Thursday, 26th February 2009
The pariah strategy for immigration
Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando (February 23) has urged us all "to face up" to the problem of immigration. But how much does his proposal face up to the facts?
It involves, first, recognising no right of asylum, unless an immigrant comes directly from his or her country. Otherwise, the argument that they have escaped persecution or terror "does not hold water".
This means Malta would have to deny a crucial distinction of international law and embraced by all EU member states.
Denying this distinction would mean that Malta suspends its international obligations at law. It would also give our EU partners an important loophole. Recently, the principle of burden sharing was recognised (although not in a way that committed them in detail) with respect to asylum seekers. If we do not recognise any, who will there be for other member states to take?
Of course, that is not the line the EU will take. It will, at the very least, suspend our membership, if not expel us. Because the second part of Dr Pullicino Orlando's proposal is to tow all undocumented immigrants back to international waters, in the direction whence they came, "when the weather is fair".
Call it the pariah strategy: That is how the international community will treat us. It is how it is treating Thailand, the only state that tows immigrants back into international waters.
Not even Australia's right-wing populist, John Howard, attempted it. The closest he got was refusing to accept a ship into Australia's harbours. But what a difference: He was not towing people out and it was a ship not a fragile boat.
The idea behind the proposal may be that once we get rid of the immigrants we can get on with creating wealth and peace of mind. But there is a fatal flaw. Suspension from the EU will run our reputation through the gutter, seriously damaging tourism and jeopardising foreign investment. The cure will be far worse than the problem.
And we will deserve it. Although Dr Pullicino Orlando makes towing immigrants out to sea sound so simple, commonsensical and even possible to do kindly ("every effort must be taken to ensure their safety"), it can only be done callously and with complete disrespect for human life.
Take them out "when the weather is fair"? The weather variable window is far too wide. It would have to be fair for several days; the immigrants would need to be sure to stay on course and not stray into a different weather zone. Hundreds of the immigrants that Thailand has towed out have lost their lives.
In what boats do we put the immigrants? They are arriving in unsafe boats that can carry 200. Do we place them in a fleet of smaller boats that take up to 28? Applied to the 600 recent arrivals, that would involve escorting over 20 boats out to sea.
What if they come back into Maltese waters? Or, if they go back towards Libya (rather than heading for Italy, which would have serious conflict with us as a result), what happens if, say, Libya tows them out again? Do we play ping pong with hundreds of lives?
But that is the kind of detailed implementation that would be necessary. It is why, we would become pariahs. It is why to make such a proposal is not to face up to the facts but to avoid them.
Indeed, one of the most puzzling aspects of his article is its estrangement from many facts. Dr Pullicino Orlando wagers that the UK, France and Germany would each declare a state of emergency (and presumably suspend their international obligations) if faced with a proportionate number of immigrants.
There is no need to speculate. Germany has been there already. In 1992, it had 440,000 requests for asylum (way above Malta's proportionate number) and no help from its European partners. No state of emergency was declared.
And for someone keen to face the facts, Dr Pullicino Orlando does a strange thing: He inflates the figures.
He blows up the numbers France and the UK would proportionately get, by some 30 per cent and, in counting the immigrants to Malta over a five-year period, he counts the arrivals and not the net number that is still here.
Up till a short while ago, he denounced talk "of suspending human rights considerations as a brazen attempt to score cheap political points by riding on the wave of popular concern". He was criticising Alfred Sant's proposal to suspend Malta's international obligations. What is so different about his?
Earlier, too, he used to warn how the issue had led to the creation of a right-wing party. His proposal today, however, is virtually identical to that party's.
In short, his attempt to save us from rising xenophobia sounds rather like the attempt by US generals to save Vietnamese villages from communism: to save the village, it was once notoriously declared, it was necessary to destroy it.
RSS
Comments
What you're suggesting is the breaking of laws, not their enforcement. Here's another article you didn't read: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090302/local/sending-migrants-back-is-not-an-option/
No. You didn't mention shooting and starving, but those rallying calls have been heard on your side of the fence and there you are, standing alongside repeating your 'tow them back' mantra and applauding furiously every time someone says something similar. It's becoming difficult to tell you all apart. Even Sarah Palin would be embarrassed in your place.
Illegal immigrants, if illegal in country of origin, can be processed there. Local apologists can examine their own consciences. And their agenda.
Now, assuming for one second that Mr. Furioso - bless!! - has no case, could you, or anyone else who cares, tell us how this situation will pan out. Given that the situation is not only at an impasse but deteriorating every time there is a new influx. Expelling a few to appease the people is a weak sob I'm afraid (see above) when the influx more than replenishes the stock. And let us make no mistake. Feeding and accommodating illegals is an issue. But some issues are unseen. I am thinking of the undermining of Malta's way of life, the villages, morale, quality of life. I expect some comments.
From where I am standing, Pullicino - whatever his agenda, it matters not given the dire straits we are in - wittingly or otherwise is telling us, or giving us to understand, that, given that the situation is at an impasse (meaning that, 35 or whatever illegal immigrants, 227 illegal immigrants, quick on their heels, in - this is not progress. Thanks to Jeffrey, just in case haven't a brain, this means that the situation is getting worse. And nothing is being done. cont./
Perhaps we should tow him out on a boat and see how he copes,after all,one should lead by example.
He would be more credible if he first gives up his house to an immigrant family. Then maybe, maybe, we'll take him more seriously..
Seriously, we have to defend our little island and if this means, taking radical measures, we'll have to take them. Jews know well what it's like living without a home country - I really don't want to witness a Maltese diaspora in my lifetime!
This is a sincere appeal to the Maltese government to create and keep regularly updated a website dedicated to Malta's problem of irregular immigration, documenting the facts from the moment a boat is detected in Maltese waters, to the bureaucratic procedures linked to the grant of asylum and the attainment of refugee status . It should include info on detention centres, full statistics, a dossier of events, a panoramic view of Malta's ministries, departments, institutions, and numerous organizations involved in handling this growing problem, as well as a collection of the legal texts binding Malta under international law. It should include information on the contribution of Malta's armed forces, police, doctors, nurses and paramedics to cater to the needs of the irregular migrants, as well as a reliable financial account of national expenditure to cope with this challenge. It should also list reports filed by Maltese citizens with the police concerning irregular migrants, as well as any reports made by the latter.
We really need to know what we're talking about.
This is the basic right to information.
@ T Mifsud
We need to act arbitrarily and if necessary unilaterally if the rest of Europe thinks that Malta is the dumping ground and not the sentry of Europe's southern border.
With same line of argument why do presume that Libya should be the guardians of EU borders?
@ malcolm seychell
The author talks reality while pressure groups like AN just are desperate to collect votes and using the immigrants as an convenient scaremongering tool hang all our evils and vices on. Additionally, may I ask why, lately the AN hardly talk about single parents?? A matter of Votes hux?
@ louise vella
I am really sorry for this unfortunate incidents happened with you and your friends’s daughter. I too, have many many stories and incidents that involved fellow Maltese.
I am pitying Malta not being part of German territory. I dont wonder why they have curbed influx in their country.
What most are missing is that every country has the right to order on the border and no country would like to be seen punishing another country for taking drastic actions when matters come out of hand. It can backfire on them.
It would be as I will tell my neighbour that I will sanction him if he does not welcome every poor guy on the street. Or vice versa. Ridiculous.
They shall other help, or stay out of it.
When it comes to an invasion all international obligations are suspended.
From the MaltaToday 20 July 08
quotes
"Frontex patrols seize fuel and food to force migrants crossing the Mediterranean to return to their point of departure. ................
In the documentary, Colonel Francesco Saverio Manozzi can be heard explaining to the Italian refugee council how certain EU member states operate different tactics on the high seas when they encounter migrants.
German forces in particular operate on tough lines, the police chief admits.
Other countries use the term ‘diversion’, which means to force someone to go back home,” Manozzi says.
But even Frontex director Ilkka Laitenen does not deny the practice, saying each member state interprets the law as it sees fit when it comes to border control.
“If there are any means of how to turn those people who are entering illegally, to go back home, that will be done. The individual EU members interpret the law differently. I don’t say it is illegal. They just interpret it differently.”
"The way of doing this is to ensure a safe return back to the port of departure. To this end we go aboard the boats to confirm ...""
100 000? 1000 000? How many?
Does the Maltese government not have also NATIONAL obligations to its own people?
Definitely illegal immigrants are not "skart" but neither are Maltese citizens in their own country. They and their views should not be ignored as the government has been doing.
Ranier Fsadni, would you care to have a referendum on illegal immigration? Or at least a public consultation process? Or an issue group?
Burden sharing must be OBLIGATORY and the EU must shake up those member countries who are taking us for a ride and who are blatantly backtracking from their "gentlemanly agreement" of burden sharing. I feel astounded how a man of your intelligence fails to make a distinction between the size of Malta, and the repercussions we will be soon facing, and the big EU countries which have no such problem and are shunning all responsibilities. However you look at it there is no light at the end of the tunnel and we should act fast.
Incidentally, Malta is part of the EU against which you plan to use Malta's veto power. Are you planning to veto yourself?
It's called national security which overides any other consideration. We and we alone are responsable for our own defence and security of this island. These people are a security threat since their numbers by far exceed our own armed forces.
We gave our proposals unlike the PN which are doing nothing on illegal immigration.
We still have the VETO power thanks to the Irish people who voted no to the lisbon treaty.
We should use it on a daily basis, till the day we get what we want from the EU.
Besides which, what JPO is suggesting is effectively state sanctioned murder. Jesus would not approve.
"......Maltese are xenophobic and would support the summary and illegal expulsion of immigrants. ..........."
I do hope that it was a genuine mistake that you "forgot" to place the adjective ILLEGAL before he word immigrants.
Immigrants are more than welcome in our society when they enter our lands legally, hence we know who they are and in controlled numbers.
Where the Maltese people xenophobic when we sent aid to the tsunami victims, sent money and missions to Brazil and Africa etc? Where we racists when aid was sent to Gaza in the last few weeks? Are we racist when money is sent to Mother Theresa's organization?
".....the majority of us......."
Who is "us"?
The problem here is NOT race colour or creed!
The problem if you have not realized is GRADE 1 Maths.
Malta Density = 1,298/km2 (410,290 for 316km2)
Somalia Density = 13/km2 (9,558,666 for 637661km2)
P.S. Thank you timesofmalta.com for giving John the Plumber a voice.
“a crucial distinction of international law … Denying this distinction would mean Malta suspends its international obligations at law… the EU … will, at the very least, suspend our membership, if not expel us.”!!!
The following is not in international law. Recently in Luqa, I was chased by an illegal immigrant. He ran away only after I started screaming. I am over 50 years. Can Mr Fsadni understand the problems of young women in their teens and twenties? When did Mr Fsadni last take a bus to Birzebbuga or walk the streets of Marsa?
A friend’s 16-year old daughter was victim of attempted rape by an illegal immigrant. Two years later she is still traumatised and afraid to go out on her own. Tell me about international law!
A school caretaker whose son is a soldier at a detention centre tells me soldiers used to willingly run errands for detainees, sometimes even from their own pocket. Relations have seriously deteriorated since the wilful damage caused by detainees to the centres which had been refurbished by the soldiers, sometimes being better than the soldiers’ barracks. Mr Fsadni, tell me more about international law!
http://euobserver.com/9/27639/?rk=1
18-2-2009
Serious and persistent breach
The EU's Amsterdam Treaty of 1997 gave the bloc a procedure by which the member states can impose sanctions against one of their number, including revoking its voting rights, in the event of a "serious and persistent" breach of human rights.
What defines one is left unarticulated, but Amnesty International believes that the sequence of Italian government actions in relation to immigrants and the Roma amount to such a breach.
"Technically, no individual groups have been named in the legislation," the group's EU office deputy director, Natalia Alonso, told EUobserver. "But in reality, in the context of what is going on - arson attacks on camps by these non-state actors, the census' ethnic profiling, anti-Roma speech by politicians - we know exactly who the legislation is targeting."
@ Ranier Fsadni
Full credit for one of the few sensible and factual argument in connection with irregular immigrants.
I disagree that suspension from the EU would harm Malta's reputation. It is in fact the opposite. For example, had Malta not been an EU member, Franco Frattini would not have been in a position to denigrate Malta the way he did in regard to the tuna-pen saga.
Nor do I believe that suspension would seriously damage tourism and/or foreign investment in Malta. Malta's capacity in these endeavours had been established way back in the sixties. No one could demonstrate that there has been any significant improvement in tourism and foreign investment in Malta since EU annexation six years ago. It is a fallacy to attribute economic success to annexation.
It is also misleading to compare the 440,000 requests for asylum in Germany with the requests that Malta is receiving. For a proper comparison, one would have to analyse whether the applicants are illegal immigrants. Most if not all of Malta's applicants are illegal immigrants trafficked to Malta from Libya.
Finally, it is not "xenophobia" which is rising, but the scourge and criminality of illegal immigration. The potential consequences of this increasing threat cannot be dismissed by unfairly labelling the Maltese people.
Politics is not a beauty contest where the winner gets to prance around in a bikini, sash. and tiara. There's real work to be done. How do you propose doing it?
So your argument is live and let live and leave everything to the Divine Providence!
Then what happens then?
../..
How can anyone compare Australia, Earth's most unpopulated temperate land and the largest island on Earth, with Malta, one of the world's tinyest and most densly populated island? And if it was an emergency for Australia what is it for Malta?
We have a tripple emergency here!, not only because our island is tiny with no space left, but because our territory is unprotected and open for all, our society is totally incompatible with such an ethnic group establishing itself here, and that our politicians are hiding behind ordinary obligations for an extraordinary emergency.
We need to act arbitrarily and if necessary unilaterally if the rest of Europe thinks that Malta is the dumping ground and not the sentry of Europe's southern border.
Malta will not accept proposals such as those suggested by JPO and the reason is not just international obligations but also internal opposition. Websites like vivamalta.org and timesofmalta.com have created the artificial impression that most Maltese are xenophobic and would support the summary and illegal expulsion of immigrants. Ideas like those expressed on the two websites are however distasteful to the majority of us and we would oppose any attempt to treat immigrants JPO would like us to deal with them.
You are misjudging things. EU countries would be foolish to throw Malta out for defending its boarders. They may find themselves in a similar situation. Malta has many friends that understand its plight. Yet if they still decide to blackmail and bully it, than so be it.
Processing or not, burden sharing is so far inisignificant. When they show a will to systematic burden sharing then Malta will re-instate obligations.
Tourists and investment has nothing to do with it. Investment still flows into China and Thailand OK. Tourists will stop coming when Malta will remain no longer Maltese.
We will not be blackmailed into an invasion.
AN solution is the best so far. Divert them to the threshold of our waters to the nearest country. The mediterrenean is small, They will reach the port in a few hours.