I fully agree with James Horgen (Exercising Right Of Control Over Borders, January 18). Borders are what define a country and set it apart from the rest of the world. But I would put the emphasis differently.

The Maltese government, like any government, has the duty (more than the right) to control its borders. In times when countries used to go to war, armies were stationed at the borders to stop potential invasions.

The entry of massive numbers of men, women and children by boat has ballooned into an unarmed, but nonetheless illegal, invasion.

The government has a duty to Maltese nationals to stop the influx. And it is good to see that last year some control was quite effective.

Borders have become less watertight in the modern world but their dismantling is still subject to laws and institutions. For example, in the European Union there is freedom of trade in goods, regardless of borders.

We also have freedom of movement of persons, but this is regulated by the Schenghen agreement and available to EU nationals only. It certainly does not extend to other illegals coming by sea, or air. That is why any non-EU national who has entered Malta by illegal means is not free to go to the country of his choice in Europe, whether Germany, Britain, Sweden or whatever he considers his Promised Land.

Borders also limit a country's responsibilities. The defenders of illegal immigration often point to the difficult conditions of Africans working illegally in Libya as justification for their boat trips to Malta and neighbouring European countries.

However, in the particular case of nationals from the African Continent, the Maltese, Italian and other European governments are not answerable for the human rights situation in Libya, or in any other country for that matter. The Maltese government may have views, ideas and wishes about what happens outside Malta's borders but it has no rights and no duties in that respect. Our interest is with regard to Malta's own border.