Reality outside detention remains a black hole

The parliamentary debate on illegal immigration was spurred by Labour leader Joseph Muscat, who came out with a 20-point action plan.

The Labour Party's 20-point plan to tackle illegal immigration put down in black and white a road map for tougher diplomatic action but on the whole it did not break away from established government policy.

Mandatory detention up to a maximum of 18 months is still the fulcrum of the PL's immigration policy even though it is the single biggest bone of contention for non-governmental organisations and international humanitarian agencies.

The proposal to have a parliamentary committee on immigration could possibly help to sensitise MPs to the issue from a wider perspective.

Furthermore, the proposal to blacklist companies that employ people illegally has long been demanded by unions and bona fide employers because it would attack the black market.

Dr Muscat did mention integration a few times but, while he elaborated on the need for educational and training programmes for immigrants in detention, he dedicated little time to address the issue of integration once immigrants progress to the open centres.

Integration remains taboo for politicians across the political divide. None of the members of Parliament who spoke on the issue took a leaf out of the report compiled by Stephen Calleya and Derek Lutterbeck for The Today Public Policy Institute last November.

"For the past few years our country has turned a blind eye to what happens to these individuals (immigrants) after they come out of detention," the two authors had said.

They insisted that, unless the EU makes progress on the burden-sharing pact by 2012, the number of immigrants living in the community could easily reach 8,000.

"The reality is that irregular immigration is a problem that will not go away," Dr Calleya and Dr Lutterbeck said, pointing out that it would be beneficial in the long term if the country adopted a national policy on integration.

There were none of these words in Dr Muscat's 20-point plan. The little focus on integration came in the form of "special funds" for local councils where large immigrant populations live and educational programmes for immigrants in detention.

Indeed, the situation in the detention facilities was a central theme of Dr Muscat's speech in Parliament. He criticised the poor state of detention facilities including the lack of discipline and insisted conditions were not even fit for dogs.

He argued for improved conditions but insisted the country had to set a "sustainable limit" on the number of immigrants it could take in without divulging what this magic number would be.

Dr Muscat criticised the government for practising "false solidarity" when allowing immigrants released from detention to get lost in a network of illegality that saw them leave the country through unofficial channels.

He later used this argument to justify the tough course of action that would pressure the international community and the EU to come to Malta's aid.

"Malta should consider suspending its international obligations even for specific periods. This does not mean allowing them to drown but helping them and then seeing them on their way," Dr Muscat said.

This position would possibly be contrary to the bilateral re-admission agreement signed between Malta and Italy in December 2001. The agreement established that illegal immigrants who depart for Italy from Malta will be sent back to the island.

While declaring his opposition to any sort of illegality, Dr Muscat effectively proposed a measure that could see the state become party to the illegal ferrying of illegal immigrants to Italian waters. More importantly, is the risk of having immigrants drown while "seeing them off".

In November 2005, Armed Forces of Malta rescuers were ordered to keep at a distance from a boat carrying 200 migrants in gale force winds, hours before nine of them drowned and at least 20 went missing in a shipwreck off the coast of Sicily.

The incident had sparked a diplomatic row between Italy and Malta when then Parliamentary Secretary Tony Abela had blamed the Italians for not rescuing the immigrants in time. Months later, when entries in an AFM log book were leaked to MaltaToday, it transpired that the AFM rescuers were given direct orders to "keep at a distance".

Dr Muscat also proposed the suspension of finger-printing illegal immigrants when they arrive, an obligation under the Dublin II Convention. This means that immigrants in Malta would be left in a state of illegality, possibly in the hope of their moving on to other European countries anonymously. If this is what Dr Muscat meant to achieve with his proposal it would simply put him at par with what he described as the government's intention to offer "false solidarity".

In their November report, Dr Calleya and Dr Lutterbeck said that foreigners made up 2.7 per cent of the population, the smallest percentage at European level.

They insisted the biggest problem was not one of coping with a large population of immigrants but of coping with a population of illegal immigrants that "increased dramatically in a short span of time".

Since November, the number of arrivals continued to increase, very uncharacteristically in the winter months. They have put a strain on the country's resources.

For Dr Muscat it was cause for alarm. Whether his 20-point plan or the panicky reactions of parliamentarians on both sides of the House will be enough to diffuse the situation is debatable.

However, in the meantime, immigrants will continue to live in the community with little or no effort to enable their smooth integration into society.

ksansone@timesofmalta.com