And some of you were worried about the new LONDON mayor...

[Dinner]

Freedom of movement in the EU and all that.

[snoopy369]

Somehow I don't forsee Italy being part of the EU in about ten years or so... the only question is which party (Italy or the rest of the EU) acts to make it so

[Ben Kenobi]

Did you miss the bit about Romania being part of the EU now?

Yes?

Free movement works both ways.

How does free movement prevent them from getting tossed out of Italy?

[Kuciwalker]

It lets them come right back in legally, which makes the whole exercise rather futile.

[Wezil]

Even criminal records don't prevent free movement in the EU?

[Henrik]

Originally posted by Spiffor
There's plenty of Police on the beat in Rome. Unfortunately, in crowded streets, it's pretty hard to spot and chase a pickpocket. Go figure why...

This is certainly the case, I've never been anywhere with more policemen on the streets (and often quite heavily armed as well). They are literally everywhere...

The contrast was quite big to Naples where you couldn't find a policeman if your life depended on it (well I did see a few inside the train station, but they seemed very happy to remain ignorant of the knife fight going on just outside the building).

[Wezil]

Our cops wouldn't waste such a prime opportunity to deploy tasers.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Wezil
Even criminal records don't prevent free movement in the EU?

According to wiki, there aren't any border checks between countries that are part of the Schengen Agreement.

[Wezil]

Hmm. Silly fools.

[Spiffor]

To be fair, Romania isn't part of Schengen yet IIRC. However, it's only a matter of years.

Besides, the nomadic culture of the Gypsies makes them more likely to cross borders without controls, as they've done for the past decades. Their living conditions in Romania tend to be terrible (there's unabashed racism against them there, even moreso than in western Europe), which means they're unlikely to happily stay there

Also, I seem to understand that you can't expel a Romanian from an EU country on the sole basis that he's an "illegal immigrant". At least, in France, Sarkozy expelled a glut of Romanians to fill his statistical goal of 25,000 expulsions in 2006, but couldn't do the same again in 2007.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Wezil
Hmm. Silly fools.

I don't see it as different from the lack of border checks between US states or Canadian provinces.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


I don't see it as different from the lack of border checks between US states or Canadian provinces.

I would agree it is similar and becoming more so over time.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
That sounds sensible. However as you said, it would lower confidence in travellers going to Rome. Why would a traveller go to Rome when he could go elsewhere without having to worry about the pickpockets?

Because Rome has all in one place:
- The Pope
- The most magnificient city of the ancient world, and amazing ruins that remain
- Countless gorgeous examples of the Italian renaissance, be they palaces, churches or basilicae
- The dolce vita

Sure, Mora (Sweden) has other things to offer. But that doesn't really compare

It behooves Italy to find some way of reducing the number of incidents so that the travellers themselves feel safer.

Yes. And not only travellers btw, but Italian (and in the current thread, Roman) citizens too. My contention is that being more "tough on crime" than they already are won't be a working policy to that effect. And the city of Rome will waste several years with useless and possibly counter-productive policies before they elect someone who is more interested in pragmatic solutions rather than name-calling.

I would think that's pretty much the same wherever you go. Take the time to familiarise yourself with the area, buy a map, etc.

I've travelled in quite a few places in Europe. I can tell you that Rome was specific as to how puzzling the city was. It reminded me of Bamako more often than not.

Can't say I agree. Public transit reinforces overcrowding because you are cramming more people into a smaller area, and giving the pickpockets more places to work.

Again, we seem to be made for misunderstandings. When I say "reinforce public transportation in order to alleviate overcrowding", I actually mean that I'd support Rome having more buses, so that individual buses become less crowded.

Depends on how it is implemented. I can certainly see situations where transit would be even less safe.

Yes, me too. I saw such a situation during my last trip in Rome, actually

This is crowd management, more then anything else. If you have adequate policing of the high traffic areas you could limit the number of visiters, which other places do. If the city of Rome is too congested then this may be what they have to do.

It strikes me as very hard to have a crowd management in the whole city centre of Rome. Tourism is absolutely essential to the city as it is now. Excessive hurdles on the tourists would likely result in a loss of tourism income, and nobody wants that. I'd favor "softer" methods of crowd management, except in places that are congested to a degree that trampling becomes a serious risk.

Completely disagree here. Integration demands that they respect the rules of Italy. If they don't like how Italy governs themselves then they can leave. They ought to immigrate properly. If they can immigrate illegally, then they should be just as easy to deport back to their home country.

You're talking about illegal immigrants, but I haven't seen the "illegal" part in the OP. He's talking about "Immigrants with a criminal record", which is something different already. And he's talking about razing 85 camps - tell me how he discriminates between the "good" and the "bad" inhabitants of these camps, I'm interested

I agree with your motivations, but I think many immigrants have taken advantage of Italy, and the result is the situation today.

I'd argue the "situation today" is the following:
- Italy has been in a crap economy for the past 20 years
- The Berlusconi governments were considered as bad. The left wing governments managed to be considered as worse.
- The Italian voters tend not to have too much hope in the future, but like many other Europeans, fear the future.
- Italy, like most European countries, has received many immigrants in the recent past, something it was not accustomed to, as it was traditionally an emigration country.
- The Italian right-wing, like other European right-wings (France, Netherlands, Switzerland, Austria for example) play on these fears by making immigrants a useful scapegoat. Ideas that used to belong to the far-right are now deemed as acceptable by the "democratic right"

I don't see how the situation today is caused by "immigrants [having] taken advantage of Italy". It's much more caused by political demagogery in a time of fear and lack of perspective.

Surveillance has it's uses and it's limitations. Better to have the cops on the ground, rather then relying on the cameras.

They're already there. And quite significantly, if I may add.

Status quo isn't working.

We fully agree about that. However, to change the status quo, I'd rather have a policy which enjoys the Roma and immigrant input, so that they're better integrated. For example, I strongly doubt there'd be 85 illegal camps near Rome if there was enough adapted land to welcome the Roma in good hygiene and access conditions.

[Ben Kenobi]

It lets them come right back in legally, which makes the whole exercise rather futile.

Well sure if you've got the money to get yourself back.

[Ben Kenobi]

Because Rome has all in one place:
- The Pope
- The most magnificient city of the ancient world, and amazing ruins that remain
- Countless gorgeous examples of the Italian renaissance, be they palaces, churches or basilicae
- The dolce vita

Oh, that's a low blow.

Yes. And not only travellers btw, but Italian (and in the current thread, Roman) citizens too. My contention is that being more "tough on crime" than they already are won't be a working policy to that effect. And the city of Rome will waste several years with useless and possibly counter-productive policies before they elect someone who is more interested in pragmatic solutions rather than name-calling.

Well I think we would disagree here. I think it's important to try to cut into some of the crime in Rome, and I think it is possible to acheive a reduction.

I've travelled in quite a few places in Europe. I can tell you that Rome was specific as to how puzzling the city was. It reminded me of Bamako more often than not.

I've not travelled to Europe, but I generally always try to buy a map and study it so I can understand how the city works and can get around. I love maps.

Again, we seem to be made for misunderstandings. When I say "reinforce public transportation in order to alleviate overcrowding", I actually mean that I'd support Rome having more buses, so that individual buses become less crowded.

Well I thought of it as more, increase the usage of public transportation, which to me would lead to overcrowding at the stops and on the buses. Public transit can work, but they also concentrate people in a way that private transport does not.

It strikes me as very hard to have a crowd management in the whole city centre of Rome. Tourism is absolutely essential to the city as it is now. Excessive hurdles on the tourists would likely result in a loss of tourism income, and nobody wants that. I'd favor "softer" methods of crowd management, except in places that are congested to a degree that trampling becomes a serious risk.

I don't know how congested things are in Rome, but many other attractions do just that, they put limits on the number of people who can come out there in any given day. One thing that would help would be to reroute non tourist traffic to different areas so that the tourists would pretty much have certain parts all to themselves.

You're talking about illegal immigrants, but I haven't seen the "illegal" part in the OP. He's talking about "Immigrants with a criminal record", which is something different already. And he's talking about razing 85 camps - tell me how he discriminates between the "good" and the "bad" inhabitants of these camps, I'm interested

Well you have to go there if you want to deport the immigrants with a criminal record. It's not like you can call them up on the phone and say, hey, can you come in so we can deport you?

quote:
I agree with your motivations, but I think many immigrants have taken advantage of Italy, and the result is the situation today.

I don't see how the situation today is caused by "immigrants [having] taken advantage of Italy". It's much more caused by political demagogery in a time of fear and lack of perspective.

My own position is that they should find a way to make it work with them there. However, I feel that it is essential to make a distinction between those who are willing to play by the rules and those who don't. Please don't get me wrong, I think immigration is an enormous benefit, I just feel that those who do commit crimes that Italians would go to jail for are taking advantage of the fact that tehy are guests in Italy.

We fully agree about that. However, to change the status quo, I'd rather have a policy which enjoys the Roma and immigrant input, so that they're better integrated. For example, I strongly doubt there'd be 85 illegal camps near Rome if there was enough adapted land to welcome the Roma in good hygiene and access conditions.

Roma don't usually integrate all that well, as for the situation in Romania, they can very well be considered refugees. I agree it wouldn't do any good to send them back to Romania. I think Hungary would be a much better alternative.