A leaking argument
A well researched background article by Herman Grech in The Sunday Times threw a lot of much-needed light on the situation regarding Malta's immigrant population. There is also a different light to be derived from it. When we say "immigrants" we...
A well researched background article by Herman Grech in The Sunday Times threw a lot of much-needed light on the situation regarding Malta's immigrant population. There is also a different light to be derived from it.
When we say "immigrants" we immediately conjure up the image of black boat people stepping onto our shores after having been rescued at sea or made it here on their own steam. The arrival of several hundred black boat people out of season, so to say in referring to January and February, raised the temperature further.
There is growing resentment that black boat people continue to arrive in Malta. Over 12,000 have done so since 2002 and over 5,000 are still here, awaiting their fate.
A number of them have sought political asylum, and expect a reply in due course. Others have to be screened on health grounds. Still others do not qualify for political asylum and will - or should be - repatriated in due course.
The issue has drawn international attention. A European Commissioner admitted that the burden-sharing decision is not having any tangible effect beneficial to Malta. The state the boat people live in is attracting condemnation. That is paralleled by rising disgruntlement among sections of the Maltese people not normally associated with racism or xenophobia.
Rioting by relatively few black immigrants in the compounds housing them do not help at all. The boat people factor draws much attention, but is that simply because of the colour of the people's skin? Because of their high visibility when they land in Malta under the watchful eyes of the media and their cameras?
From the information gathered by Herman Grech that would appear to be the case. Herman's drift was duly headlined - "Non-EU residents in Malta heavily outnumber Africans", it said. The report said there over 8,100 non-EU non-African nationals who currently hold a permit to reside in Malta. These figures were not attributed to a specific source, but it should be presumed that The Sunday Times was certain of them, since they were used as the basis of an article very pertinent to the current situation.
The report points out that the number of non-EU, non-African immigrants exceeds that of Africans by over 3,000. The Sunday Times also says that the total does not take into account the thousands of EU nationals who have taken up residence in Malta.
Quoting the Employment and Training Corporation the report says that there are 4,282 EU citizens who currently hold a work permit, though thousands more are living on the island.
The article carries a table, reproduced here, recording the totals of nationalities of the top 10 non-EU resident permit holders in Malta, Good as the unquoted source of The Sunday Times would have been, it does not include any estimate of non-nationals who in Malta, possibly working as well, illegally.
Taking the 8,100 non-EU nationals with a re4sident permit, 5,067 of whom come from the top 10 countries shown in the table, along with others working here illegally, there is an economic point to be made which is unrelated to racism or xenophobia.
It concerns what is happening to the income earned by these non-nationals. Those who work here legally will be paying social security contributions. Given the level of wages given to them according to anecdotal evidence it is unlikely that many of them are paying income tax.
They will all use part of their net income to meet their normal consumption expenditure on shelter, clothing and food.
Probably, immigrants being frugal like Maltese emigrants were in Australia, Canada and elsewhere, they make sure they save part of their disposable income remaining after they have seen to their needs. It is not unlikely that a substantial part of their savings is remitted back home.
Again, that was the experience of Maltese emigrants, say in the 1950s and 1960s, whose remittances to their relatives here were even recorded separately in our balance of payments accounts.
Income remitted by working immigrants to their relatives back home does not contribute anything to the Maltese economy.
It is what is technically termed a "leak". A legal one, no doubt about that, but a leak just the same. In the sense that they do not expand our banks deposit base, which is used in substantial part to finance the banks' lending.
So, is that an argument against legal immigrants? It is nothing of the sort, in the same sense that the argument can be applied in reverse to Maltese working abroad, say in Brussels or Luxembourg. Nevertheless from an economic perspective it is useful to note that the situation exists.
It could well be that from a net importer of savings (made by Maltese settled or temporarily working abroad) we may now be net exporters.
Boat people still looked after, in one way or another, by the government - it is interesting to note - do not contribute to that situation. They have no earnings to save from.
When we say "immigrants" we immediately conjure up the image of black boat people stepping onto our shores after having been rescued at sea or made it here on their own steam. The arrival of several hundred black boat people out of season, so to say in referring to January and February, raised the temperature further.
There is growing resentment that black boat people continue to arrive in Malta. Over 12,000 have done so since 2002 and over 5,000 are still here, awaiting their fate.
A number of them have sought political asylum, and expect a reply in due course. Others have to be screened on health grounds. Still others do not qualify for political asylum and will - or should be - repatriated in due course.
The issue has drawn international attention. A European Commissioner admitted that the burden-sharing decision is not having any tangible effect beneficial to Malta. The state the boat people live in is attracting condemnation. That is paralleled by rising disgruntlement among sections of the Maltese people not normally associated with racism or xenophobia.
Rioting by relatively few black immigrants in the compounds housing them do not help at all. The boat people factor draws much attention, but is that simply because of the colour of the people's skin? Because of their high visibility when they land in Malta under the watchful eyes of the media and their cameras?
From the information gathered by Herman Grech that would appear to be the case. Herman's drift was duly headlined - "Non-EU residents in Malta heavily outnumber Africans", it said. The report said there over 8,100 non-EU non-African nationals who currently hold a permit to reside in Malta. These figures were not attributed to a specific source, but it should be presumed that The Sunday Times was certain of them, since they were used as the basis of an article very pertinent to the current situation.
The report points out that the number of non-EU, non-African immigrants exceeds that of Africans by over 3,000. The Sunday Times also says that the total does not take into account the thousands of EU nationals who have taken up residence in Malta.
Quoting the Employment and Training Corporation the report says that there are 4,282 EU citizens who currently hold a work permit, though thousands more are living on the island.
The article carries a table, reproduced here, recording the totals of nationalities of the top 10 non-EU resident permit holders in Malta, Good as the unquoted source of The Sunday Times would have been, it does not include any estimate of non-nationals who in Malta, possibly working as well, illegally.
Taking the 8,100 non-EU nationals with a re4sident permit, 5,067 of whom come from the top 10 countries shown in the table, along with others working here illegally, there is an economic point to be made which is unrelated to racism or xenophobia.
It concerns what is happening to the income earned by these non-nationals. Those who work here legally will be paying social security contributions. Given the level of wages given to them according to anecdotal evidence it is unlikely that many of them are paying income tax.
They will all use part of their net income to meet their normal consumption expenditure on shelter, clothing and food.
Probably, immigrants being frugal like Maltese emigrants were in Australia, Canada and elsewhere, they make sure they save part of their disposable income remaining after they have seen to their needs. It is not unlikely that a substantial part of their savings is remitted back home.
Again, that was the experience of Maltese emigrants, say in the 1950s and 1960s, whose remittances to their relatives here were even recorded separately in our balance of payments accounts.
Income remitted by working immigrants to their relatives back home does not contribute anything to the Maltese economy.
It is what is technically termed a "leak". A legal one, no doubt about that, but a leak just the same. In the sense that they do not expand our banks deposit base, which is used in substantial part to finance the banks' lending.
So, is that an argument against legal immigrants? It is nothing of the sort, in the same sense that the argument can be applied in reverse to Maltese working abroad, say in Brussels or Luxembourg. Nevertheless from an economic perspective it is useful to note that the situation exists.
It could well be that from a net importer of savings (made by Maltese settled or temporarily working abroad) we may now be net exporters.
Boat people still looked after, in one way or another, by the government - it is interesting to note - do not contribute to that situation. They have no earnings to save from.