Dealing with illegal immigrants

The article Detention Is Not a Deterrent by Sharon Spiteri (September 23) takes me back 10 years in its content with regard to the attitude adopted in the United Kingdom.

It is a mirror image of mine and many more "liberal", sensitive individuals towards immigration into the UK. I fought against the initial detention of refugees with a passion. I now accept it to be a flawed stance to have taken.

The temptation to believe every refugee is in desperate need of help and assistance and that there is a sure method to identify the genuine and economic refugee is not so. People trafficking comes in all shapes, sizes, races, creeds and cultures and is impossible to detect due to the expertise shown by the immigrant upon presentation to the immigration authorities or when detected after illegal entry into the UK.

The level of prior knowledge that immigrants in the last five years have arrived armed with is formidable. They arrive with expert information upon secure areas to "lose" themselves into specific communities, contact numbers for sympathetic legal opinion and a knowledge upon local and national transport links to their final destinations that is exceptional in its content. These actions leave no doubt that there is a huge organised movement of immigrants specifically for economic and illegal purposes.

Placing labels on supporters of immigrants as "liberals" does a disservice to anyone who supports a genuine asylum seeker or immigrant who adheres to the immigration laws of the country. There is no requirement to support these cases.

The problems arose from illegal immigration and the failure to adhere to any scrutiny whatsoever. Quoting selective excerpts from letters in support of an individual case is disingenuous if the whole context of the letter is lost. To accuse the letter writers of xenophobia is unjust as is the implication that patriotism is misplaced.

A major flaw in Ms Spiteri's argument is one of the accusations of "racism". The genuinely held fears and concerns are related to culture and not race. The "racist" argument is generally raised to gain advantage when the logical argument is lost, particularly in the case where African and Arab Muslims are involved. It is a fact in the UK that the vast majority of illegal immigrants are made up from these two cultures. I would suggest there is a similar situation in Malta.

The aspect of detention is one of reasonable containment while investigation is made as to whether the individual qualifies for asylum. It is easier and more cost effective to have people available for information and interview immediately rather than having to "chase" them around the country. Prior to detention it was thought that over 50 per cent of asylum seekers/illegal immigrants were "lost" in communities and never returned for interview. This, if proven, is unacceptable.

It is misleading to quote the actions of the Mission of Refugees in relation to illegal immigration. The mission deals exclusively with bona fide asylum seekers and legal migrants to the UK. The attitude of removing unqualified illegal immigrants from the UK is identical to the one allegedly adopted by Malta. Regarding refugees/ illegal immigrants working illegally, this must be stopped as the conditions they work in are generally appalling (Cockle Pickers at Morecambe Bay).

Emotive language of the nature of "swamped" does not help but is a genuinely held belief when communities of the nature of Bradford, Leicester, Luton and Burnley are identified.

So what is the problem? Not the age old argument of "work" and "they will take our jobs". In the UK it is one of trust and integration.

Trust. There is, and has been since 1991, and in particular 9/11, a deliberate wedge driven into the integrated multi-cultural aspect of life within the UK by the African/Arab Islamic Fundamentalist to create "no go" areas for their recruiting agenda and teaching of their extremist views (Abu Hamza/Finsbury Mosque). The extremist has carefully instilled into the non-Muslim cultures a fear that festers and breeds mistrust.

Integration. This is a major problem for the Muslim culture in general, as certain interpretations of the Quran do not allow it, when quoted by the fundamentalist cleric/supporter. Every Friday in the fundamentalist mosques the Jew is vilified, the Christian labelled as an "infidel". Invariably the mosques that espouse this hatred provide succour for the Muslim illegal immigrant. This then affords a huge emotive power over the illegal immigrant to follow the teaching of the extremist or be cast out to be caught and repatriated to their country of origin.

The Maltese people are having a disservice done to them by accusations of racial bigotry. They are a proud people defending their cultural heritage and customs. They have every right to hold the attitude of "integrate or leave". The racist argument is one of attempting to gain advantage when the argument based on fact is lost. It does not work; it only shoves under the carpet the genuinely held concerns of the cultural heritage of the host country.

The final paragraph of the report then utilises the argument "Refugees can make an economic and cultural contribution to Malta". Absolutely correct. Illegal immigrants cannot. Ms Spiteri has blurred the issues to conclude her piece of journalism. Detention is a deterrent; the UK now is beginning to control the level of skills being introduced into our economy; this will also work for Malta.

What cannot work for Malta is the implication in the piece that the people landing on the shores of Malta are predominantly genuine asylum seekers. In the overwhelming majority, the immigrants are illegal, economic immigrants who will ensure the islands' capabilities of coping with them in a compassionate manner is grossly stretched and overloaded to the point where it will be more provident to "waive the requirements for legal immigration". That is when Malta will become the victim of the many and varied legal eagles that make thousands of pounds out of the misery of the immigrant.

The goal of the illegal immigrant is to place the host country into such a situation; it happened in the UK where an amnesty had to be given to alleged illegal immigrants. This then becomes the first step upon the ladder to Europe. Malta must not become a "staging area" for immigrants into Europe. There are no alternatives to immediate detention for illegal/economic migration. They must comply with Malta's legal requirements to stay. If not they must be repatriated.

Learn from our mistakes. Do not allow your sensitivity and reasonable attitude to blind the reality of Malta's requirements. We did in the UK and the "Right Wing Fascist" label is being levelled at our government for trying to address and manage immigration in an even-handed fair manner.