Darrell Pace, Communications co-ordinator, Ministry of Justice and Home Affairs, Valletta
Resettlement of refugees in European Union
Towards the end of his article 'Stand up, Mifsud Bonnicis, listen to the ambassador' (The Sunday Times, July 19), Lino Spiteri refers to the European Commission's "Proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 2003/109/EC to extend its scope to beneficiaries of international protection," implying that the Minister of Justice and Home Affairs might have missed a point.
I am sure that Mr Spiteri must have been misled by the unexplained comment of the Swedish ambassador.
The Commission's proposal under the French Presidency sought to extend the provisions of Directive 2003/109/EC applicable to beneficiaries of international protection, i.e. refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection. In essence, this meant that to qualify for long-term residence a third country national would, among other things, have to reside in Malta for at least five years.
This is not the appropriate solution for Malta's immediate problems and challenges.
Adherence to this proposal would have translated into the need and incentive for beneficiaries of international protection to remain in this country for five years before being able to move on. This is not the appropriate response to the challenges posed by the Maltese scenario, in contrast to what we are getting through the pilot project to resettle persons with refugee or subsidiary protection from Malta to other countries in the EU as approved during the European Council of June 19 and on which work is in progress.
In the course of negotiations over the Commission's proposal, Malta had counter-proposed that this free movement from the first member states should be accorded to beneficiaries of international protection after one year, rather than five, so that the beneficiary of international protection concerned would have the possibility of accumulating the five-year period which makes him or her eligible for long-term residence in more than one member state and not necessarily in the first member state.
The adoption of the Maltese counter-proposal would have benefited states like ours that are exposed to disproportionate pressures from illegal immigration. This, however, this was not taken on board.
Therefore, Malta was not out to drop the proposal, but rather sought to amend it in such a way as to offer a real solution for Malta and the beneficiaries of international protection in Malta.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
7 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
cecil herbert jones
Jul 27th 2009, 11:11
Nobody disputes the fact that these immigrants enter illegally, but many of us interpret this dogmatically. Those who do have a right to think this way. However since this 'illegality' comes to us in the form of 'breaking an entry' in our country, and perhaps it is disguised under a poverty stricken cloak- One cannot easily determine the veracity or falseness of this 'crime' unless one looks into it. 'A person is innocent until proven guilty' applies also to illegal immigrants, therefore to put up a barrier and repatriate them all, or to stop them at 14 miles out amounts to not exercising this constitutional right that everyone (not just Maltese) are given. Therefore Barrot was right to tell Maroni to stop violating this human right.. However Barrot should also get more involved, as an EU High Official, to promote the necessary aid (and not anything less) to those countries who are at the front-line and facing this invasive act from the African continent. By 'not anything less' is also meant that aid should be given to all EU citizens, perhaps in the form of a regular or irregeular 'bonus cheque' to help them endure the obvious inconvenience.
Joe Fenech
Jul 27th 2009, 00:20
NO TO ILLEGALITY. SEND THESE ILLEGALS BACK HOME! DO NOT SEND THEM TO EUROPE OR THE WEST!!!!!
lgalea
Jul 26th 2009, 18:44
Emelia Caruana
NO other country including Australia do NOT want them Emilia. They are ILLEGAL. Your suggestion amounts to AIDING AND ABETTING an ILLEGALITY.
Robert Callus
Jul 26th 2009, 17:29
@Cecil Herbert Jones
Though with all respect, I find your ideas (especially on migration, but not only) unrealistic I did give a number near your name when voting though.
The reason is that unlike many others you tried to think outside of the box (maybe being an artist has to do with it).
In Malta we have a tradition of people thinking in black or white (no pun intended). People on either side just close their ears, eyes etc and listen only to what they want to here.
You opted for lateral thinking, something we rarely do in this country and I admire you for setting this precedent.
Emelia Caruana
Jul 26th 2009, 14:21
I was in MALTA for 5 months just got back to Australia met many Refugees went to Marsa Centre to Halfar ......invited some for lunch and heard some of there stories .......saw the conditions they live in .....went to march for the one who was killed ..It was Emotional to see all this happening in Malta ....I say send them to AUSTRALIA Its not mentioned .. huge Country and Prime minister Kevin Rudd has to agree .....many want to come here .......they should be given a passport now ....many have been there for yrs and work in places like LE MERIDAN HOTEL CECIL an ID card is not FREEDOM ...
Cecil Herbert Jones
Jul 26th 2009, 12:35
Malta has a right to work internally on legal parameters in order to stay a step ahead of EU negotiators who cannot, or wish not to fully understand our situation. Therefore it should amend the law governing our natural passport by detaching civil rights from it (after all civil rights are not awarded by a passport but by an ID card), give amnesty to the illegal immigrants, teach them how to make the best out of life in the EU, and if and when they surpass this test they should be given a passport with an 'M' not an 'A'. We will not be the first country to be doing this, Spain granted amnesty to 700,000 migrants in 2005.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/may/09/spain.gilestremlett
lgalea
Jul 26th 2009, 12:25
The ONLY solution is to expel all illegal immigrants back to Libya or to their own country to send the message that they are unwanted, unwelcome, and that they shall be returned whatever they do.