Division over immigration (1)

The two-page spread The Clash of Contrasting Emotions (October 12), dealing with "the illegal immigration crisis", gave the views of academics from the University of Malta on the subject. I was disappointed because when academics speak to enlighten the public they should put emotion aside. It may be that the editor misinterpreted their intentions when he chose the title, but I do not blame him if this is the case.

I am not a supporter of the Alleanza Nazzjonali Repubblikana (ANR). I did not participate in their demonstration. I believe that the choice of their logo, seemingly inspired by that of a neo-fascist political party in Italy, has damaged their cause beyond redemption.

I also feel that the organisers of the demonstration were naïve not to anticipate that extremists would attempt to hijack it. Finally, I also fault Philip Beattie, an academic himself, for allowing his emotions to override his arguments when addressing the crowd.

I am surprised to read of academics giving the label African to all the illegal immigrants, as if there is one African cultural identity, or colour, or one common African political and economic situation. Such sweeping statements are emotional and not worthy of academia.

A recurrent criticism levelled at those who insist on greater control and discouragement of illegal immigration is that these persons lump all illegal immigrants as having the worst possible characteristics. Fair enough. But aren't those who lump all illegal immigrants as having the credentials of genuine asylum seekers equally wrong?

The phrase "human rights" is often used to bolster a weak argument. Is an illegal immigrant denied of any human right by being kept in custody while his/her claims are being investigated? If the process is unduly prolonged because of false, misleading or missing information on the part of the illegal immigrant, is his/her detention a breach of human rights?

The facts are that Malta is giving refugee status, and humanitarian shelter, at a higher rate than any other European state, yet the Maltese are being criticised by fellow Maltese of being racist. What are the latter advocating, at least by implication, if not the practical acceptance of all illegal immigrants?

I agree with those academics who claim that the reaction that is being provoked by the ever-increasing and uncontrolled influx of illegal immigration is a negative one, that it has fear at its core and that it could lead to unpleasant if not dangerous situations.

I do not agree with them when they put all the blame on the Maltese. They speak as if the illegal immigrants have the right, or no alternative, but to impose their problem on us, and that we have the obligation to solve it for them.

It's strange that not one single academic thought it relevant to mention the role of criminals who enrich themselves on the plight of fellow human beings and whose lives they are unscrupulous enough to put at risk, by promoting illegal immigration. The more illegal immigration is encouraged by good results, the more it benefits these criminals.

I speak from experience and I am greatly disappointed to see armchair critics who do not shoulder the political responsibility of running the country, pontificating on this issue without coming out with any viable solution to the situation that we are facing.

I was involved when Malta hosted the Asians kicked out of Uganda by Idi Amin, until they were resettled in other countries. The UNHCR helped financially for Malta to be able to do so. I have seen hundreds of Christian Iraqis stranded in Malta, when Canada and the US closed their flow from their country to the new world via Malta. From Tripoli I alerted the Malta immigration authorities not to issue visas to citizens of former French African colonies. Soon after, a container filled with dozens of suffocated nationals of these countries was discovered in northern Italy on its way to France. In my time I stopped the flow of Chinese visa-carrying "students" and "cooks" who were using Malta to enter other countries illegally.

The problem today has assumed vastly greater proportions because far more people are involved; it is organised on an international scale and it has strong business interests backing it; as yet, we are not finding the necessary support of the EU or neighbouring countries. Above all, today there is an element of imposition by the foreigner and this is understandably resented. Skin colour does play a role, and this is because the cultural clash, justified or not, is more easily perceived.

Calling Maltese racists only adds fuel to the burning issue and the same applies to those who express racist sentiments. Using the label of Christianity to back one's political agenda is an abuse by both sides of the spectrum.

Yes, there is fear, and if one were to give an unbiased critical look at what has happened, and is happening, in other parts of the world where massive immigration has led to an inability to integrate, and foreign cultural influences challenge the established values of the host country, including human rights ones, this fear cannot be shrugged off as being totally unjustified. On the other hand, fanning this fear, rather than containing it, is demagogic.

This problem has only a diplomatic/political solution on an international basis. Malta's voice is limited and we make it less effective by division among ourselves.