Human rights blow for EU asylum seekers rules
Greece overwhelmed by immigrants
EU rules on dealing with asylum seekers may have to be rethought after being dealt a serious blow by the European Court of Human Rights, which has judged them as inhumane.
The ruling, however, is likely to be welcomed by Malta which has long been lobbying Brussels to the amend the so-call Dublin II regulations, under which asylum seekers found in one country are forcibly returned to the member state in which they would have first gained entry to the EU. Malta’s stand was on the basis of showing solidarity with southern EU countries that have tended to be the first port of call for African migrants.
In its landmark ruling, the Court, which does not form part of the EU, said the policy was inhumane and the system should be revised.
The case it dealt with concerned an Afghan national who fled Kabul in 2008, entered the EU through Greece and then travelled to Belgium where he applied for asylum.
In June 2009, Belgium sent him back to Greece where he was detained in degrading and overcrowded conditions before going on to live on the streets without any material support.
The Strasbourg-based court said the man had been exposed to inhuman and degrading treatment in Greece and that his right to an effective remedy had been violated.
The judgment essentially states that, apart from the Dublin rules, member states should also take into consideration the different circumstances of member states.
Two years ago, the European Commission suggested an overhaul of the Dublin rules, with Malta pushing for the introduction of a mechanism whereby, in case of a state experiencing sudden influxes of immigrants and asylum seekers, the Dublin rules could be suspended for that particular country. In such a case, asylum seekers found in other EU member states would not be sent back to the country of first entry.
Despite the lobbying from Malta, Italy, Cyprus, Greece and Spain, several member states objected to the proposed amendments and they are now stuck at Council level.
The ECHR decision could now push the objecting member states to change their stance as they will have to abide by the judgment.
Some EU member states, notably Germany, Belgium, Sweden and the Netherlands, yesterday declared they would not be sending any more asylum seekers back to Greece, at least for the next year, in order to give the EU some time to decide on the way forward.
They are also looking for an assurance from Greece that the conditions in which asylum seekers are kept will be upgraded.
On its part, Greece says it has been overwhelmed by the number of asylum seekers entering its border from Turkey. It recently received some EU assistance to help it cope with the situation.
Human rights organisations have slammed the Greek authorities over the inhumane treatment of asylum seekers.
According to the European Council on Refugees and Exiles, a network of 67 refugee-assisting organisations based in Brussels, the judgment is a major setback for the Dublin system as the assumption that all EU member states respect fundamental rights – and that it is therefore safe to automatically transfer asylum seekers between them – no longer stands.
“Europe must now seriously rethink the Dublin system and replace it with a regime that ensures the rights of asylum seekers are respected,” the network said.
Last year, member states asked Greece to examine the applications of almost 7,000 asylum seekers who had entered the EU through that country. Their situation will now need to be re-examined in light of the ruling. The same applies to asylum seekers transferred back to other member states.
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...
'No need for early election if PM's...
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...
60 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Raymond Sammut
Jan 24th 2011, 10:05
"the ECHR (court) is limited to the application of the ECHR (convention)"(Grima)
If this were true, there would be no need for judges to work in the ECHR. All the ECHR would need is a team of lawyers and a few clerks to assist them.
"judges do not invent law"(Grima)
Laws are not "invented". Why do you keep stressing this nonsense?
"the legislative body, in this case of the council of europe, is responsible for enacting laws"(Grima)
Why do you keep stating the obvious, Mr Grima? What is your point?
Mr Grima, the function of judges is much more than what you would have readers believe with your conveniently simplistic phrases.
Judges have power to annul or review laws if they "judge" that these laws are not in compliance with higher norms such as Constitutional laws or International laws. This is the reason why these professional workers are called "judges".
Sean Grima
Jan 25th 2011, 09:43
as you should be aware, annulling a law is not the same as enacting them.
the point is that ECHR judges cannot apply other international conventions, because their remit is limited to the application of the European Convention.
Raymond Sammut
Jan 23rd 2011, 17:09
@ Sean Grima--"i am sure the judges on the european court of human rights know more about human rights that you do." ECHR judges know about human rights enough for them to be judges. This doesn't guarantee fair judgment.
"...for example, the right to employment is not considered as a human right."(Sean Grima)
Can you please substantiate your statement, Mr Grima?
According to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; treaty adopted by UN General Assembly, 12/16/1966:
Quote: Article-6 of the Covenant recognises the right to work, defined as the opportunity of everyone to gain their living by freely chosen or accepted work.:Unquote
My reasoning is based on the economics fundamental principle that when people enter a country illegally, they are violating the right defined in Article-6 to people who are in their legitimate country by birth. The presence of illegal immigrants has deflationary impacts on labour-hour cost, hence devaluing wages. This turns out to be the reason why employers don't oppose (at least not openly) illegal immigration.
I like to once more draw the attention of ECHR judges to this important point in regard to illegal immigration driven by human traffickers/smugglers.
Sean Grima
Jan 23rd 2011, 19:56
(sigh) your quote a treaty about economic, social and cultural rights, not HUMAN rights. nowhere is that right mentioned in the european convention of human rights. the ECHR judges are limited to the european convention, they cannot invent law.
Raymond Sammut
Jan 23rd 2011, 20:35
Something that is not "mentioned" does not mean that a court does not take it into consideration. The Article that I quoted is incumbent on courts internationally.
"...the ECHR judges are limited to the european convention, they cannot invent law."(Grima)
It is surely discourteous on your part, Mr Grima, to suggest that ECHR judges are "limited" or that laws are "invented".
On the other hand, I am fully entitled to draw the attention of the ECHR --as of other entities-- to matters that I feel pose a serious economic and cultural concern to my country of birth, and to do so without any "sighing" from you.
Sean Grima
Jan 24th 2011, 09:01
yes, the ECHR (court) is limited to the application of the ECHR (convention). judges do not invent law: the legislative body, in this case of the council of europe, is responsible for enacting laws.
of course you can say what you want: but you are delued if you think that the ECHR judges give a hoot about it!
Martin Cassar
Jan 23rd 2011, 15:04
@Robert Callus @Stephen Koludrovic.
TOM. On Friday, 14th December 2007 MEP Dr. John Attard Montalto wrote a factual article that may interest you and all those who seriously wish to be aware of the core problem of Africa. Here I quote a paragraph - (The scramble for Africa has started all over again. In the colonial period, European nation-states competed between themselves. After World War II, the US permitted Europe to continue to dominate the continent, on the reckoning that the boost to the European economies would boost trade with the US itself.).
Obviously such in-depth doesn’t suit Mr. Stephen Koludrovic!
The unfortunate thing however is this, while the superior/ white /Christians west (to use Mr. Stephen Koludrovic) words is lecturing and preaching democracy and human rights to others, same west is acting completely opposite and supporting dictatorships and closing an eye for human right abuses as soon as business transactions are on the table.
Once it’s not at my back yard it’s fine. Other people can go to hill. The most important thing is to keep the western industrial machine producing along with the selling of military equipments.
Martin Cassar
Jan 23rd 2011, 12:19
@ Stephen Koludrovic.
Prof Koludrovic. Do you read history selectively? Have you ever heard of the two world wars by any chance?
A. Bialzak
Jan 23rd 2011, 13:23
@ S. Koludrovic
And the execution of 200,000 Muslims in ex Yugoslavia 1992 - 1995
Maria Borg
Jan 23rd 2011, 10:52
The dictator ships in most African countries are encouraged and supported by many so called 'civilized' countries, Europe, America, China. It is in their/our interest to keep the status quo, the price of democracy would be a massive decrease in our living standards. We benefit from this lack of democracy, by our inflated standard of living. The very people who want to walkaway from human rights, are the people who would scream the loudest should the true cost of goods from Africa be realized in the shops, and at all commercial levels. Real human beings are being killed, and abused by the very system which allows you to moan in a way that would bring terrible retribution in many parts of Africa. Its time to think, and learn.
Stephen Koludrovic
Jan 23rd 2011, 11:46
Most things are manufactured in China., or the other Far East countries.
Apart from the fair trade shops with their over inflated, much lower quality products, hardly anything comes from Africa.save for raw materials.
lets face it Maria, under Ian Smith and the white farmers, Zimbabwe was the richest country in Africa. Under Mugabe and black rule it ended up where it is now, a complete cesspit.
Sean Grima
Jan 23rd 2011, 12:06
there are various african countries where black rule has not resulted in the chaos of zimbabwe. under ian smith, the wealth was only accessible to a small, white minority, which is surely unjust.
fair trade shops may have higher prices because they ensure that the third world producers get a fair price for their jobs. as for low quality, that's your opinion.
if it were only the raw materials coming out of africa, it would be enough. It is not only that which africa produces.
Martin Cassar
Jan 23rd 2011, 13:04
@ Stephen Koludrovic.
Prof. Stephen Koludrovic.
Was Jesus blond? Or was born in Paris? What are you taring to get at Prof.?
Do I need to remind you that the credit crunch which is leading the world to the unknown has happened because of the Christian/ white USA leaderships and not because of Somalia or Mugabe!
Such [low-well] debate I strongly condemn without reservation. Actually I fail to grasp your base-less arguments in the whole matter!
Andrew Farrugia
Jan 23rd 2011, 13:26
@ Sean Grima
Care to name some of these countries? South Africa? One of the countries with a constantly soaring crime rate? Ghana? Nigeria? Ivory Coast? Tell us about them!
Robert Callus
Jan 23rd 2011, 14:19
@Stephen Koludrovic
The problem is not wealth but wealth distribution. Most African countries ARE rich. The issue is who is benefiting from it - puppet dictators and Western corporations.
Re Fair Trade - a worse product - you are completely wrong. I buy fair traded products (not only from Africa) regularly. Prices are a little higher because workers actually GET PAID for what they do.
Sean Grima
Jan 23rd 2011, 17:00
ghana is a good example. another is cameroon, and south africa has made enormous progress since apartheid ended.
Martin Cassar
Jan 23rd 2011, 01:32
@ Stephen Koludrovic.
Quote:
This enormous wave of muslim immigrants trying to enter Europe is quite simply because contrary to what they say,Muslim countries are incapable, or unwilling to better the lives of their own people.
Unquote:
-----------------------------
Just in case you have been living underground during the past few days I would like to you updated that, a village in Northern Africa (Tunis) managed to throwaway a 23 year old dictatorship era fully supported by the two Wests: USA and Europe.
Tunisians managed to topple a dictatorship without:
- Killing hundred of the thousands of innocent civilians women, children and displacing Millions of peoples.
- Using drones or the state-of-the art war machines.
- Spending TRILLIONS of USD and driving the entire world to the edge of bankruptcy and insecurity.
- Creating countless number of refugees.
In couple of days the Tunisians manged to do what the 'superior Christian USA and allay' failing to to in 20 years.
By the way do I need to remind you how many millions of ‘superior Christians’ Europeans have lost their homes and lives to eradicate dictatorships in order to gain freedom and democracy?
Stephen Koludrovic
Jan 23rd 2011, 11:04
@ Martin Cassar,
Firstly Tunisia is the most progressive and forward country of the Muslim world,and Tunis is not a village but the capital of that country. The last reports stated that about 20 people died in that uprising, this of course very minor compared with the scores that are killed just about any day by bombings in Pakistan, Egypt, Somalia, and Iraq.
Secondly, Maybe it has escaped me, however I never heard of the millions of Lituanians, Latvians, Estonians,Kazakistanis,Ukranians,Poles,Czechs,Hungarians,that died to topple over their communist rulers when they got their independence from the USSR.
Lastly was it not the Algerians that deported the French settlers from Algeria, the Libyians the Italians,the Egyptians the Greeks and some Maltese, and the Asians by that Muslim Ugandian dictator Idi Amin.
So my argument still stands, our Christian culture is superior because we ended up being more humane and understanding having learned from our past mistakes.
Sean Grima
Jan 23rd 2011, 12:07
koludrovic, it seems that massacres in the ex-yugoslavia have conveniently escaped your arguments.
Joe Xuereb
Jan 22nd 2011, 23:27
@ E.Phillips (5hrs.18mins.ago).
Nobody/nothing is superior to anybody/anything else. We are all human. That said, nobody's entirely perfect, or entirely bad. But as we say in England, the proof of the pudding is in eating it. Now, I don't know about you but I've noticed a huge surge of Muslims coming to Europe (based in London, I'm widely travelled). In my travels to the countries of the mosques, I have not noticed much traffic the other way. If anything, any Christians that are established in Muslim countries are now living in fear of their lives (I presume you read the papers like everybody else). The West is not perfect, certainly not superior. But as I said, the delight of the pudding is....eating it.
E., if you live in Malta/Europe and are unhappy with its ways, and think another system is 'superior', you don't have to put up with it and live in misery. Start a trend. Plenty of space where they came from. I'm sure you'd be welcome. Bye.
Quoting you: 'That is , WITH A DOUBT, one of the.....'(note MY capitals but YOUR words). You don't sound very sure E. Have you ever heard of a Freudian slip?
Raymond Sammut
Jan 22nd 2011, 23:08
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) also needs to consider the adverse economic impact on host countries' workers --and on citizens in general-- when the illegal immigrants refuse to return to their homeland in the absence of refugee status.
This obstinacy of the illegal immigrants is unacceptable because citizens in their legitimate country also have human rights: such as the right to employment without deflated wages and the right to services funded from their own taxes. Whatever governments give to illegal immigrants is funded from limited economic resources funded by taxpayers, and this is grossly unjust.
Countries like Sweden and Belgium should not return illegal immigrants to Malta or to Greece, but to the illegal immigrants' home countries. This had always been the case before human trafficking became rampant over recent years.
If, on the other hand, the illegal immigrants needed "protection", then the ECHR has no reason to order to have the illegal immigrants returned to Malta or to Greece, since Sweden and Belgium can equally provide the "protection" to the illegal immigrants.
Sean Grima
Jan 23rd 2011, 12:08
i am sure the judges on the european court of human rights know more about human rights that you do. for example, the right to employment is not considered as a human right.
Stephen Koludrovic
Jan 22nd 2011, 20:11
@ Jesmond Micallef,
It was not Christian Europe which tried to iradicate the Jews, but a frustrated Austrian idiotic painter by the name of Adolf Hitler.
Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
Jan 22nd 2011, 22:08
Absolute rubbish. You know neither the history of Europe nor that of Christianity.
Martin Cassar
Jan 23rd 2011, 01:00
Agreed. Many people may argue that Hitler was not a Christian. Shall I take it then secularism produce terrorism ? Or what?
Andrew Farrugia
Jan 23rd 2011, 13:22
@ M Cassar
And what is your point exactly? That you hanker after the Islamic caliphate? Come clean, tell commenters what you wish for, apart from your hatred of Americans, the West and the Jews! And go slow on what is happening in Tunisia, as i have the feeling that it is a situation which may lead people to realise that they stepping out of the pot and into the frying pan of Sharia. I may be wrong, but i will wait before passing judgement.
Martin Cassar
Jan 23rd 2011, 17:09
@ Andrew Farrugia.
You are totally wrong sir. I do not hate American people as you are trying to put it. however I totally condemn disastrous USA's foreign politics and illegal wars which is creating conditions for terrorism (supporting Israel’s occupation included).
Equally I have my sincere love to all Jews people but my stomach and logic somehow could never digest Zionists ‘s dark agendas of a Jew-only state’ and the killing of others.
I have nothing at all against Christianity but who can justify conquering lands and murdering civilians when it was done in the name of Jesus during the crusades?
Does Sharia laws or caliphates exist or implemented anywhere in Europe today?
Why should I bother if Iran executes someone? Have you ever heard the Iranian government or any other Muslim country for this matter interfering in any of our courts decisions? Who gave the West the right to interfere in other countries legal system? You may argue that the west is spreading it’s values of humans rights…etc …etc. I will ask you then how many times did Europe condemn an execution that took place in the USA or Japan?
Andrew Farrugia
Jan 24th 2011, 18:10
@ Mr M Cassar Stop trying to be funny! Mentioning conquering lands and the atrocities of the Crusades , as if the Moslems who invaded the Holy Land from the Arabian peninsula, from where they originated, did not massacre millions of Christian pilgrims there PRIOR to the Crusades. Your knowledge and reading of history is extremely biased and blinkered. All acts of violence need to be condemned, let us hear you once (stomach or no stomach) condemn acts of violence against Israelis. Or else you have an easier task: condemning the atrocious act which has just taken place in Moscow! Are you up to it?
Martin Cassar
Jan 25th 2011, 03:25
@ Andrew Farrugia.
Sir.
As you can see I was the only one to sympathy with the Jews during the difficult time and the sad incident of last December!. Do you still think I am against the Jews?.
Having said that I would also like to emphasize that, illegal wars and occupation along with all acts of terrorism (which in my opinion it has now color, race, creed) must be strongly condemn irrelevant of the or the size of the wrongdoers.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20101202/world-news/40-killed-in-huge-israel-forest-fire
Stephen Koludrovic
Jan 22nd 2011, 20:05
@ P. Korstein
The European were the shippers and buyers of the slaves, sold to them by the Arab traders.
Slavery was finaly abolished in the USA IN 1862. and yet some form of slavery is still in force in some Muslim countries.
@ E. Philips.
Why do you think I was arrogant,
How many Christians do you know that have fled Europe to emigrate to Muslim countries?
Raymond Sammut
Jan 22nd 2011, 23:07
It would have been prudent to say "economically more attractive", instead, Mr Koludrovic.
Sean Grima
Jan 23rd 2011, 12:10
the thousands of expatriates who work in dubai etc? they have not fled europe, but seem to have no problem working there. so muslim states do not automatically mean persecution
Joe Xuereb
Jan 22nd 2011, 19:40
I can well understand people fleeing oppressive regimes and seeking asylum in Europe as 'economic migrants' (meaning working, paying taxes, pulling their own weight like European culture dictates that we do). I can also understand European States 'exploiting' African States in the past. Amends have, and continue, to be made. But....black leaders who oppress their own people do so because they want to. Sure, Nazism is a blot on our conscience and the Churchisn't entirely blameless. Which brings me back to potential millions upon millions of Africans, etc. inundating Europe wanting to be economic migrants. And when one considers that a very low percentage of them have a basic education (and not a European one at that), never mind a University level of education: all this begs the question. Whither Europe? Keeping in mind that even an asylum-seeker who works ends up receiving much, much more in child benefits than what he contributes (the wives don't usually work as they're busy having a child once a year). If you don't believe me, get on a bus anywhere in London.
As far as Malta's concerned, you really think that sending migrants (legal or otherwise) off to mainland Europe will solve anything?
Sean Grima
Jan 23rd 2011, 12:12
as usual, prejudiced statements: their wives are busy having a kid a year - is that limited to muslims or non-europeans?! oppression of people is not limited to black leaders: there have been many white tyrants.
lack of education: yes, that is unfortunate - but it should not be used as a tool to beat people with, but as a motivation to help!
Michael Walter
Jan 22nd 2011, 17:09
The vast majority of the immigrants have one goal,to latch onto the benefits provided by states to their own population.These benefits are financed by the tax payer,the taxpayer should have some say in the distribution of said benefits.
Let them sort their own countries out.The west has pumped billions into these places over the years.The ones who prospered are the corrupt to the core politicians and their toadies.
Robert Callus
Jan 22nd 2011, 17:51
On what basis are you ASSUMING what the goal of the vast majority is?
"Let them sort their own countries out."
This is what some of them tried to do - hence they had to escape. For example criticizing the government in a local newspaper in Sudan can get you tortured and murdered. A Sudanese friend of mine did just that - he asked that the money collected by him and his friends at school should be used for refurbishing the school building and not end up in some regional politician's pocket. It seemed in his way of "sorting his own country" he had gone too far and had to flee.
From the asylum seekers I've met and worked with, it is clear that what the VAST MAJORITY (if not all) are looking for is justice and Human Rights.
CZarb
Jan 22nd 2011, 18:27
@Mr Callus
Sudan has borders with Egypt and Etyopia both considered as safe countries. By crossing the Red Sea one can reach another safe country which is also much richer then Malta can and will ever be. So if the immigrants are only searching for justice and safety then why do they go to Libya (were they are rumours that they are mistreated there), then risk their life or ricketty boats to reach Malta and even after reaching Malta, they want to first go to Italy and then to the North European countries? Why the majority of immigrants in Malta had chosen Sweden (not Italy, not Saudi Arabia or Qatar) as their preferred destination? Aren't the places I mentioned not safe enough? Think about it
And I can tell you alot of stories from being Cristiano Ronaldo to the Pope's unknown twin. Would you believe me?
Cynthia Bonnici
Jan 22nd 2011, 22:00
Robert Callus when will you stop your disgusting defense of the illegalities committed by illegal immigrants? The first illegality they commit is destroying their papers so that no one will really know who they are, then they enter a country illegally and the list goes on.
Sean Grima
Jan 23rd 2011, 12:17
dear robert, these people simply regurgitate rumours they may have heard, and make generalised assumptions. educated people know that racism is a product of ignorance.
Stephen Koludrovic
Jan 22nd 2011, 16:20
This enormous wave of muslim immigrants trying to enter Europe is quite simply because contrary to what they say,Muslim countries are incapable, or unwilling to better the lives of their own people.
This proves that our Christian culture is superior to theirs.
If there is any Muslim willing to disprove me, I'm willing to listen.
Paul Bonnici
Jan 22nd 2011, 17:24
Muslims do not separate between religion and the state, so they will always live under a dictatorship and the dictator will interpret the Koran which is very vague to understand, in ways to suit him and manipulate the population to his own advantage.
E Phillips
Jan 22nd 2011, 17:36
That is , with a doubt, one of the most arrogant statements I have ever had the misfortune to read.
Superior.....?
Jesmond Micallef
Jan 22nd 2011, 18:23
Our Christian culture is superior to thiers ?? Was it not "Christian Europe" who tried to iradicate the Jewish people from the face of the earth ? Was it not "Christian European Intellect" that gave the world nuclear weaponry afterall ?
Maybe Malta should "re-engineer" its international diplomatic portfolio whoever the Governments may be. "Engineering" has its uses indeed, and quite a wide spectrum comes to mind. Is there "Human Correctness" in "Political Correctness" ?
http://stocks.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20090128/local/remembering-the-fallen
Peter Korsten
Jan 22nd 2011, 18:57
"This proves that our Christian culture is superior to theirs."
Remind me again who shipped all slaves from Africa to the Americas, and who started the two World Wars.
Eric Gahn
Jan 22nd 2011, 15:23
Human Rights are a dangerous double edged sword. Look where it got Britain. Has anyone been to London during Xmas? Do you remember all the Victorian xmas folk tales and carols? Forget them. You will not even hear carols in the streets, just pop season songs. Children hold no nativity play at Xmas time becasue this might offend those of thier friends who are not catholic.
Human Rights have to be gained, not given freely. I know this sounds crude to some but it is the truth. Our forefathers fought bloody wars until we gained an understanding of these. We learned to respect each other's differences. We learned that Democracy, with all its pitfalls, is better than having a dictator or a king. Before migrants are granted anything they should be thoroughly thought who and what WE are, and if they fail to understand in a siutable period of time then send them back.
Do not just bleed for immigrants. Think before they bite back at you.
Jesmond Micallef
Jan 22nd 2011, 16:35
If I may quote specifically here : "Our forefathers fought bloody wars until we gained an understanding of these".
What "understanding" are you referring to here ?
This migrant phenomenom has happened before in europe until some people where given the land on which to live on and trive. These same people are also very well supported and they are much more capable of defending themselves now more then ever before !! The migrants you are referring to here come from either the African continent, the Middle East, India, Pakistan, China, but also from ex communist block. The dictators of Africa are all a byproduct of colonial and imperialistic psychology whilst the extremely rich of the ex communists states are all wealthy due to former state property.
If these people were given this "understanding" they also deserve, they wouldn't be in London or in any other European city, for the matter.
Gaining Human Rights was a very horrific and bloody european experience. Cure the root cause and not the smyptoms !!
Cynthia Bonnici
Jan 22nd 2011, 15:21
This is excellent news for the Maltese citizens and for the illegal immigrants.
Maltese citizens do not want the illegal immigrants and we are told that the illegal immigrants do not want to stay here.
Illegal immigrants you know that Maltese citizens do not want you here
So all illegal immigrants go to mainland EU countries and if you are caught say that you are not treated well in Malta and you have a very bleak future and they cannot send you back.
Go for it.
Grab this opportunity.
Go to mainland EU countries.
Bye bye illegal immigrants.
Sean Grima
Jan 23rd 2011, 17:01
such comments betray childishness.
CZarb
Jan 22nd 2011, 14:20
This news is good news for Malta since immigrants do not want to stay here
Evarist Saliba
Jan 22nd 2011, 12:33
Relying only on this press report (and not on the wording of the actual judgement) the judgement seems to side-step the fundumental issue of who is a genuine asylum seeker in terms of existing international conventions.
Sean Grima
Jan 23rd 2011, 12:14
courts decide the legal dispute in question
Evarist Saliba
Jan 23rd 2011, 12:37
@ Sean Grima,
So international conventions are conveniently quoted when it suits one's argument, but then can be discarded when it dies not.
Sean Grima
Jan 23rd 2011, 17:00
where did i mention internationAl conventions?
Chris Mifsud
Jan 22nd 2011, 12:26
Malta should pull out of the Human Rights Convention. It serves no use to us. I think it is only fair that all illegal immigrants are sent back to Africa because it is a well known fact that over 90% of the population do not want them here.
Tommy Cassar
Jan 22nd 2011, 15:23
Chris Mifsud I fully agree with you. This is simply an outdated past its use by date convention that is being abused left, right, centre, top, bottom, front and rear by the illegal immigrants and their traffickers and those NGOs who are going to see their income vanish.
Sean Grima
Jan 23rd 2011, 12:15
eliminate human rights, for which so many people fought? tal-biki.
Charles Sammut
Jan 22nd 2011, 11:11
Contrary to common perception, Afghanistan is not the hell-hole these 'asylum seekers' would have us believe it is. Kabul is a booming city and safe to live in. You do get the occasional suicide bomber, but those can also be found in London, Madrid and New York. The real danger is to US and allied troops and these will be leaving pretty soon. So why should an Afghan be seeking asylum in Europe?
Something is bound to give pretty soon.
Mario Aquilina
Jan 22nd 2011, 16:23
If you're so fond of Kabul, why don't you join the Taliban there. And while you're at it, take with you any female family members and enjoy.
w.scicluna
Jan 22nd 2011, 18:13
@ mario aquilina. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Your comment just demonstrates the typical maltese mentality. Grow up. It is 2011 you know.
Sean Grima
Jan 23rd 2011, 12:13
possibly charles sammut, as a main street university professor, was lecturing in Kabul, and has first experience of life there, which enables him to challenge common perception.