Christian Peregin
900 African immigrants could be resettled by 2012
Refugee resettlement 'a win-win situation'
Around 750 African immigrants living in Malta are in the process of being resettled to the US and several EU countries over the coming 12 months, according to the UN Refugee Agency.
Five hundred applications have already been filed, and the figure is expected to climb to more than 900 if resettlement processing continues at the current rate.
With an estimated 4,000 refugees, asylum seekers and immigrants with protection status currently residing in Malta, such burden-sharing initiatives may ease Malta's load by more than 20 per cent by 2012.
The US will be taking 500 immigrants while 10 EU countries will accept 255, including small states which will be taking a handful each.
Continued resettlement depends on further cooperation from various countries, including the US, France and Germany. However, the UNHCR is hopeful that results will start being visible within the next six to nine months, which is the period needed for applications to be processed and people to be resettled.
"Responsibility-sharing with Malta is now becoming a reality through generous support being offered," a UNHCR Malta spokesman told The Sunday Times.
Though the UNHCR is frequently misunderstood and lambasted as an immigration watchdog that is insensitive to the challenges facing Malta, it is also responsible for screening potential candidates for resettlement, based on individual needs and requirements of the country accepting to take them.
After the UNHCR submits the immigrants' cases, they are interviewed and screened again by receiving countries before a final decision is taken. Usually no significant changes are made to the UNHCR's submissions.
Immigrants are chosen depending on their protection status, vulnerability as well as skills and background.
"Remember that we are dealing with people, not numbers or statistics. Different needs and situations have to be taken into account for each individual. Sometimes it is difficult to reconcile the needs with the criteria presented by some receiving states. Our aim is that the process should be both fair and efficient.
"It is quite a labour-intensive process, but we have been working closely with the Ministry of Justice to develop the capacity to process a higher number of cases," the spokesman said, adding that this was a joint effort with other organisations like the International Organisation for Migration, the Emigrants' Commission, the Jesuit Refugee Service and Medicins Sans Frontieres.
"Countries agree to resettle immigrants because besides international legal frameworks which place responsibilities on states, some countries rely on migration to address certain needs, the spokesman explained.
"Through the years, many countries and regions have come to depend on migration movements to address labour market needs and to counter a decline in population numbers. Refugees can also contribute in various ways to positive developments in their new communities. Some states have found that resettlement of refugees can be a win-win situation for all."
The UNHCR hopes that with more people finding solutions elsewhere, Malta would be able to improve the situation for those who remain in the country.
"A reduction in the total number may also, over time, facilitate a more positive interaction between Maltese society and those who have been granted asylum here. Refugees themselves want to contribute in a positive way."
To qualify for resettlement migrants must have been granted some form of protection.
Those who do not qualify for protection because they leave their countries for purely economic reasons are generally repatriated, even though this is not always immediately possible because of lack of cooperation from their country's governments.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
Petrol price up 6c
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Second group of migrants arrives
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
32 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Raymond Sammut
Jun 15th 2010, 14:06
@ Sean Grima
"...whether the individual's claim to asylum is a pretext or not, is decided by the refugees commissioner/appeals board..."(Grima) The Refugees Commissioner acts in accordance with prevailing laws. There's nothing to suggest that these laws aren't flawed. In my view they are flawed since they don't take into account that applicants had arrived in Malta through violation of the Law of the Sea, resulting in many people drowning and congestion on Malta.
"...not by someone making sweeping statements..."(Grima) My stance that applying for asylum serves as a pretext to enter a country illegally isn't a "sweeping statement". I provided substantiation to my stance a number of times. Readers have a right to express their views when they disagree with laws being followed by the Refugees Commissioner, and you have no right to discredit readers by accusing them of making "sweeping statements".
The Maltese government admits that a large number of failed asylum applicants aren't being repatriated. This deplorable situation is clearly the result of flawed laws used by the Refugees Commissioner who's also required to abide by other existing laws. The Maltese Government, for example, is aware that hundreds were drowning while processing asylum applications.
Sean Grima
Jun 16th 2010, 10:05
is is your views which are flawed! do you really think that violation of safety laws is more important than allowing people who are potentially being persecuted (refugees) and people in need of protection?
you have a right to disagree with laws, but bear in mind that law makers are people who have studied law, and theirs is an expert opinion.
the fact that a few immigrants might be using asylum as a pretext does not justify what I repeat are sweeping statements, to the effect that asylum is merely a pretext. the rule is that it is not, as the vast majority of applications are accepted by the refugees commissioner.
calling such laws flawed is a case of 'sour grapes'.
Sean Grima
Jun 15th 2010, 08:53
@ray sammut: the right to asylum is almost universally granted throughout the world. if you call it a pretext, that means your thinking is vastly outdated. moreover, whether the individual's claim to asylum is a pretext or not, is decided by the refugees commissioner/appeals board, on a case by case basis, not by someone making sweeping statements to the effect that anyone seeking asylum is doing so on a pretext. needless to say, wiser people have decided that giving protection to those who need it is more important than whether one has a visa or not. merely focusing on the presence of a visa or otherwise is making a very limited analysis of the law and against the spirit of the law.
Denis Catania
Jun 15th 2010, 00:20
U.S.A taking 500 while 10 EU counties taking just 255. What happened to the other EU countries? How about Canada ? Will they take at least 1 (one) ? You wonder who is Malta's true friend. God Bless America and long live Malta.
Raymond Sammut
Jun 15th 2010, 00:11
@ Sean Grima
No point in you simply saying that someone is "wrong". You have been doing this on these comment boards, Mr Grima, ad nauseam. A dictator can say that you are wrong because he never has to explain anything. You need to explain how applying for asylum in Malta, after working for several years and then pay money to smugglers, isn't a pretext. This considering further that there are places much closer than Malta where people can apply for asylum. The fact that Malta is targeted in this manner shows that asylum is a pretext.
What's deplorable is your constant accusation of "racism". Your explanation here is: "since it is know[n] that the vast majority are africans." Like Mr Borg, you are the one who is identifying people according to which part of the world they originate from. I identify people in the way I would want to be identified, namely, according to how I conduct myself. If they came to Malta via legal means, and not an illegal boat supplied by human smugglers, then there would be no qualms. It would then be up to Maltese customs and immigration to treat them like everyone else.
Sean Grima
Jun 14th 2010, 08:59
steve borg is right: first of all, the vast majority are here legally, since they have applied for asylum. it also seems that the ones which attract attention are those of african origin: nobody comments about, say, people originating from ex yugoslavia.
Raymond Sammut
Jun 14th 2010, 10:55
People who originate from wherever, arrived in Malta legally through customs and immigration, and are in possession of a valid passport, raise no concern. No need for you, Mr Grima, to pick on ex-Yugoslavs or any other nationality. Your repeated claim to "vast majority are here legally" is unfounded. Malta has accumulated thousands of illegal aliens on the pretext of "asylum". These aliens are known to have paid monies to traffickers and remain in Malta illegally and without a valid passport. The situation is deplorable, and commenters here have a right to raise their concerns without being called racists by Mr Borg or by anyone else.
Sean Grima
Jun 14th 2010, 12:25
your assumption that asylum seeking is a pretext is wrong. ditto, your statement that asylum seekers are illegal. what is deplorable is the rascist undertones of statements made against asylum seekers, since it is knows that the vast majority are africans.
mario gellel
Jun 13th 2010, 16:44
AND THERE IS A "COULD'
Steve Borg
Jun 13th 2010, 16:38
Why am I not surprised to see the usual predictable ill-informed commentators misleading this forum??? With the possible exception of Libya and other rogue states, no other country crticises the UNHCR for one very obvious reason - because they know exactly what it stands for - helping refugees and those in need.
But of course I tend to forget that the usual racist commentators on this forum are still too bothered at the sight of a black man in Malta's streets. Who cares about people fleeing poverty and wars while we live our comfortable lives?
This country is so sad.
Raymond Sammut
Jun 14th 2010, 04:03
You are the one who identified "man in Malta's streets" by his colour, and yet you call commenters here "racist". Commenters here are expressing their concern about thousands of illegal aliens in Malta. These commenters are perfectly within their rights to do so because Malta is their country and what is illegal is illegal; and you have no right to call anyone here racist.
The reason why these illegal aliens are not being repatriated to their own country is because the Maltese government is failing in its duty and coming up with excuses --difficulties with reproducing travel documents that had been supposedly "lost".
Czarb
Jun 14th 2010, 06:57
Countries had critized UNHCR in the past while others had ignored it
Sweden
http://www.thelocal.se/27134/20100610/
Italy
http://italy.euroenews.com/entertainment/immigrants-a-un-maroni-refusals-are-outlaws/
Even Amnesty International had critized it
http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article.php?id=951
And no one is really comfortable with illegal immigrants. If that is not the case then the European countries would not hide behind treaties like the Dublin treaty to keep them locked here. They would take them all (not just 900) to their own countries and enjoy the joys that uncontrolled illegal immigration brings.
CZarb
Jun 13th 2010, 14:43
First of all I wish these immigrants luck.
Stating that, the article is a bit misleading
a) UNHCR is has no role in the resettlement of immigrants, Such deals where made by the Maltese government. The UNHCR limits itself in screening immigrants, nothing more nothing less
b) 20% reflects just the current workload. One need to also take in account the immigrants being sent back from Europe and any future immigration from Libya.
c) Repatriation is a nasty business and there are various countries who refuse to take immigrants back.
Joe Bugeja
Jun 13th 2010, 18:32
Put them back on their boats after making them safe and send them on their way.
John Azzopardi
Jun 13th 2010, 12:37
What about the other thousands of migrants. What is little Malta suppose to do, Keep them. Seriously. Only 900 by 2012 - that's 2 years away. We are doomed on this issue. How about the other thousands that will be visiting us this year, next and 2012.
Joe Bugeja
Jun 13th 2010, 18:31
They should all be sent back to Libya or to their own countries
E.Muscat
Jun 13th 2010, 12:26
After being kicked out of Libya,UNHCR is trying to send a message to the somalis in Libya to come to Malta.Europe is in dire straits financially,and we will also join if we are not careful.
These immigrants are costing us at least 50 million euro a year and that is besides the money the EU gives us to keep them away from european shores.
Kick UNHCR out of Malta!
Charles Sammut
Jun 13th 2010, 12:18
We understand the UNHCR.
It seeks to distribute the fallout resulting from the incompetence of its parent, the UN.
In so doing, it is planting the seeds for future social and civil unrest. But then, what use would such NGOs be if there were no such unrest? These NGO's have discovered the formula for perpetual self-preservation.
Stephen Koludrovic
Jun 13th 2010, 11:35
the end result of all this study by the UNHCR would be that if everything goes according to their plans ,by the end of 2012 Malta would still be have over 3000 asylum seekers plus the other 10,000 economic African immigrants.
Sean Grima
Jun 13th 2010, 14:27
your calculations do not have any factual basis
Stephen Koludrovic
Jun 13th 2010, 15:19
My calculations are based on Mr Tortells statement that his organization had processed over 13000 immigrants. be they asylum seekers or the economic immigrants. If the figure is not right than someone somewhere is fiddling with the numbers,
lgalea
Jun 13th 2010, 18:29
You are perfectly correct Mr Koludrovic
Sean Grima
Jun 14th 2010, 08:48
that number would be in total, over many years. most of them would have meanwhile been resettled. after all, you are an immigrant like them, and they are as welcome as you are.
Stephen Koludrovic
Jun 14th 2010, 10:31
The number in total is only of about 5 years.
FYI yes I am a second generation immigrant, and my daughter is a third generation.However I would like to point out that there are many Maltese with foreign surnames eg. Mills, Camilleri, Tonna, and even Grima, which sounds very French to me. Its all a question of which generation you happen to be in.
Sean Grima
Jun 14th 2010, 12:23
a second generation immigrant implies a first generation one. i see no basis why your first generation immigrant should have been accepted, whereas these, who are first generation immigrants, should not.
Louise Vella
Jun 13th 2010, 11:10
"results will start being visible"
Results will start being visible when we see no illegal immigrants roaming the streets of our towns and villages. Results will start being visible when we no longer see illegal immigrants selling illegally at our open markets (such as the one in Vittoriosa). And there are not just 4000 illegal immigrants in Malta. Open your eyes. There must be over 10 000.
"UNHCR is misunderstood"
Since the start of Malta's problem with the influx of illegal immigrants in the early 2000s, UNHCR has behaved like a political opposition to Malta, in Malta and especially abroad. UNHCR officers Manca de Nissa, Laura Boldrini and Neil Falzon, to mention the best known, did not miss an opportunity to pressure Malta to take more and more illegal immigrants. For a UN agency (though a third class one) UNHCR's behaviour has been unacceptable. During the Spanish trawler incident UNHCR openly and blatantly took sides with Spain. UNHCR has not been misunderstood. We have understood it from its words and actions.
Sean Grima
Jun 13th 2010, 14:28
needless to say, the UNHCR has more way more credibility than you.
lgalea
Jun 13th 2010, 18:29
You are perfectly correct Louise. We will see results when we no longer see a single illegal immigrant in Malta and that includes all those who have overstayed their visa.
Neil Falzon
Jun 13th 2010, 20:55
Ms. Vella,
Your mud-slinging from the comfort of your home is unfair and inappropriate. Most of the persons you regularly attack do not read the Times website and will therefore not be able to challenge your superficial and politicised allegations.
Instead of frantically typing away and throwing one allegation after another, you should instead have the nerve of opting for an open meeting/debate so that all your misconceptions, misunderstandings and preconceived conclusions could be overcome. One after the other.
Sean Grima
Jun 14th 2010, 08:46
@lgalea: you can continue that dream, along with the one where malta pulls of of the EU.
lgalea
Jun 14th 2010, 08:53
Neil Falzon just go to the illegal immigrants own countries back with the illegal immigrants and defend them there not sitting pretty in Malta.
Sean Grima
Jun 14th 2010, 12:32
lgalea, go to north korea or cuba with your communist allies