Malta’s immigration policies and the ICJ

The International Commission of Jurists is a reputable international NGO based in Geneva. Following a short visit to Malta last year, it has published a report, Not Here To Stay, examining Malta’s policies and experience of irregular immigration.

The ICJ makes the wrong assumption that migration arrivals are still considered as a temporary “emergency” situation by Malta. This would certainly not be the case. The government has made considerable strides over the last 10 years in building, from nothing, one must add, a structure of legal and administrative arrangements to handle the flow of about 1,500 annual arrivals.

“Emergency” may have been a word that arose at the height of the Libyan crisis last year but it is not one that characterises Malta’s handling of migration for some time before or since.

The report focuses on the issue of the country’s mandatory detention policy, which it regards as “clearly contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights”, a point also raised by Amnesty International in another report.

Malta argues that detention is permitted to prevent unauthorised entry into the country and for the removal of those staying here irregularly.

The government had to make a difficult decision based on the balance of argument between the wish to allow irregular immigrants free movement as quickly as possible and the paramount need to control them while their applications for asylum are being considered. In a country as densely populated and small as Malta, the political and social consequences have weighed heavily. The government has judged, rightly, that the greater common good would be best served by a policy of careful management to absorb extra numbers in the community in a calibrated manner over time.

Where the ICJ has an administrative, not a legal, point is over the conditions under which immigrants are kept when in detention. While the government has made progress in improving accommodation, there is no doubt that at the peak of each season conditions deteriorate considerably. This argues for greater space and resources to be allocated for more accommodation centres.

The ICJ is evidently misinformed in describing Safi and Lyster accommodation centres as “military bases subject to military jurisdiction”. They may be described as military locations but the immigrants are not known to be subject to military jurisdiction.

The NGO also calls for an inquiry into last August’s riots at Safi but is there really a point in instituting one now?

Where the ICJ touches a sensitive, and genuine, concern is when it speaks of integration. Not addressing the matter, whether by omission or by commission, is short-sighted and only stores up problems for the future. It is in Malta’s own socio-economic self-interest to ensure that a policy of inclusion and assimilation is pursued. A bipartisan approach needs to be adopted as soon as possible.

The ICJ is right when it advocates that the European Union “institute a permanent and binding resettlement programme”, a policy for which Malta has fought long, hard and unsuccessfully. While Malta’s case is, of course, a good one, the political reality of immigration in Europe is that this is an unattainable goal for the foreseeable future.

The ICJ’s report ranges well beyond the remit of the rule of law and human rights into the realms of government administration and policy. It suffers from a rather superficial assessment of the problems posed by immigration in Malta over the last 10 years. While some of the proposals are misconceived, indeed in one or two cases they are downright wrong, it nonetheless also contains a number of useful points.