Sarkozy: France may pull out of Schengen

southsiderosie

Well, election season has certainly taken a turn for the worse in France:

Trying to recreate the excitement of his victorious 2007 campaign, Mr. Sarkozy gathered his cabinet; his wife, Carla Bruni-Sarkozy; the former prime minister Édouard Balladur; Bernadette Chirac, a politician and the wife of former President Jacques Chirac; and even the actor Gérard Depardieu to hear him threaten to pull France out of the European Union’s visa-free Schengen agreement unless Europe provides better protection from illegal immigration.

Mr. Sarkozy gave the European Union 12 months to revise and improve its rules on the Schengen accord, or else France will suspend its membership. But if he loses the election, with the second round on May 6, Mr. Sarkozy will be gone long before his deadline.

“We cannot accept being subjected to the shortcomings of Europe’s external borders,” Mr. Sarkozy said, warning that illegal immigration threatened “the implosion of Europe.”

This is naked electioneering at its worst. Illegal immigration does not threaten the implosion of Europe; bad policies and craven politicians do. And illegal immigration is nowhere near the top of the list of major challenges facing France at the moment. France's 'immigration problem' - which in and of itself is overblown - has very little to do with illegal immigration and much to do with the failure of the autochthonous population to accept the children and grandchildren of (legal) colonial-era immigrants as fellow citizens.

Sarkozy also clearly does not care about what withdrawing from Schengen would mean for France's own citizens, in particular highly skilled workers, who are well-represented abroad, particularly in the UK. Nor does he seem to have any appreciation for France's role as one of the core founding members of what eventually became the EU.

Sarkozy's comments about Schengen are irresponsible, and not only will they not help him get re-elected (which at this point, barring unforeseen circumstances, seems an impossible prospect), but they only serve to de-legitimize EU institutions which have by and large served France's interests quite well.

Dirk Gently

southsiderosie wrote: »

- has very little to do with illegal immigration and much to do with the failure of the autochthonous population to accept the children and grandchildren of (legal) colonial-era immigrants as fellow citizens.

.

Perhaps a gentle reminder that those self same people actually liberated France in the second world war when they couldn't muster a native French army strong enough to do the job themselves. Perhaps Sarkozys own (not so) long history of french purity should also be investigated.

Typical race card electioneering from a conservitave party. Appeal to ignorance. It helps swing a few votes back that might otherwise go to the far right. Should he get reelected I seriously doubt he'd raise the matter again.

Gurgle

Leaving the Schengen would be just as stupid as invading Russia in winter. Surely no French leader could ever be that dumb.

Monty Burnz

Sarkozy is desperately trying to hoover up the right wing vote, under attack from Le Pen on his right flank and Hollande on the left. I wonder how leaving Schengen would affect their tourist industry?

bijapos

Populist politics at its finest, as said above its a sop to the far right a few weeks out from the election.

In reality it will have little effect on day to day life for most French, longer queues at airports and the odd queue at the border, that's all. It will have zero impact on their tourist industry, thats why he proposed it. The UK and Ireland are not members and it has little or no effect on our day to day life.

France's immigration problems be they from Europe or former colonies have nothing to do with Schengen.

Cork boy 55

southsiderosie wrote: »

Well, election season has certainly taken a turn for the worse in France:



....

- has very little to do with illegal immigration and much to do with the failure of the autochthonous population to accept the children and grandchildren of (legal) colonial-era immigrants as fellow citizens.

....

What?

So all the French are racist and that explains the failures of certain immigration groups in France, incredible.

I have reported this post.

(1) How do you explain the relative success of other immigrants groups?
In every one of these countries you find some immigrant groups thriving while others failing.

(2) How do you explain the that problems exist in all European countries, despite a broad variety of measures taken to solve it - multiculturalism in Holland, laïcité in France, benign neglect in Britain, constitutional punctilious in Germany?



Occam's razor

The hard-cold reality is the primary reason for the relative success and failures of these groups in modern europe over the long-term is a result of their own characteristics

(a) The average intelligence of the immigrant populations

and/or

(b) Their culture.

bijapos

southsiderosie wrote: »

Sarkozy also clearly does not care about what withdrawing from Schengen would mean for France's own citizens, in particular highly skilled workers, who are well-represented abroad, particularly in the UK.

Leaving Schengen will not affect the rights of any French person to live and work in another EU country. Schengen is essentially about relaxing internal border controls and having a common external border, it has nothing to do with people working and living within these borders, people will still be free to move around as they wish.

What Sarkozy is on about is for example a person from Romania, or someone who illegally enters via Spain can move without great hinderance into France, whereas before there was some chance they might be stopped at the border.

It's a bit of a smokescreen, as French police, customs and immigration regularly carry out spot checks at border posts as they are entitled to do.

Cork boy 55

bijapos wrote: »

Leaving Schengen will not affect the rights of any French person to live and work in another EU country. Schengen is essentially about relaxing internal border controls and having a common external border, it has nothing to do with people working and living within these borders, people will still be free to move around as they wish.

What Sarkozy is on about is for example a person from Romania, or someone who illegally enters via Spain can move without great hinderance into France, whereas before there was some chance they might be stopped at the border.

It's a bit of a smokescreen, as French police, customs and immigration regularly carry out spot checks at border posts as they are entitled to do.

The problem is some countries in the EU margins under presure can and have acted irresponsibly.
A recent example being during the Libya conflict when Italy granted
Tunsians iilegal economic migrants french visas.
http://ph.news.yahoo.com/italy-france-clash-over-tunisia-migrants-20110407-172554-491.html

It not the first time Sarkozy has clashed with the Med countries over illegal immigration.
http://www.cadenaser.com/espana/articulo/zapatero-sarkozy-dan-superada-polemica-politica-inmigracion/csrcsrpor/20060930csrcsrnac_1/Tes

southsiderosie

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

What?

So all the French are racist and that explains the failures of certain immigration groups in France, incredible.

I have reported this post.

(1) How do you explain the relative success of other immigrants groups?
In every one of these countries you find some immigrant groups thriving while others failing.

(2) How do you explain the that problems exist in all European countries, despite a broad variety of measures taken to solve it - multiculturalism in Holland, laïcité in France, benign neglect in Britain, constitutional punctilious in Germany?

Can you be more specific? Because the problems in European countries vary significantly, and what we are discussing here is problems in France, which are very well documented, and quite specific to both their Republican model and their colonial history.

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

Occam's razor

The hard-cold reality is the primary reason for the relative success and failures of these groups in modern europe over the long-term is a result of their own characteristics

(a) The average intelligence of the immigrant populations

and/or

(b) Their culture.

Turks do better economically in Germany than in Denmark, largely because German trade unions are far more open to them. Turks are more involved in local politics in Belgium and Holland than in Germany, largely because the Low Countries' political systems are far more open to them than the German system. Ironically, Turks participate in politics at higher rates than culturally similar immigrants such as Surinamese in the Netherlands, and until the mid-1990s Turkish immigrants voted at higher rates than native Dutch people. Ruud Koopmans has done extensive research on this; some articles are available through a Google Scholar search.

I highlight these differences to underscore the point that it is not necessarily culture that leads to different outcomes for immigrants, but rather the institutional and social contexts in which they find themselves.

As for France, do immigrants - and in particular Muslim second and third generation French-born children of immigrants - lag because there is something inherently wrong with them, or do they lag because they face much different barriers to both the labor market and the public sphere than the white, native French population? Recent research would suggest the latter.

But, really, this is veering off-topic: the central issue here is the sabre-rattling against Schengen.

southsiderosie

bijapos wrote: »

Leaving Schengen will not affect the rights of any French person to live and work in another EU country. Schengen is essentially about relaxing internal border controls and having a common external border, it has nothing to do with people working and living within these borders, people will still be free to move around as they wish.

What Sarkozy is on about is for example a person from Romania, or someone who illegally enters via Spain can move without great hinderance into France, whereas before there was some chance they might be stopped at the border.

It's a bit of a smokescreen, as French police, customs and immigration regularly carry out spot checks at border posts as they are entitled to do.

I agree that it is a smokescreen, and I have been spot-checked traveling between countries. But the problem with delegitimizing Schengen under the guise of stopping 'undesirable' immigrants, is that it creates a slippery slope for future border closing. At the end of the day, Sarkozy is weakening a Europe-wide institution for personal political gain, which is highly problematic.

Manach

Whilst immigration/multicultuarism is an issue that needs discussion, in this case it is a repeat of a pattern. AFAIR, two years ago Mr. Sarkozy for political reasons breach EU regulations by deporting Romas resident in France. The EU Justice Minister Rening called him out on this breach.

Nodin

Gurgle wrote: »

Leaving the Schengen would be just as stupid as invading Russia in winter. Surely no French leader could ever be that dumb.

No, but Sarkozy runs away at the mouth at the best of times. Given the fact he's facing an uphill battle to win, I suspect even more cringe-worthy nonsense to emerge in the future.

K-9

Nodin wrote: »

No, but Sarkozy runs away at the mouth at the best of times. Given the fact he's facing an uphill battle to win, I suspect even more cringe-worthy nonsense to emerge in the future.

You'd wonder how more right he can go:

http://globalspin.blogs.time.com/2012/03/08/sarkozys-xenophobia-french-president-panders-to-the-extreme-right/?xid=rss-topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+time%2Ftopstories+%28TIME%3A+Top+Stories%29

Using islamaphobia, border controls etc.

Nodin

K-9 wrote: »

You'd wonder how more right he can go:

http://globalspin.blogs.time.com/2012/03/08/sarkozys-xenophobia-french-president-panders-to-the-extreme-right/?xid=rss-topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+time%2Ftopstories+%28TIME%3A+Top+Stories%29

Using islamaphobia, border controls etc.

.....and of course in short order we'll have commentary on the 'mysterious rise of xenophobic feeling' in Europe. Pandering has probably caused more bigotry than the bigots over the last decade or two.

Cork boy 55

southsiderosie wrote: »

...


Turks do better economically in Germany than in Denmark, largely because German trade unions are far more open to them. Turks are more involved in local politics in Belgium and Holland than in Germany, largely because the Low Countries' political systems are far more open to them than the German system. Ironically, Turks participate in politics at higher rates than culturally similar immigrants such as Surinamese in the Netherlands, and until the mid-1990s Turkish immigrants voted at higher rates than native Dutch people. Ruud Koopmans has done extensive research on this; some articles are available through a Google Scholar search.

I highlight these differences to underscore the point that it is not necessarily culture that leads to different outcomes for immigrants, but rather the institutional and social contexts in which they find themselves.

Those are only marginal differences.
Of course the situation is complex and their are many factors at play but the two primary factors in the long run are as I already pointed out is the average intelligence of the given population and their culture.

I don't have data for France
But for example lets take Morrocans and Turks in Holland
They have an average IQ of 78 (first generation) according to this
http://dare.ubvu.vu.nl/bitstream/1871/18651/2/Nijenhuis_Biosocial%20Science_33%283%29_2001_u.pdf
There is the main factor.
See the Bell curve book for how the IQ of a population in a modern country impacts their performance.

and the result
Moroccans and Turks are largest muslim populations.(358,000 and 305,000)
20% of the prison population describe themselves as muslim
26% of the youth prison population describe themselves as muslim
More than 18 per cent of the Moroccans are
registered by the police as suspects of a crime
27% of Moroccans and
21% of Turks are unemployed,

southsiderosie wrote: »

As for France, do immigrants - and in particular Muslim second and third generation French-born children of immigrants - lag because there is something inherently wrong with them, or do they lag because they face much different barriers to both the labor market and the public sphere than the white, native French population? Recent research would suggest the latter.

Regarding this minor research paper you link to I don't have time to read it all but some quick points

All immigrants in every country face a certain level of discrimination
as a result of ethnic nepotism I am not saying its right that the way humanity is
if she had sent CVs to muslims owned firms what result would she have got?

to expand and say that the discrimination is the primary factor in a groups failure when other groups are doing fine across
numerous countries with numerous models is seriously flawed idea IMO.

That research is from a Californian political scienist. Is she un-biased?

The study is highly limited in its scope and scale to one minor sector in the labour market.

Why is no control group used?

No East Asian, German or Slavic names used as a control maybe she did but omitted it from results as it would have interfered with the point she was trying to make. The lack of control makes it suspect.

southsiderosie

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

Those are only marginal differences.
Of course the situation is complex and their are many factors at play but the two primary factors in the long run are as I already pointed out is the average intelligence of the given population and their culture.

I don't have data for France
But for example lets take Morrocans and Turks in Holland
They have an average IQ of 78 (first generation) according to this
http://dare.ubvu.vu.nl/bitstream/1871/18651/2/Nijenhuis_Biosocial%20Science_33%283%29_2001_u.pdf
There is the main factor.
See the Bell curve book for how the IQ of a population in a modern country impacts their performance.

and the result
Moroccans and Turks are largest muslim populations.(358,000 and 305,000)
20% of the prison population describe themselves as muslim
26% of the youth prison population describe themselves as muslim
More than 18 per cent of the Moroccans are
registered by the police as suspects of a crime
27% of Moroccans and
21% of Turks are unemployed,

Regarding this minor research paper you link to I don't have time to read it all but some quick points

All immigrants in every country face a certain level of discrimination
as a result of ethnic nepotism I am not saying its right that the way humanity is
if she had sent CVs to muslims owned firms what result would she have got?

to expand and say that the discrimination is the primary factor in a groups failure when other groups are doing fine across
numerous countries with numerous models is seriously flawed idea IMO.

That research is from a Californian political scienist. Is she un-biased?

The study is highly limited in its scope and scale to one minor sector in the labour market.

Why is no control group used?

No East Asian, German or Slavic names used as a control maybe she did but omitted it from results as it would have interfered with the point she was trying to make. The lack of control makes it suspect.

So, to sum things up:

1) You post an article linked from DARE, which is a notorious anti-immigration interest group, and then ask about bias for the articles I linked. LOL.

2) You don't even bother to read the article I linked, which is an experiment that has been carried out in multiple countries with a variety of groups, and in a number of scenarios (labor market, housing market, etc).

3) I won't even bother to ask if you familiarized yourself with Koopman's work, because I think I know the answer to that.

Honestly, what is the point of even trying to have any kind of rational discussion with you?

RichieC

southsiderosie wrote: »

So, to sum things up:

1) You post an article linked from DARE, which is a notorious anti-immigration interest group, and then ask about bias for the articles I linked. LOL.

The southern poverty law centre lists them as a white nationalist hate group.

walrusgumble

southsiderosie wrote: »

Well, election season has certainly taken a turn for the worse in France:



This is naked electioneering at its worst. Illegal immigration does not threaten the implosion of Europe; bad policies and craven politicians do. And illegal immigration is nowhere near the top of the list of major challenges facing France at the moment. France's 'immigration problem' - which in and of itself is overblown - has very little to do with illegal immigration and much to do with the failure of the autochthonous population to accept the children and grandchildren of (legal) colonial-era immigrants as fellow citizens.

Yes or no, Algerian (or other former French territories) born nationals are entitled to French Citizenship as of Birth?

How many of the former French territories have complete Independence from France?


What does France owe them?

southsiderosie wrote: »

Sarkozy also clearly does not care about what withdrawing from Schengen would mean for France's own citizens, in particular highly skilled workers, who are well-represented abroad, particularly in the UK. Nor does he seem to have any appreciation for France's role as one of the core founding members of what eventually became the EU.

Eh, flashing your passport or national id card is hardly the most troublesome requirement ever. Europeans still won't need to get visas. 10 minutes no more. The Irish are not part of this agreement, and NEVER have problems getting about.

Your making a mountain out of a mohill

southsiderosie wrote: »

Sarkozy's comments about Schengen are irresponsible, and not only will they not help him get re-elected (which at this point, barring unforeseen circumstances, seems an impossible prospect), but they only serve to de-legitimize EU institutions which have by and large served France's interests quite well.

How, exactly? It will not cause must hassle for French commuters. It won't destory their lives, and it would be only a little better than pre 1985 (due to case law of eu)

walrusgumble

Dirk Gently wrote: »

Perhaps a gentle reminder that those self same people actually liberated France in the second world war when they couldn't muster a native French army strong enough to do the job themselves. Perhaps Sarkozys own (not so) long history of french purity should also be investigated.

Typical race card electioneering from a conservitave party. Appeal to ignorance. It helps swing a few votes back that might otherwise go to the far right. Should he get reelected I seriously doubt he'd raise the matter again.

What World War 2 got to do with this?

If you are not from Europe, then you are and should be subject to immigration control if you want to come into the Union. What is your problem with this? There is no such thing as a one world universe. It has nothing to do with being racist . It won't really effect EU citizens travelling around

In case you have not noticed, places like Cali have had to deal with illegal Afghans being smuggled into France and you are trying to get over to Britain. Britain turn them back and France have to deal with them. In the early part of the last decade Paris experienced riots from thugs from the Algerian Community.

Greece and Italy were hauled before the European Courts after they tried to refuse non eu nationals entry to their territory so that they could apply for asylum. These countries bear the brunt of third nationals coming into Europe and other countries turn a blind eye because they are unable and unwilling to take more of the burden experienced by the two countries. Those who do get into Italy etc, if committed, will travel over to the other side of Europe easily and undetected. This is wrong.

This country had its own examples of non eu people, with no visas or permission to enter, leaving mainland UK (because they were getting lawfully removed) and travel to Belfast, and by doing so, enter the Republic. Many avoided public transport, as it would be and was stopped frequently by GNIB men, and instead came down by taxis. All of this without some form of supervision. (We of course have our own arrangement with Britain - common travel - but this example happens along the Borders in Central Europe)

The French are merely looking for amendments to deal with every day issues. The Agreement is over 20 years old and needs modernisation. THe population of the Union has rise dramatically over the past 20 years. THird Country Nationals make up a substantial section of this. The problem is not how many come into the Union per se, if they came LEGALLY , but many , if you read the recent CJEU cases on free movement came illegally, or overstayed - it is mostly dominate by non eu nationals claiming EU law rights via a member of a family, even a child. Some recent case law is extremely questionable and the Courts failed to explain satisfactorily their interest opinions that actually go against what the Members States actually want and voted for, and is not supported by the wording in the actual Treaties that the Courts proclaim to be interpreting. This actually costs states millions.

Sure even the Commission have accepted suspension maybe needed until reform is made.

RichieC

France, the UK and the US started the afghan war, I don't mind saying they should bloody well have to deal with the people fleeing it.

Cork boy 55

southsiderosie wrote: »

So, to sum things up:

1) You post an article linked from DARE, which is a notorious anti-immigration interest group, and then ask about bias for the articles I linked. LOL.

The article is NOT from DARE it's just on their website.
You know this of course but you are just trying to taint by association without addressing the IQ difference The primary root cause of the problems
The article is from JAN TE NIJENHUIS* AND HENK VAN DER FLIER
*Department of Work and Organizational Psychology, University of Amsterdam and
†Department of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam,the Netherlands
It is merely a summary of IQ test scores and results.
The Dutch have done extensive IQ testing and you can find dozens of
article's all over web. The information is correct.
I did not even know what DARE is until now.

southsiderosie wrote: »

2) You don't even bother to read the article I linked, which is an experiment that has been carried out in multiple countries with a variety of groups, and in a number of scenarios (labor market, housing market, etc).

I seen it before it's linked to all the time on these discussions as if it is some sort of holy grail that explains everything.

I did read it's mostly about
Fake CV's for female secretarial and accounting jobs experiment
and there is something about a difference in outcomes for Senegalese
migrants depending on religion from a tiny sample size of 511 muslims :rolleyes:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2010/11/22/fake-cvs-reveal-discrimination-against-muslims-in-french-job-market/

southsiderosie wrote: »

3) I won't even bother to ask if you familiarized yourself with Koopman's work, because I think I know the answer to that.

Honestly, what is the point of even trying to have any kind of rational discussion with you?

I have read some of his stuff in the past I acknowledge it as I said the issue is complex with many factors and then restated my point that the primary factor is culture and intelligence.

My point of view is perfectly rational.

Why launch a personal attack because you cannot deal with my point on the general intellignece of these populations. You are the irational and illogical one blaming poor immigrant outcomes
of the 3rd generation on the racist white french and their racism and colonialism when the answer is a clear as day.

Ellis Dee

I smell desperation in the air, but it is all coming from that little Gartenzwerg Sarkozy. None of it is coming from the other Schengen countries, because they know well he is just trying to appeal to the populist, right-wing, xenophobic vote and steal some of Ms. Le Pen's thunder. :rolleyes:

I wonder does he realise how silly he sounds to his Italian wife and Hungarian auld lad when he talks about there being too many foreigners in France?:)

southsiderosie

walrusgumble wrote: »

Eh, flashing your passport or national id card is hardly the most troublesome requirement ever. Europeans still won't need to get visas. 10 minutes no more. The Irish are not part of this agreement, and NEVER have problems getting about.

Your making a mountain out of a mohill

How, exactly? It will not cause must hassle for French commuters.

Let's go back to this, since this thread is really about Sarkozy and not migrant integration.

My broader point is, you can't think of this as not inconveniencing EU citizens, because there is no future guarantee that these same restrictions won't be applied to other EU member states if they should see fit to do so. Look at Denmark: they have been quite stroppy about closing their borders. What if a major labor-absorbing state like Germany were to do the same? The constant de-legitimization of Schengen is done in the name of keeping outsiders out, but I worry about a slippery slope where 'insiders' are eventually kept out as well.

Finally, the cheap attempts at point-scoring at the expense of immigrants does nothing to further integration, which has to be thought of as a two-way street: yes, immigrants must accept certain norms of society, but natives have to hold up their end of the social contract as well. Constant scapegoating of immigrants absolves natives of this responsibility: if immigrants are too dumb, or too different, or too violent to integrate, well, why treat any of them as fellow citizens - even if they have gone to university, speak the language, and were born there.

Continental European leaders spent decades telling themselves that they were not countries of immigration and/or that immigrants could never be citizens. Today they are shocked that many immigrants have adopted an oppositional stance towards society - why would they want to be part of a system that constantly rejects them? Sarkozy's comments only feed into the 'othering' process of immigrants, and I cannot see this as anything but counter-productive in the long run.

walrusgumble

RichieC wrote: »

France, the UK and the US started the afghan war, I don't mind saying they should bloody well have to deal with the people fleeing it.

Even those who have committed their own crimes against humanity?

In case you have not noticed, that is what Refugee Status is for, as per the Geneva Convention. EU law should not be butting in.

Schegen was initially intended to make the lives of EU citizens better , it was not to help Non EU people. This of course changed when the influx started to come in. Schegen put its head in the sand (I am not saying influx is bad, I am saying regulation and ability to record it and to control it is required)

It should still not effect a country insisting on passport control and it would not stop someone coming in, as you can't refuse someone entry if you claim asylum.

Your also forgetting that there are EU - non NATO countries that we not directly or indirectly involved in those wars. Why should they be bound by Schegen because of the acts of their fellow EU people? That is the problem, those countries will only deal with so many, but other countries will be expected to take in others. Some from these countries are only economic migrants as oppose to Refugees.

walrusgumble

southsiderosie wrote: »

Let's go back to this, since this thread is really about Sarkozy and not migrant integration.

Don't avoid what you said and what Sarkozy promised. He threatens leaving Schegen.,

You then , incorrectly assumed that the lives of French Commuters will be drastically affected. This is rubbish.

southsiderosie wrote: »

My broader point is, you can't think of this as not inconveniencing EU citizens, because there is no future guarantee that these same restrictions won't be applied to other EU member states if they should see fit to do so.

The EU Treaties, and Directive 2004/38 EC, not to mention EU case law covering 30 years, even pre Schegen, make it clear that obstacles can't be put into place of EU citizens trying to move around.

Having a passport, or national id card, the latter being required in many countries, is not an inconvenience. You hold a drivers licence, you can easily hold a passport when travelling, The Irish have too.

Any substantial restrictions (they are not restrictions) can only be altered via Treaty change, for us, it would be by referendum. The Free movement principle has remained unaltered since its inception. There are some problems with it, especially when dealing with third country nationals. It needs confirmation and updating as it is undemocratic, stupid and dangerous to leave it completely to the CJEU to interpret - as they are completely unpredictable.

southsiderosie wrote: »

Look at Denmark: they have been quite stroppy about closing their borders. What if a major labor-absorbing state like Germany were to do the same?

Anyone trying to get into Germany , all they need to have is their passport, and proof that they intend to exericse their treaty rights. You then can't be discriminated, as a fellow EU citizen, on the basis of your nationality. If they do, go to the German Courts.

Sure, EU countries have put in restrictions on Romania and Bulgaria regarding working without a work permit. EU countries were allowed, but some like Ireland did not apply, restrictions on Polish etc from working without permits in 2004. No one died.

Source on Denmark by the way, I don't think that they are in Schegen, and they are pretty stroppy about alot of EU law's liberal ideas on Free movement

southsiderosie wrote: »

The constant de-legitimization of Schengen is done in the name of keeping outsiders out

IE Non EU Citizens. Free movement was there for EU Citizens, not for Non EU Citizens. Each State should be entitled to deal with NON EU citizens under their own laws, if EU law is not relevant (ie not a family member of an EU citizen). If is it not relevant, its not within the Treaty. It does not effect EU citizens.

southsiderosie wrote: »

, but I worry about a slippery slope where 'insiders' are eventually kept out as well.

Its unfounded. Point out how this would be the case.

southsiderosie wrote: »

Finally, the cheap attempts at point-scoring at the expense of immigrants does nothing to further integration,

Integrate who? What rights do they have to be there in the first place ? ( I exclude Legals) EU law has no right to dictate to a country on what it does when its outside EU law. Schegen was for EU people but it is far more attractive to non eu people. Federalism is not wanted (well, it may happen with this economic treaty)

southsiderosie wrote: »

which has to be thought of as a two-way street: yes, immigrants must accept certain norms of society,

Not for the sake of it, but only when there is a need for it and their is spaces for it (ie non EU law immigration)

southsiderosie wrote: »

but natives have to hold up their end of the social contract as well.

What contract? Point it out.,


Europe owes nothing to anyone outside Europe. Immigrants who want to come to Europe, let them do so Legally and honestly. If they get refused, it means that they are not wanted or needed.

southsiderosie wrote: »

Constant scapegoating of immigrants absolves natives of this responsibility: if immigrants are too dumb, or too different, or too violent to integrate, well, why treat any of them as fellow citizens - even if they have gone to university, speak the language, and were born there.

Missing the point I see. The proposals are to deal with future cases, not people already in Europe. Europe can't take anymore of these responsibilities. People who break the law should not be rewarded, either.

southsiderosie wrote: »

Continental European leaders spent decades telling themselves that they were not countries of immigration and/or that immigrants could never be citizens.

Which ones? Many of these countries have fair naturalisation requirements.

Secondly, they have every right to form whatever opinion they want. We as Irish people have no right to tell them different. Tell us about the stories of mass deportations of people who actually had rights to stay, so.

southsiderosie wrote: »

Today they are shocked that many immigrants have adopted an oppositional stance towards society - why would they want to be part of a system that constantly rejects them?

They were never wanted in the first place? They got to stay, and go over the head of a national countries laws, because of some ridiculous rule in European Courts that actually goes what that state signed up for and even goes against what the other EU institutes drafted law for?

southsiderosie wrote: »

Sarkozy's comments only feed into the 'othering' process of immigrants, and I cannot see this as anything but counter-productive in the long run.

Your big point was that it would some how affect French People, and you assumed that French people would be against it, primarily on the false basis that it would personally effect their ability to travel - of course, with absolutely no effort to substantiate what you said. Now, in the statement that I am now quoting, you seem to have changed tact a light bit and moved away from French themselves into a more general view

walrusgumble

Ellis Dee wrote: »

I smell desperation in the air, but it is all coming from that little Gartenzwerg Sarkozy. None of it is coming from the other Schengen countries, because they know well he is just trying to appeal to the populist, right-wing, xenophobic vote and steal some of Ms. Le Pen's thunder. :rolleyes:

I wonder does he realise how silly he sounds to his Italian wife and Hungarian auld lad when he talks about there being too many foreigners in France?:)

You do realise that getting rid of Scehgen won't really actually stop non eu foreigners going to France?

Clearly you don't, with that nonsense.

You seem to give Schegen far too much credit for what it actually does. Heaven forbid stopping non EU people who won't apply for visas and seek prior permission to enter (excluding people who claim asylum)

Check this out

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-03-14/romania-calls-extraordinary-meeting-on-schengen-premier-says

http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/romania-bulgaria.f1q

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13372118

(The issue in France has being a long going one, not just elections, what has being going on in Northern Africa and Middle East raises legitimate concerns)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13366047

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13372118

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13359532

http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-news/europe-to-allow-restoration-of-border-controls-20110513-1elc4.html

RichieC

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

The article is NOT from DARE it's just on their website.
You know this of course but you are just trying to taint by association without addressing the IQ difference The primary root cause of the problems
The article is from JAN TE NIJENHUIS* AND HENK VAN DER FLIER
*Department of Work and Organizational Psychology, University of Amsterdam and
†Department of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam,the Netherlands
It is merely a summary of IQ test scores and results.
The Dutch have done extensive IQ testing and you can find dozens of
article's all over web. The information is correct.
I did not even know what DARE is until now.

Sounds a lot like racist bs to me.

gurramok

A sizeable portion of the French electorate(as well as most EU countries) have a serious problem with uncontrolled immigration from third country nationals. Its about time their concerns were addressed rather than mocking the French nation in the posts above.

If not addressed, do not cry wolf when these right wing parties grow and get into government.

RichieC

gurramok wrote: »

A sizeable portion of the French electorate(as well as most EU countries) have a serious problem with uncontrolled immigration from third country nationals. Its about time their concerns were addressed rather than mocking the French nation in the posts above.

If not addressed, do not cry wolf when these right wing parties grow and get into government.

Sarkozy is hardly a leftist, now is he?

gurramok

RichieC wrote: »

Sarkozy is hardly a leftist, now is he?

No. If you add up Sarkozy and Le Pens vote, its a pretty big bloc of voters. Immigration tends to be a subject that gets their interest. If their immigration concerns were addressed, the subject wouldn't be on their horizon.

walrusgumble

RichieC wrote: »

Sarkozy is hardly a leftist, now is he?

The issue of being left or right is irrelavant on this matter . There are genuine and honest concerns in Central Europe on this issue, and the CJEU is not always the the correct Institution to lead the way on law making on this, as the Treaty and legislation and Schegen fails to address concerns (whatever they may genuinely be)