Frontex to take charge of repatriation

malcolm seychell

Sep 19th 2009, 09:37

I believe that the laws and interest of every state, should come before any international law.

We are not invading any country or doing something wrong to anyone else. We are just protecting what is our, what our fathers died for in the past.

Denis Catania

Sep 18th 2009, 17:34

Let's start by transfering illegal immigratns to mainland Europe for the deportation process. Malta can't wait and or should not wait another day. Malta needs help like yesterday.

Raymond Sammut

Sep 18th 2009, 16:29

@ Neil Falzon My questions should be crystal clear at least to a person of your level of education. Let me repeat them again in point form: * What is wrong with doing their asylum-seeking at the Libyan office? * Is that not a fundamental human right? * Why is it that you have never acknowledged and objected to the illegal boat aliens collaborating with the human traffickers on the Libyan coast, Mr Falzon? * As a law-abiding citizen, why is it that you do not speak out against this crime that has led to hundreds of drownings this year alone? Mr Falzon, you clearly need to explain your stance on this issue. I never asked that your explanation be addressed to me, or that you should draw any conclusions. An explanation from you needs to be addressed to the Maltese community who is profoundly concerned about the thousands of aliens that have accumulated on our homeland over recent years and with no end in sight.

Marcel Dingli

Sep 18th 2009, 16:20

@ Neil Falzon Malta is unwilling and unable. FULL STOP !!!

louise vella

Sep 18th 2009, 16:00

If the Refugee Convention does not set any national quota for refugees, then it is up to the responsible authorities of a country that is invaded and inundated by illegal immigrants claiming to be refugees to say 'ENOUGH IS ENOUGH'. Our problem is that Dr Gonzi has been so weak to defend the national interest that he allows Malta to take in an unlimited and indefintie number of them. Laws are made for men and not men for laws, especially when the laws are patently stupid and go against the national interest and the democratic will of the people.

Neil Falzon

Sep 18th 2009, 15:54

Regarding Libya, international law does not oblige, or even expect, persons fleeing persecution and armed conflict to seek asylum within a state that is unwilling or unable to offer asylum.

Mr. Galea, it is a very fortunate thing for many people - including yourself and myself - that the law-making process is so much more complex than Maltese citizens expressing their opinion on a website.

lgalea

Sep 18th 2009, 15:03

When is it going to start?
Why are the thousands of illegal immigrants still here?

louise vella
NONE WHATSOEVER. IT IS LEFT TO THE COUTNRY'S GOVERNMENT TO DECIDE, SO YOU KNOW WHOM TO BLAME FOR THE CRASS INCOMPETENCE OF ALLOWING SO MANY THOUSANDS OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS TO REMAIN HERE.

Neil Falzon
Maltese citizens do not want one single illegal immigrant to remain here.

E. Azzopardi

Sep 18th 2009, 14:47

The People are really fed up of these statements. Ladies and Gentlemen of the EU, the People of Malta, to whom you have vowed Solidarity ( I just heard Mr Barroso state this yesterday upon his re-appointement) want to see action, real action. Words only, mean nothing.
NB Meaning of SOLIDARITY = UNITY RESULTING FROM COMMON INTERESTS, FEELINGS OR SYMPATHIES.
If anybody else has another meaning, I would like to know.

Phil Humphries

Sep 18th 2009, 14:16

@ Neil Falzon.

These people are coming via Libya where, as far as we know, they are not being persecuted. Why then do you refer to them as asylum seekers rather than economic migrants?
The EU has no legal ( legal, not moral ) responsibility to accomodate economic migrants. Offering these people a new start in Europe will do nothing to relieve poverty and persecution in their African homelands. What it will do, however, is further dilute national cultures create ghetos and no-go areas, allow unscrupulous employers a source of cheap labour, increase crime rates and tax burdens and hasten the spread of Islam.

Don't think so ? Well look at the UK and be careful what you wish for.

Neil Falzon

Sep 18th 2009, 14:05

Mr. Sammut, I am in no way obliged to explain my position to you. If I should be drawing any conclusions from your questions, kindly please be clearer.

Ms. Vella, the 1951 Refugee Convention does not establish national or regional quota but instead firmly affirms the principle or responsibility-sharing in particular for those states that are unable to cope with the pressures related to refugee influx.

The problem is not the law, but the unwillingness of states to abide by their international obligations as contained therein. If we all discarded uncomfortable laws, the world would be a very different and more uncomfortable place.

T.gauci

Sep 18th 2009, 13:36

The best solution is to repatriate them asap regardless of what UNHCR representatives say. there's no such thing as "asylum seekers"(whatever that is) when enter a country illegally.

M.Bezzina

Sep 18th 2009, 13:24

I was hoping that frontex operations rather than meet the illegal immigrants half way and bring them here they will give food and fuel and turn the boat back to place of origin like what the Australians had done earlier this week!!

Raymond Sammut

Sep 18th 2009, 12:51

@ louise vella

My understanding is that international law does not actually oblige any country to take in refugees. However, a country has, in principle, an obligation to assist. Of course, places like Malta, the Canaries, Lampedusa and Cyprus have by far more than given their fair share of assistance, and continue to do so at a great sacrifice to themselves and owing to their geographical location. This imbalance exists because international law never took into account (or anticipated) the large scale of criminal activity by human traffickers. The latter are the very reason why so many of us here keep putting in comments in order to express our views and concerns. We will try and continue to do so until hopefully an effective resolution is found and implemented by the relevant governments, both in Africa and in Europe. My view has always been, and remains, that aliens on illegal boats at sea are to be apprehended and returned to point of departure. It should be clear to everyone that asylum seeking by Africans should be made possible through offices established for the purpose on the African continent, both to prevent drownings and to eliminate congestion at host countries.

DVella

Sep 18th 2009, 12:27

What with the effectiveness of Frontex to date and its decidedly poor record, I think I am not alone in feeling totally UN-convinced ! ! !

Alex Ciantar

Sep 18th 2009, 11:49

OH NO!

louise vella

Sep 18th 2009, 11:39

Neither the Refugee Convention nor any other national, European or international law obliges Malta to take a large, unlimited and indefinite number of refugees. If any law were to say that Malta should take a 100 000 refugees it would be obviously stupid and unsustainable and should not be observed. The key is numbers, numbers, numbers. How many refugees and illegal immigrants does international law oblige Malta to take? 10 000? 50 000? Numbers, please, numbers.

Raymond Sammut

Sep 18th 2009, 11:26

@ Neil Falzon

What is wrong with doing their asylum-seeking at the Libyan office? Is that not a fundamental human right? Why is it that you have never acknowledged and objected to the illegal boat aliens collaborating with the human traffickers on the Libyan coast, Mr Falzon? As a law-abiding citizen, why is it that you do not speak out against this crime that has led to hundreds of drownings this year alone. Mr Falzon, you clearly need to explain your stance on this issue.

H Dempster

Sep 18th 2009, 11:14

With Frontex at the helm , it is a no go job. We already have experience with Frontex in the past,which proved that it failed in its obligation. This is not good for us MALTESE.

Joanne Micallef

Sep 18th 2009, 10:52

We’ll just wait and see if, how and when Frontex will start to repatriate the illegal immigrants. Don’t get me wrong it’s a very good prospect for our country, though I agree with Mr Damian Barbara, many positive developments in the past that have not been actuated or that did not work out.

Neil Falzon

Sep 18th 2009, 10:34

Frontex should definitely not be turning back boats with asylum-seekers, and this not due to lack of determination but due to a respect for fundamental human rights that are a core part of European law and essential to our European identity.

Damian Barbara

Sep 18th 2009, 10:31

This is a positive development indeed. However, there have been many positive developments in the past that have not been actuated or that did not work out. As they say, the devil is in the details ... let's hope there are no devils in this one.

louise vella

Sep 18th 2009, 10:15

Repatriation is the second best solution, if it works. Frontex should have the main mission of a strong, but unarmed coastguard, discouraging smugglers of human beings, pushing back the boats and turning them back to Libya. All other ways show Europe’s lack of determination to defend itself from the growing invasion from the south. Two million Africans are waiting to set sail from the Libya coast. Is the EU waiting for them to come and then start repatriating them?