Saturday, 27th June 2009
Immigration
France, first country to join EU refugee pilot project
French Immigration Minister Eric Besson presenting a medal with French symbols to the refugees who will be relocated to three villages in the north of France. Photo: Matthew Mirabelli.
France planned to take another group of 100 refugees from Malta next year, French Immigration Minister Eric Besson said yesterday as the first group of 99 prepared to leave the island on July 9.
France is the first country to implement the pilot project tailor-made for Malta and agreed upon by EU leaders last week.
Eighty adult refugees and 19 children will be relocating to three villages in the north of the country. Next year, France will take another 80 adults and between 10 and 30 children.
Addressing a joint press conference with Home Affairs Minister Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici, Mr Besson said he had come to Malta to express solidarity with a country that was facing "extreme pressures" of illegal migration.
He also visited because he wanted to meet the refugees who would soon be starting a new life in his country: "France has the rights of asylum seekers at heart".
"I also came to symbolically send a message to other EU member states on how burden-sharing can work effectively," he added.
Replying to a question on whether he expected other countries to follow France's example by taking more refugees from Malta, Mr Besson said: "I cannot say I expect them to do anything because I cannot impose this. But, yes, I hope they follow our example and are inspired by what we did, always within their possibilities".
On whether he agreed that the voluntary burden-sharing mechanism should become mandatory, Mr Besson said the voluntary agreement and the pilot project for Malta were "a step in the right direction".
"Greece, Cyprus, Malta and Italy wanted the pact to be mandatory but there were other states that did not agree. Voluntary is the first step which led to this pilot project and I hope this will develop into other proper mechanisms," he said.
He added that, although France was committing itself to take another 100 immigrants next year, it was not making an annual commitment.
France would continue collaborating with other member states to combat illegal human trafficking whose "misery was being exploited by traffickers who are becoming increasingly professional".
Dr Mifsud Bonnici thanked France for leading by example and for showing that "burden-sharing can be achieved". He said the pact on asylum and immigration materialised under the French EU Presidency and France was the first country to take refugees from Malta under the new pilot project.
He said it was easy to say another country should take refugees but this was difficult because a lot of considerations had to be taken into account. "It is one thing to welcome people but a different thing to integrate them," he said.
The aim was to develop the pilot project into a proper mechanism for more people to move from Malta to other EU states while strengthening Frontex patrols to repatriate those who did not have a right for refugee status or humanitarian protection.
Earlier in the day, Mr Besson met the refugees who will be leaving Malta next month and presented each with a medal with the symbols of France. The children, on their part, gave him an A3 painting depicting the French, Maltese and EU flags and the words "thank you" written underneath.
Gathered at the French Ambassador's residence in Żebbuġ under the scorching midday sun, the refugees expressed gratitude to Mr Besson and Ambassador Daniel Rondeau for giving them the chance to relocate.
RSS
Comments
Lets hope the Swedish presidency gets rid of this burden sharing laugh!
Good... you did well in your first reading lesson, but didn't anyone tell you not to copy during a test?
Now, for lesson two read the 1967 Protocol to the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.
Just for a preview, you will read that this protocol removes all the geographical limitations imposed by the 1951 Geneva Convention (hence that it applied to Europeans only) and that Malta also became party to it (in Gorg Borg Olivier's time) - making your exemplary effort in cutting and pasting below utterly useless.
The emphasis is on the words "...coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1,..."
So even if one were to apply the Refugee Convention to the African illegal immigrants which it does not because it was meant for Europeans and to events that happened in Europe prior to 1951, they did not come here from their country where they say their life was threatened, but the crossed many countries where they could have stayed. That excludes their eligibility for refugee or humanitarian status under the Refugee Convention.
Is that clear enough now?
As for the principle of non-refoulment in Article 33, Malta would not be returning them to their own countries but to Libya. This is apart from those who come from countries who are in no way entitled to claim any status wherever they go.
If you care to remember the Refugee Appeals Board Report it was stated that 99% of those who came here had worked for up to 10 years in Libya, so they were in no way threatened and are simply ECONOMIC migrants.
of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it....
B. (1) For the purposes of this Convention, the words "events occurring before I January 1951" in article 1, section A, shall be understood to mean either (a) "events occurring in Europe before I January 1951"; or (b) "events occurring in Europe or elsewhere before I January 1951";...
Did the events from which the illegal immigrants say they are escaping happened before 1951 IN EUROPE? NO, so they are excluded from (ab)using the Refugee Convention as they are presently doing. Furthermore, Article 31 of the same Convention states that,
"1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence."
Send them back to Libya. They could have stayed there. So do you expect that if a 100,000 or 1,000,000 come here and given refugee or humanitarian status to remain here? They lost their right to claim refugee or humanitarian status once they did not come here directly and have been through other countries.
Alfred Bugeja, Robert Callus
I know much more than you think about the Geneva Convention, so I suggest that YOU start reading and UNDERSTAND its provisions. Did you know that Dr Borg Olivier had made reservations among which were that Malta will only accept refugees from Europe and the EU forced the government to repeal those reservations because it knew that we will start lumping the illegal immigrants?
Article 1 refers to events occurring in before 1951.
(2) As a result of events occurring before I January 1951 and owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection
I AM SURE THE 'USING THE VETO FRIVOUSLY' WOULD NOT HAVE HELPED!
Or would he have said that he cannot commit himself on using the veto after the elections, similar to the utility bills statement after the election?
@lgalea
Ms Vella is saying reimpatriating the ones who are illegally here. You can only send those who came here and are not in a status of asylum, what you want to send those who would be killed back as well?
We are finally getting some help...if we don't get help you complain, if we get help, you complain, what pleases you?
and...I'm sorry to say...imma Alfred Bugeja faqak!
Don't waste your time argumenting with people who haven't got the slightest idea what international politics is, or who, if it was not for African migrants in Malta would still think Congo is just a musical instrument.
Sending back humans who will be in extreme danger is not only immoral and unethical, but as you said, illegal.
Also, people like lgalea should learn that if they want something to be illegal or vice versa it wouldn't make it such. Could I call Marihuana a legal drug just because I want it legalised? Doesn't make sense no?
I merely asked you a question. And it is quite evident from your answer that your are totally unfamiliar with the Geneva convention, especially with the principle of non-refoulement.
Refugees are resettled all over the world through the Geneva Convention. Malta is party to it and should not be an exception. Our problem is that we have TOO MANY. And burden sharing solves that problem. So we should use the Geneva Convention to have these people transferred from here to other countries, like the EU did with the Iraqi refugees after the second Iraqi war.
So, lgalea, take off your blinkers and start taking reading classes with the Geneva Convention as your textbook.
Calais, in northern France has several thousand asylum seekers who continually attempt to get into the UK for its high social benefits and easily accessible health service (not as good as the one in France but easy to get at). These people try to penetrate the UK borders with just a token show of control from the French authorities who, more often than not, turn a blind eye.
Don't say words which I didn't say Bugeja.
I always held that NO illegal immigrants should be allowed to remain here whether they are classed as refugees or given humanitarian status. They cannot claim such status since they have not traveled directly to Malta but have been through many other countries and it is a grave mistake to give such status to them. They should either be expelled back to Libya or to their own countries. That is what is happening when some of them manage to go to other countries. They are sent back to Malta. So why not send them back to Libya.
As for the Refugee Convention it has long since passed its use-by-date, was never intended to cover illegal immigration, and is being abused left right and centre by the illegal immigrants and their traffickers.
I guess comprehension was not your forte at school, was it?
What you quoted would stop our present problem from growing further, but it does not rid us of those immigrants who are here LEGALLY because they have been granted refugee or subsidiary status under the Geneva Convention.
What do you propose to do with those? Leave
them here?
With just the burden sharing mechanism the EU is only postponing the inevitable.
"The solution is to stop them from coming by strong measures to protect our borders and to send back to their country all those immigrants who are in Malta illegally. "
Did you read this passage from Ms Vella's posting?
Well-said, Ms. Vella.
Are you suggesting that we should keep those that are already here? As far as I know, resettlement programmes (which come with burden-sharing) are the only way how Malta can offload the persons with refugee or subsidiary protection which are here at present.
Totally agree with you.
The solution is not burden sharing by which other countries take 1 or 2 or 3 per cent of our illegal immigrants. The solution is to stop them from coming by strong measures to protect our borders and to send back to their country all those immigrants who are in Malta illegally.