Dealing with illegal immigrants

I refer to Charles Sammut's letter (February 16).

Mr Sammut's anger and fear are very understandable but his letter does not reflect a healthy, mature way of reasoning.

Yes, the Maltese public, like the public of all developed countries (regardless of whether they are in the EU or not!) are required by international moral law to offer sanctuary to forcefully displaced individuals (refugees) when they flee genuine persecution. This does not mean that no country ever violates this law - but those that do, do so at their peril. We are no exception.

Looking at Mr Sammut's letter, however, I find the idea that the Maltese are becoming second- class citizens to refugees rather far-fetched, to say the least. Those who are found to be genuinely in need of sanctuary are housed in buildings that, I assure him, no Maltese citizen in his right mind would pay anything to live in.

If an illegal immigrant requires an outpatients' appointment, they often do jump the queue. Well - what do people want? Do they prefer to spend three hours in a crowded waiting room with an immigrant, with two soldiers to guard him, or would they rather he/she came and went quickly and uneventfully?

Mr Sammut suggests that illegal immigrants are criminals and should be locked up. I disagree. The highly inappropriate appellation "illegal immigrant" means that sufficient grounds have not yet been found to grant a person asylum. However, first of all, any refugee is, by his/her very name, desperate for help. It is our duty, both morally and under international law, to help that person.

He argues that their only crime is that they illegally disposed of their passports. Yes, to throw away one's passport is a criminal offence but I think we should consider the circumstances. Many of these people are from Somalia, Ethiopia and other African countries - their country already suggests that their plight is probably genuine, although their case must be investigated dutifully by the government.

So - what can be done? Should we set them all free? I personally don't agree. I believe that some form of controlled detention is required upon their arrival for reasons of public health and safety. However, a couple of conditions must be met. First of all, the conditions in detention are appalling. They should be improved as a matter of urgency. Second, their reasons for detention and the expected length should be explained to them fully - that is their right, even if we regard them as criminals.

Mr Sammut says they constitute a risk to society. Although this may be true for other countries, I don't think this is as true here for several reasons. Malta is a small country and it is easy to keep track of refugees. People who want their well-being do visit them and these friendships discourage the formation of gangs.

I believe that by meeting and helping them we help ourselves because they are less likely to become outcasts when they aren't treated that way. From my experience, our generosity doesn't encourage them to stay here. No amount of generosity is enough to keep a refugee from moving on.

The majority never wanted to come here and they don't want to remain here either. But a simple act of kindness can make a big difference to their misery. The facts state that those who have tried to approach them or their children have not been impressed in a negative way. I recommend this approach to you, Mr Sammut, and to anyone who wants to make a truly informed decision.