No Poirot, I'd say it has more to do with the amount of 'freedom' the rest of the French people would have at the expense of Roma around than not- as they have a considerable reputation for criminal activity across Europe.
And the fact is, they have no right to actually be there, and are taking up space that could be used for something else by people who actually do (freely!).

Dear King Hazza,

The point is that they do have every right to be there.

The European Union has urged France to suspend the deportations. France may be infringing upon its EU obligations. Legal analysis is pending, and may lead to legal action.

The European Union's top justice official, Viviane Reding spoke out on the issue saying, "This is not a minor matter - this is a disgrace."

Many are drawing parallels between the removal of Roma during the Second World War.

My main point was that "society" in whatever form it finds itself, will always expect everyone to participate - and if they don't, they will be vilified with whatever conveniently paints them in the darkest light.

I'm afraid that's not convincing Piorot- as far as I'm concerned, if these people are not citizens of France, and they are occupying the ground illegally (that is, against France's residential, loitering etc laws), then France deserves the right to 'freely' take back what property belongs to them, and no amount of complaining by an unelected court representing a wing of a multinational union with limited authority, nor invoking Godwin is enough.

And no, I don't care if they're not welcomed elsewhere. Not France's problem. And no country's obligation to shoulder people who only reward it with abuse (or 'not participating fully- including refusing to work and instead electing to generate funds through unethical processes against the people of the society they're occupying).

As far as I'm concerned, France is complying enough with its own constitutional requirements for me not to have a problem with it.

Dear King Hazza,

France is quite happy to receive the economic benefits of being a member of the EU. Yet, in targeting a minority for deportation, appears to be flouting the spirit if not the laws set down by that union.
Why are one set of laws (France's domestic) seen as worth upholding while the laws governing conduct by nations within the European Union are not?

Simple, maybe because France has reevaluated the importance or role of the union as an organization itself.
Or maybe watched the Swiss adopt a better approach of simply signing up for Schengen (really the only reason to be there) without sacrificing anything worthwhile to uphold all the baggage of the union?
Especially considering when France actually joined the EU, it was little more than a trade agreement.