The kernel of truth

One of the biggest obstacles in the way of the development of a rational European policy on immigration is the kernel-of-truth argument. It is that depressing observation often made by one listener (or reader) of a right-wing rant to another: "I know he is racist but... there is a kernel of truth in what he says". It is common to condemn the kernel argument as manifesting a latent, or not so latent, racism in the ordinary people who make it. Perhaps it does. But the European bien-pensants have also tended not to serve ordinary people well.

Our talk of values has tended to be vague and not quite coherent. If we speak of solidarity and justice, the solidarity with and justice for the wretches who make it alive across the sea often takes second place to talk of solidarity funds and justice between member states.

The talk of burden sharing with third countries - transit points, like Libya - often sounds remarkably like burden shifting (although last week's conference in Libya, which brought together the European and African unions, hopefully is a mark of change). And the talk about partnerships in development rarely gets beyond stating generic intentions - suggesting to ordinary people that perhaps there is nothing very concrete that can be done.

Regrettably, the most conspicuous move from talk to action has done more harm than good. When the Zapatero government legalised the position of some 800,000 illegal immigrants, what it did was aid and abet organised crime - human traffickers who preyed on the hopes of people who believe that another wave of regularisation will follow soon; the number of migrants arriving in Spain went up markedly. The policy may also have darkened Spanish perceptions of immigrants - with the distinction between regular and illegal immigrants becoming even more blurred.

There has to be a better way of addressing both policy and perception issues. Hence, last Tuesday, a common European immigration policy was the subject of a conference held in Brussels. The discussions explored how law and policy making may be used to strengthen the area of freedom, security and justice; the implications of selective migration policies for Europe as well as the countries of origin; and alternative action plans and measures that may be taken by the Union and by member states.

Organised by six European think-tanks, the conference attracted over 200 registered participants, representing NGOs, the Commission, the Council and several Permanent Representations. The panellists included, among several others, voices from Malta, Greece, Spain and France, as well as the Commission and the external border control agency, Frontex.

One theme to emerge from the conference was related to values. Ordinary people are right: Thinking about values and immigration involves thinking about European identity. It is important, therefore, not to surrender talk of identity to the xenophobes and their siege mentality. The range of European values at stake in immigration issues suggest that the way most consonant with European identity, as well as with the needs of Europe, would be to engage with immigration as a global issue.

Global it certainly is. There are some 191 million illegal immigrants in the world. Most of them are women. Eighty-six million are workers. If Malta, and other member states, are to argue for a common European policy on immigration, they would do well to remind the Union that this is not just a matter of solidarity with member states, but also a matter of the Union living up to its commitment to improving the status of women and solidarity with workers. There are pan-European measures and standards to do with both; that pan-European concern begins to sound a bit hollow if it is not also followed through in working with immigrants and their countries of origin.

There is also a pan-European commitment to humanitarianism, peace and justice. As Simon Busuttil MEP pointed out at the conference, more people drowned this summer in trying to cross illegally from Africa to Europe than there were people killed in the Lebanon. Dr Busuttil was calling on Europe to take its political responsibilities seriously: If a lack of a sufficiently common European  foreign policy puts us to shame in relation to the bombardment of Lebanon, what should the lack of a common immigration policy then do? And, as he pointed out, for that common policy be truly responsible, and proportionate to the challenge, it would need to offer more realistic levels of aid to countries like Libya.

Here is the real kernel of truth: The development of a common European policy on immigration is the only way that the issue can be tackled in a manner consonant with European values like justice, freedom, gender equality, and solidarity. If the Mediterranean member states made this case, in addition to the reasonable appeals for burden sharing, they might speed up the development of a common policy on immigration, as well as show their citizens that there is a more plausible way of thinking of European values and immigration than what the xenophobes have to offer.

The Brussels conference on a common European immigration policy was organised by six European think-tanks: Hanns Seidel Stiftung (Bavaria), Fondation Pour l'Innovation Politique (France), Konrad Adenauer Stiftung (Germany), Constantinos Karamanlis Institute for Democracy (Greece), FAES (Spain) and AZAD. Mr Fsadni is chairman of AZAD.