Friday, 8th August 2008
Repatriate immigrants in their own best interests
Michael Conti's letter, Migrants Should Not Be Treated Like Criminals, could not go unanswered by any Maltese citizen having the tiniest amount of concern for his country. He begins his defence of illegals by stating that they are housed in "overcrowded, bare rooms, tents and warehouses... "
The recent tour of the media to the detention centres should be sufficient enough to show the public otherwise. On top of this, having three meals a day at the expense of the taxpayers hardly qualifies as deplorable conditions of accommodation Mr Conti is attempting to portray to readers.
He is correct when he says that refugees and illegal immigrants are not the same. While I am strongly in favour that the former should be given the necessary help, the latter have no genuine intentions of being in the country other than to live off the overstrained state coffers.
By his own admission, the writer then goes on to state that the Geneva Convention was drafted shortly after World War II. But since then the world has changed beyond recognition and, therefore, we should not be expected to adhere strictly to an outdated convention.
Regarding his claim of illegality, it is obvious that entering any territory without valid documentation is illegal, period.
Therefore, any attempt to legitimise it is nothing but aiding and abetting illegality. Silvio Berlusconi's government is in the process of making illegal entry in Italy a criminal offence.
In the same way, Australia some years ago, stopped practically all landings of boat people on its shores. So what is stopping us from showing the same determination to act in the country's best interests?
The vast majority of illegal immigrants landing almost daily on our shores are Muslims, contrary to what Mr Conti states; and this is a cause of concern in a Catholic country, the official religion in its Constitution.
When Muslim men marry non-Muslim women, they make it a condition that the children born from such marriages are raised as Muslims. And in their culture, they don't have just one or two children.
So in a couple of generations, we will experience a decline in the Catholic population and a rise in the Muslim one.
Then pressure will mount on Parliament to remove Catholicism as the sole official religion of this country, ban the celebration of Christmas and maybe even the consumption of beer and spirits.
What will the pro-immigration lobby have to say then, when it will be too late to save the day? In the light of all this then, repatriating Muslim immigrants to Muslim countries is beneficial due to the fact that it will be easier for them to integrate there.
RSS
Comments
The immigration issue cannot intelligently be split between two groups: For or against immigrants. When dealing with the lives of human beings, things are rarely that simple. By dividing people neatly into two groups, you are ignoring the arguments of those who, while they do see the problem of uncontrolled immigration, also see the ethical side of the issue.
In my opinion, Mr Micallef, this is not the case, is it?
Even if you choose to behave like the ostrich and ignore certain parts of our country, the problem is still there, and has to be swiftly addressed.
1. I don't need muslims to tell me we should remove Catholicism as the sole official religion of this country. The constitution does not reflect today's reality. Many Maltese people are not Catholics.
2. Ban the celebration of Christmas? Has it actually been done anywhere in Europe?
3. "And maybe even (ban) the consumption of beer and spirits". Come on! If you really believe this, then that law would actually do you good.
Unfortunately the first group of people tend to resort to lame remarks in order to try and discredit the arguments brought up by the second group. Experience as thought me that when people resort to such infantile behaviour it usually means that they have no valid argument to rebut what was said.
Repatriation is already taking place dumbo: at least half of immigrants are being returned to their countries.
Yes, there is a difference between refugees and illegal immigrants. But keep in mind that most refugees immigrated illegally.... and then they were found to be genuine refugees.
Stop scaremongering and let the authorities deal with immigration. I recommend you play chess or invest in a pet.
Unfortunately much prejudice stems from misdirected hatred towards the people who are also victims of circumstance. By all means we should demand that the EU shoulders its responsibilities on this issue, but failing this, there is little more we can do if we are to act as decent human beings.
"When Muslim men marry non-Muslim women, they make it a condition that the children born from such marriages are raised as Muslims". This is what the Catholic Church also does: when you marry in the Church, you promise to raise children Catholic, even if one of the spouses is Protestant or Bhuddist or Jewish. How come so many people think that being a Muslim equates to extremism? In my primary school years in the Netherlands, we had quite a number of Muslim children and there were never any problems with them or their parents. Don't blame the majority for the foolish actions of a small minority! Not every Muslim wishes to see us Christians annihilated.
Of course, sooner said than done. The country involved has to AGREE to repatriation, Mr Fenech.
That immigrants are living in bad conditions is a fact. Does Fenech feel that the immigrants should not have meals and that they should not be treated well? No way.
The writer seems to miss the point regarding the financial burden. Even if the financial burden had to be lightened, ideally, illegal immigrants should still NOT be in Malta and this, not due to their colour but to the fact that Malta is overcrowded enough, in more ways than one.
What is stopping us from showing the same determination to act? he asks. Well, for one thing, we don't have the same means as the Aussies do? Secondly, we are not facing the same type of would-be immigrants as the Aussies. Thirdly, the powers-that-be, rightly, have no intention of having mass-deaths on their consciences.
Do not speak of Malta as a Catholic country - please leave out the theme of relgion. We only use it when it suits us.
1. Jonathan Fenech says that he is strongly in favour that refugees should be given all the necessary help, but then goes on to say that entering any territory without documentation is illegal and should be criminalized. How does Mr Fenech expect genuine refugees to enter Malta, if not illegally? I'm sure that if he thinks hard about this, he will see the contradiction in his two claims.
2. Mr Fenech goes on to say that when Muslim men marry non-Muslim women, they make it a condition that the children born from such marriages are raised as Muslims. And in their culture, they don't have just one or two children. First of all, is Mr Fenech suggesting that he has the right to decide who marries who, and what religion one follows? And regarding not having just one or two children, I happen to know that lots of Maltese Catholics don't have just one or two children (probably due to the Church's insistence that contraception is a sin). Of course, it is none of my business how many children one has, like it's none of his.