Return to sender

He described the government as incompetent in handling immigration. He pointed out the pressures on hospitals. And he called for a cap on migrants entering the country. Labour leader Joseph Muscat last Monday? Yes, but he was copying, point by point, the British Conservative leader David Cameron's criticism of UK Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

The funny thing is that Dr Muscat never cited Mr Cameron as his model. On the contrary. his speech was reported to have cited Mr Brown and Spanish socialist Prime Minister José Luis Zapatero as what, in his words, "progressive governments" were doing.

Does this matter? For two reasons, yes.

One is that it seems to matter to Dr Muscat. While sanctifying Maltese public opinion on immigration and suggesting that Malta should consider suspending its international obligations for a period he still wants to be considered the head of a progressive political party.

Just because a Conservative leader says something, of course, does not mean it is wrong. But the political address where a Labour leader is getting his arguments from is important. It mattered over the European Union issue, when Labour derived many of its arguments from rightwing Eurosceptics. It matters now, when Labour claims so much about its progressive credentials.

The second reason has to do with the Maltese public's cynicism about the government's measures on irregular immigration. One important reason for this cynicism is that it is believed that the government can do more, that there are stronger, more effective measures that can be taken.

So looking at what is actually being done by the UK, Spain and Italy - all cited by Dr Muscat - is important. Dr Muscat only cited Mr Brown and Mr Zapatero on what they are doing to tighten border controls. But given that he justified his recommendations - about an explicit limit on immigrant numbers and suspending international obligations - in terms of "the national interest", it is worth looking at what the UK and Spanish governments have not done, as well.

Let us take the UK, first. A cap on non-EU immigration (regular and irregular) is part of the Conservative Party policy, not Labour's. "An explicit and reasoned" limit was also recommended by a House of Lords Committee a year ago. However, its Chair, Lord Wakeham, explicitly said that the quota should exclude asylum seekers, noting that "the UK must continue to respect its human rights obligations".

Notice that the term used is "seekers". Some of those will be found not to deserve it. But they would need first to be taken in and have their case examined; they would not be rejected before that. Since, in the case of Malta's irregular immigrants from Africa, practically all seek asylum or protection, even if slightly under half do not qualify, placing a cap on immigrants to be taken in would either be an empty gesture - as pointed out by Home Affairs Minister Carm Mifsud Bonnici - or else be a measure to the right of the UK Conservative Party.

Meanwhile, Mr Brown continues to ignore the call for a cap. His recent measures for tighter border controls, in fact, have gone hand in hand with measures for better integration of immigrants.

Unless he was misreported, integration seemed largely absent from Dr Muscat's speech on Monday. He said a lot about civic lessons for immigrants but it is unclear in what civic community they would use them: some of his proposals would only serve to ghettoise African immigrants further.

Yet, integration is a key policy of progressive European governments. Dr Muscat stressed legality: but one of the key distinguishing measures taken by Mr Zapatero was to legalise some 600,000 immigrants, partly in order to get them out of the black economy, get them to qualify for proper social services but also to make them contributors to the social system. And he also cared enough to carry public opinion with him.

Of course, one can cherry-pick what other governments do. But the selectivity should be pointed out, especially when one tries to ride on another Prime Minister's progressive credentials.

Meanwhile, Mr Zapatero, whose country also faces much larger waves of irregular immigration from Africa than previously, is seeking agreements on sea patrols and repatriation with African countries. However, this is using a large network of Spanish forces of law and order and negotiating short-term agreements that a Spanish defence analyst has described as always advantageous to the sending country.

Despite these conditions, Mr Zapatero has not spoken of suspending international obligations or holding the EU to ransom. The rhetoric continues to be that of discussion with EU partners.

As for the recent agreement Italy has struck with Libya on sea patrols, it deserves a separate article. Suffice to say that the deal involves $5 billion over a 20 year-period - $250 million per year in the midst of the current economic climate. And it was greatly helped by the (unofficial) involvement of Italy's oil giant ENI; it appears that joint energy ventures by Italy and Libya in third countries are envisaged.

None of these negotiating counters are within Malta's ken. That does not mean that Malta's position is hopeless. But it does mean we should be wary of political arguments posing as progressive and repatriate them to where they come from.

ranierfsadni@europe.com