Most migrants are under 30 and had been unemployed, Commissioner says

sean grima

Mar 9th 2010, 11:05

@charles grixti: if you are qualified in economic, please stick to that - you do not know anything about huma rights law.
@trevor mizzi: an online poll reveals nothing: especially if it was 'hijacked' by the extreme rightists who voice their opinion here, as they are drwoned out elsewhere. the negligible vote such parties got at the last general election speaks louder.

As regards James Watson (who did not win the Nobel prize for those comments), Five days after the article making those racist comments was published, he profusely apologized in a statement to the press.

I happen to know Maltese women who are happily married to African men - they'd be very glad to slap you hard in the face for insinuating they are not "decent"!

Charles Grixti

Mar 8th 2010, 14:17

@Sean Grima

I just happen to have a degree in Economics - Windsor University. And of course you are right; there are many schools of thought in Economics, the predominant one today being the Chicago School of Economics that has given us Globalization, the war on the Middle Class, the recent Global Economic meltdown etc. What is not being publicised is that in the US alone, over 700 economics professors wrote against this ‘Fundamentalist” form of Capitalism.

When you consider that here in North America, the US is considered to be a hostile nation in as far as Mexicans and Latin Americans are concerned, in order for these illegal immigrants to be granted asylum in Canada (the same parallels that you have with Libya not being considered a safe nation), there you will see the bigger picture and for what it really is, a full frontal assault on the working and middle classes by the Corporate Elite and the governments that are there to support them. Just by tweaking the “Refugee Laws’, as they did, they can mobilize masses of cheap labour to all places around the globe – human rights and dignity has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

sean grima

Mar 8th 2010, 10:11

@charles grixti: there are various schools of thoughts in economics, and i do not know that your are some respected economic thinker, as your "hey presto" solution confirms. moreover, economics cannot over ride the respect for basic human dignity and rights.
@ray sammut: Maltese laws on an equal minimum wage apply to all employees, whether Maltese or otherwise.
@ trevor lorenzo mizzi: "Do not think the present system of government is going to last forever in Malta" - your usual fantastic thinking.
"physically forced repatriation" - as you know that is illegal. james watson's comments, which are unsupported by scientific evidence - various UK venues canceled his appearances, and the Board of Trustees at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, where he was Chancellor, suspended Watson's administrative responsibilities.

Raymond Cachia

Mar 7th 2010, 22:36

@Sean Grima

Should a law were to be passed saying that all “illegal workers” must be paid the same rate as Maltese workers, more illegal immigrants would flood in and with Malta's labour supply becoming even more glutted, the result will be that the wage rates would start to dive down, eventually becoming as low as they are in Africa and equilibrium reached.

At this point, the illegal immigration will stop as it will no longer make any sense for the African to leave Africa as Malta’s wages and unemployment would be just as bad as Africa’s.

Basically, people would be willing to work just for food, and this has nothing to do with race. This is rudimentary economics.

All that you are really doing by bringing in more immigrants, whether legal or illegal is setting the “wage thermometer” every lower, to the great benefit of the capitalists and to the great detriment of the workers.

This is all ties in with the Globalist, Neo-conservative Agenda – one big global workers’ market coupled with increasing human population growth will ensure an endless supply of cheap labour as well as consumers, thus ensuring every increasing profits for the Global Corporate Elite.

Charles Grixti

Mar 7th 2010, 22:13

@Sean Grima

The only problem with your ‘equal pay for equal work’ theory is that irrespective of whether they are black , white , Maltese, Japanese etc, by the simple fact that there is an increase in the supply of labour, the price of labour goes down. Therefore, even if there is equal pay, (for both illegals and Maltese citizens) this ‘equal pay’ would be set at a lower point for everyone!

Human labour is a commodity just like potatoes.

You obviously have no concept of even the most basic of economics, and that when there is an increase in the supply of a commodity such as labour, the price will go down.

And realistically, if such a law were to be implemented, this would remove the incentive for the capitalist elite to bring in any more illegal immigrants to be exploited, and presto, we would then see the trafficking of illegal immigrants stop.

sean grima

Mar 7th 2010, 12:04

trevor lorenzo mizzi: don't let your wishful thinking run away with you, african people are here to stay. you had better get used to the idea..of course, if the sight of a human being with black skin turns you off so much...close your eyes, or look elsewhere. you would be doing the future generations you pontificate about so often a bigger service if you were to teach them that, as elsewhere in the world, they are on equal footing with people of other races, and if they are choses, say for a job, it will be on merit not because of ethnic origin.

@ charles grixti: don't be ridiculous and try to pretend that it is you who is defending africans. the motto 'equal pay for equal work' applies to africans too. i have no inferiority complex, but i do not share your mentality.

Charles Grixti

Mar 6th 2010, 17:53

@Sean Grima

On the contrary, I rather think it is you who will be compared to the Slave Traders of old, for these and other reasons:

• You seem to be in favour of bringing in masses of Africans to be exploited for cheap labour in European markets and elsewhere.

• You seem to have an “inferiority complex” for being Maltese and wish to expiate the sins of the former European colonisers of Africa, by offering Malta as the sacrificial lamb. Your need to endear yourself to the new ‘Colonial Office”, representing the same European colonisers, led by Brussels, (Belgium) who themselves have a shamefully brutal history in their colony of the Belgian Congo.

Can you grovel at the feet of the almighty ‘EU” and to disparage Malta any more? Maybe this way you shake-off your “Malteseness”; earning points with Brussels?

sean grima

Mar 6th 2010, 13:45

the need to protect people who need to be protected over rides the "legality" or otherwise of entrance. it would make no sense to refuse entry to someone in need of protection because s/he does not have a visa!

Mark-Anthony Fenech

Mar 6th 2010, 13:19

@ R.J Micallef: Did you choose, did any of us choose to be born Maltese? Did we have a choice whether to be born or not? We could have been Chinese, American, Indian, African etc etc etc... That's what I meant by accident.

I agree with your second two paragraphs, won't add any more to that since you summed it up nicely.

R.J Micallef

Mar 6th 2010, 12:50

@ Mark Anthony

So giving birth is an accident? So your kids(if you have any) were an accident?If you plan to have kids you are going to tell them they were an accident? So we who are proud of our nation are proud of an accident?

I am against ALL illegal immigration IRRESPECTIVE OF COUNTRY OF ORIGIN and colour of the skin.So please while I do acknowledge that racism exists even here in Malta like everywhere else,a lot of people has been using the race card all too often.

While I do not like foreigners especially illegal foreigners taking the jobs of the Maltese most of the fault lies with the greed of certain individuals which exploit them,but why should I be surprised we have Maltese workers being exploited and threatened example:threats against joining a union or forming an in-house one etc etc.There is more that can be done to fight exploitation which in turn can help to fuel racism and hate sentiments.

Mark-Anthony Fenech

Mar 6th 2010, 11:44

patriotism, being proud of your country is like being proud of your parents having had sex once and you coming along; being proud of an accident...

sean grima

Mar 6th 2010, 07:50

perhaps it is not such a bad analogy - like slave traders, your views of african and black-skinned people are based on a notion of white-skinned supremacy.

of course you are free to state your opinions, once you do so within the bounds of the law, since freedom of expression is not absolute. however, i will continue to combat the falsities based on sweeping, stereo typed prejudices, which you expound.

Margaret Richards

Mar 5th 2010, 21:11

When is racism and xenophobia going to stop??? I got the feeling that a very good number of Maltese people, just watch the 8 o'clock news on 1 of the Maltese stations, take as confirmed whatever they are told and when the foreign news starts they just switch channels. Perhaps watching some of the foreign news as well will enlighten the holier than though Maltese that there is a world away from our island where warfare, civil strife, and death are the order of the day. I ask these holier than though maltese just 1 question - what would you do if you were living in Somalia, Eritrea, Sudan, Iraq or better still if you were stateless??? I believe no need of an answer as I already know it. You'll do just the same thing that these people have done - search for a better, peaceful world. And you call yourself Christian Malta??? Ma fammi il piacere!!!

sean grima

Mar 5th 2010, 20:18

you are seeing an analogy were none was made. the refugees commissioner would have heard each case individually, and consequently is in a better position to evaluate whether the applicants qualify for protection under the refugee law. one cannot make a sweeping decision without knowing the facts of each case. i defend african people because of the inane comments being made here which might result in an african person being attacked - even if it is an adopted person or a tourist and not an immigrant.

Trevor Lorenzo Mizzi

Mar 5th 2010, 19:51

@ sean grima, There is nothing outdated with loving your own country and your fellow native citizens.

J. Bartolo

Mar 5th 2010, 19:33

sean grima, why is it that you are so fiercely protective towards these african immigrants and not towards your maltese brothers and sisters and this island, havent we got enough problems, enough maltese that need help ? is there not 1 single country in their own huge continent, where they can go and be safe ? algeria ? tunisia ? mauritius ? egypt ? morocco ? south africa ? swaziland ? why europe at all costs ? maybe they are seeking something more than humanitarian status dont you think ?

matthew tanti

Mar 5th 2010, 19:23

trevor lorenzo mizzi: the name indicates a pensioner stuck in a colonial mentality.

sean grima

Mar 5th 2010, 19:12

i am not comparing myself with abolitionists, but your outdated mentality with that of slave traders.

Trevor Lorenzo Mizzi

Mar 5th 2010, 18:48

@sean grima, "Thankfully, not everyone thinks like you. future generations will judge people like you in the same way as we now judge slave traders and the like." Now you are comparing yourself to a slave trade abolitionist?. LOL from the 18th century perhaps. How pompous can you get. That is a far stretch of your naive imagination !!! The only slaves that will be will be your maltese brothers and sister who's wages, if lucky to have a job, will be on par with slavery, that the establishment elite have lowered through the influx of illegal people willing to undercut them by working for less . That is what you truly are working for ! So stop your unjustified chest pounding and see yourself like others see you. Side with your country folk sean , who are being abused instead of africans that only care for themselves by leeching off taxpayer generosity at the expense of the maltese.

sean grima

Mar 5th 2010, 18:31

@DMuscat: if it makes them fake asylum seekers to your mind, we do not really care. it is the decision of the refugees commissioner which counts. do you know that somaliland is ready to accept migrants from somalia? that is what counts, not what you read on magazines. ah, denis catania, the maltese immigrant in america with a "racial" girlfriend.

sean grima

Mar 5th 2010, 17:58

Thankfully, not everyone thinks like you. future generations will judge people like you in the same way as we now judge slave traders and the like.

Denis Catania

Mar 5th 2010, 17:44

@Trevor Lorenzo Mizzi: Well said.

Muscat D

Mar 5th 2010, 17:18

@Sean Grima.

It does make those given subsidiary protection fake asylum seekers. When their application was dismissed, it meant that they came from a place where they were not persecuted. In our case mostly Libya. They were thus in a safe place, but still left. That clause in Article 17 ensures that they are not sent back to Somalia or they may be in danger. It also means that they were not given refugee staus as they were not eligible and in no danger. hence the tag "fake asylum seekers."

As regards Somalia, parts such as Somaliland are safe and at peace. At least that's what National Geographic says. There are even internal flights. Have look at this:

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/09/somalia/draper-text

"Mogadishu is ground zero for the failed state of Somalia, a place where pirates and terrorists rule. Yet to the north, the breakaway region of Somaliland is stable and at peace. What happened?"

If it was really unsafe we would have whole families with a crosssection of people of all ages and sex not just 20-30 year old males.

Trevor Lorenzo Mizzi

Mar 5th 2010, 16:33

@sean grima,

You are the one omitting facts and figures to defend these illegal invaders that no one wants.
If everyone was like me in Malta these invaders would have been long gone and would never approach the islands. Your irrational reasoning and naivete in giving away your homeland to invaders will be questioned by future generations of maltese who have their standards of living lowered to sub saharan levels and in blaming people like you helped in making that possible.

sean grima

Mar 5th 2010, 15:37

the fact that they may have entered malta illegally i.e. without a visa does not make their stay here illegal. even if someone arrives without a visa s/he has a legal right to apply for asylum, and the stay would then be legal.

Louis Gialanze

Mar 5th 2010, 15:28

Irrespective of whether these people qualify for refugee status or for humanitarian protection, the act of entering Malta without proper documentation and authorization render these aliens position at law as ILLEGAL and I am pleased to note that the Refugee Commissioner acknowledges their position accordingly!

sean grima

Mar 5th 2010, 11:40

@lgalea: 1. you are attempting to mislead people by purposely quoting from the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees prior to its amendment by the 1967 Protocol which removed both the temporal and geographic restrictions mentioned in the
original 1951 Convention. Malta has ratified the 1967 Protocol.

2. Article 31 is applicable in situations where a person has left his country of origin
due to a well-founded fear of persecution, but where he has STILL not been able to find a safe country of asylum. Therefore, if e.g. a Somali person has left his country due to a well founded fear of persecution and has reached Malta after passing through other countries such as Sudan and Libya, where he would continue to face threats to his life or freedom or simply be refused protection or asylum, then Article 31 is still applicable to his situation.

sean grima

Mar 5th 2010, 08:55

@D Muscat: you should quote the WHOLE definition of Article 17:

"subsidiary protection status (shall) be granted to an applicant for asylum whose application has been dismissed but in respect of whom substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the person concerned, if returned to his country of origin, or in the case of a stateless person, to his country of former habitual residence, would face a real risk of
suffering serious harm, and the Commissioner shall continue to be able to make such a recommendation in cases where the real risk of suffering serious harm arises even after a decision not to grant subsidiary protection has been taken".

melita borg

Mar 5th 2010, 07:32

@trevor lorenzo mizzi, muscat D

Did you watch the clip??? Subsidiary protection recognizes that an individual cannot return home and deserves international protection. 'Home' is considered to be too dangerous. They have been granted international protection, and the majority of Maltese I know, whilst acknowledging that Malta needs support, believe that this is right.

Johon Azzopardi

Mar 5th 2010, 00:02

Poor Malta and it's future Maltese and Gozitan generations. We fought so hard for what we have and we are going to lose it all if the problem of uncontrolled illegal immigrants continue. Saw an article today that says compared to it's size malta is the most EU burdened state. We have been saying this for the past 6-7 years. The facts speak for themselves. What are our elected leaders doing about it. Their bubble has burst because of the economic situations. Don't these illegal immigrants realize that Europe is not their future when it comes to jobs and it's China where they should be heading.

lgalea

Mar 4th 2010, 21:57

Article 1
definition of the term “refugee”
A. For the purposes of the present Convention, the term “refugee” shall
apply to any person who:(1) Has been considered a refugee under the Arrangements of 12 May 1926
and 30 June 1928 or under the Conventions of 28 October 1933 and 10
February 1938, the Protocol of 14 September 1939 or the Constitution of
the International Refugee Organization;...
(2) As a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951.....

Article 1B.(1) For the purposes of this Convention, the words “events occurring before 1 January 1951” in article 1, section A, shall be understood to mean either
(a) “events occurring in Europe before 1 January 1951”; or
(b) “events occurring in Europe or elsewhere before 1 January 1951”, and each Contracting State shall make a declaration at the time of signature, ratification or accession, specifying which of these meanings it applies for the purpose of its obligations under this Convention."

The Convention thus does NOT apply to those not coming from Europe sean. If you want to defend the ILLEGAL immigrants then you go with them back to their own countries sean because the vast majority does not want them here.

lgalea

Mar 4th 2010, 21:53

sean grima Since when have you become qualified in refugee law sean. Every time you write is to defend the ILLEGAL immigrants and not your own country and countrymen from the ILLEGAL immigrants INVASION. SHAME and SHAME again on you sean. They were in no danger in Libya and yes, they should either leave or be repatriated. They have absolutely NO right to be in Malta and whether they and you like it or not they SHALL have to leave.

Alexander Morana Mr Moon lives on the Moon.

"Article 31 refugees unlawfully in the country of refugee
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."

NONE OF THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS CAME HERE DIRECTLY FORM THEIR OWN COUNTRY, SO THEY HAVE NO RIGHT FOR ASYLUM OR TO BE HERE SEAN.

Charles Grixti

Mar 4th 2010, 21:40

These figures speak for themselves and vindicate what many have been saying here about these 'sham' refugees.

This is a political agenda and not a Humanitarian crisis, as some 'bleeding hearts' corporate shills and traitors (you know who you are), who have long been trying to bamboozle us, have been saying and would like us to believe.

sean grima

Mar 4th 2010, 18:37

@D Muscat: it does not make the fake asylum seekers. you should quote the full definition of "subsidiary protection" in Article 17:

"...subsidiary protection status (shall) be granted to an applicant for asylum whose application has been dismissed but in respect of whom substantial grounds have
been shown for believing that the person concerned, if returned to his country of origin, or in the case of a stateless person, to his country of former habitual residence, would face a real risk of suffering serious harm, and the Commissioner (of Refugees) shall continue to be able to make such a recommendation in cases where the real risk of suffering serious harm arises even after a decision not to grant subsidiary protection has been taken"

gaffarena joseph

Mar 4th 2010, 18:26

Do not make us laugh Mr, Friggiri.
You can see these illegals working everywhere now, to the detriment of our young ones.That is why we have all this rise in unemployed persons.
If you go to mater dei,all the cleaners are immigrants,in hotels,and even as bus drivers.
Some of them even owe a car, and yet they are still taking the social benefits.

sean grima

Mar 4th 2010, 18:24

@anthea doughty: that means your circle of acquaintances is restricted to people of a certain outdated mentality.
@TL Mizzi: you persist in falsifying the situation: of the 2,959 applications ONLY 842 did not qualify for any form of protection! are you insinuating that such people, who need to be protected, are not genuine? actually, if we had to substitute maltese people of your mentality with africans, the average intelligence in malta would be raised!
@marcel dingli: wrong. wiser people have decided that there is a need for "humanitarian protection". the name explains itself.

Muscat D

Mar 4th 2010, 17:40

"refugee law contemplates the possibility of temporary/humanitarian protection, so there is no bending of the rules." Sean Grima

You are right, you only have to include a few words you forgot to mention. . Here goes.

"refugee law contemplates the possibility of temporary/humanitarian protection for those whose application for asylum has been DISMISSED. "

It's Article 17 of the Refugees Act. It uses the word dismissed. Which means they have no right to asylum. Look it up. Temporary humanitarian protection is actually called Subsidiary Protection, but then you probably already knew.
http://docs.justice.gov.mt/lom/legislation/english/leg/vol_13/chapt420.pdf

In other words these people are fake asylum seekers but we cannot get rid of them.

Marcel Dingli

Mar 4th 2010, 17:30

Clifford Xuereb, why dont WE use a broom and a bucket and clean this country of this mess?!

Alexander Morana

Mar 4th 2010, 17:17

Weren’t we told on his visit by the UN general secretary Mr. Mon that immigration is beneficial?

Clifford Xuereb

Mar 4th 2010, 16:53

Even though they are not qualified, I believe they all know how to make good use of a broom and bucket! So why they don't start doing some community work?

anthea doughty

Mar 4th 2010, 16:15

Welcome to being part of the EU that wonderful wonderful all singing all dancing all leeching all taxing faceless bureaucratic super power that not one of the people I have ever met in Europe actually wanted to be in or part of....

Marcel Dingli

Mar 4th 2010, 16:09

Sean Grima they are either refugees or they aren`t. Do you call them "half refugees"?

Trevor Lorenzo Mizzi

Mar 4th 2010, 15:54

@ sean grima,

19 out of 2959 are genuine refugees !! , and you still defend them.
Shame on you, So according to you we are stuck with 2940 bogus refugee and any amount that decides to make the trip from safe Libya, so if 300,000 come over we will take them in and house and feed them on the taxpayer.
Go live in africa and take your full load of africans sean and leave us alone !

Mike farrugia

Mar 4th 2010, 15:41

It has been a while now since the last boat arrived. So how come Hal-Far and Marsa open centres are still packed solid with immigrants? Weren’t they supposed to move out and fend for themselves?
It is tough enough that we have to pay for our electricity, water and medicines bills but having to subsidise illegal foreigners too, is too much.

sean grima

Mar 4th 2010, 15:26

1. "they did not qualify for refugee status but the rules were stretched" - this is a manifest untruth. please do not comment about things you are not qualified to talk about. refugee law contemplates the possibility of temporary/humanitarian protection, so there is no bending of the rules.
2. 6 months - considering the length court cases take to be decided, this is very reasonable. it is better to err on the side of caution, then repatriate people who might be subjected to torture,as has happened in the past. a fair evaluation of an immigrant's case takes time.
3. should we turn away people who have a right to refugee status or protection because they are muslims?

louise vella

Mar 4th 2010, 14:24

“A total of 19 people were recognised as refugees”

Out of 2959!

“1,681 were given some form of protection”

Meaning they did not qualify for refugee status but the rules were stretched.

“842 did not qualify for any type of protection”

Have they been repatriated?

“Mr Friggieri said applications took an average of six months to be decided.”

What a waste of time at the Maltese taxpayer’s expense!

“He explained that upon their arrival, the migrants were told what their rights were.”

No need. They know before they come. That’s why they come.

“The migrants represented 22 nationalities, but the biggest groups were 898 migrants from war-torn Somalia and 156 from Eritrea, which also has civil strife.”

As soon as the wars and the strife are over, will they be repatriated? They should be because the reason for their having refugee status will no longer exist.

“39 of the migrants who arrived last year claimed to be professionals”.

Did they present proof by way of certificates or do we have to believe them on their say-so?

“1,018 of last year's arrivals were Muslim.”

Wait till their numbers grow a bit more.

Mark Galea

Mar 4th 2010, 13:40

At last ... news about immigrants ... we can now vent our frustration (since the water & electricity bills remained the same)

M Cassar

Mar 4th 2010, 12:55

Just say the magic word 'asylum' and voila you can spend your life here I will tend to you all your needs. No need for any proof or evidence in fact you left Libya where there is no war.
Thanks government (and all the others) for making me beg for those measly social contributions side by side with the african illegal immigrants and giving them more help than to your maltese compatriots, thanks for showing me that you care more for them than for me, for us. You made your choice Now I hope you will go ask them and not me for the vote when the time comes.