud or carelessness, they should similarly be picked up and deported when spotted living vagrantly or begging, etc.

What happened here with these people coming and just flopping out on the dual carriageways and meandering in the streets and begging, and looking to stir up controversy to get themselves a free pass into the nation with public assistance, etc, should never have been allowed. The very first days they should have been rounded up and taken back to the airport for immediate removal. If you pitched up out on the M50, you'd surely get scooted in a flash followed by criminal papers filed against you.

__________________

Controversy about the Roma gypsies is flaring up again around here, and that in a country where there are only a few thousand Roma who have been here since the 70s. We can see the situation: no high school (or even basic) education, extremely high unemployement (100%, no joke!) and massive involvement in (organised) crime. There is no doubt this is all their own fault. Many of them hardly speak Dutch, and that after over 30 years of living here.

They do not find stealing reprehensable, they think it's fair. They intimidate officials and usually marry at 14 or 12. And then on top of that they always yell about discrimination and being the victim. They disgust me.

__________________
5% of the total surface of the Netherlands is used to grow hemp