Now that nearly two weeks have gone by since the new EU pact on migration was approved and the concept of burden sharing between member states in respect of illegal immigrants and asylum seekers has been accepted by all 27 and incorporated in such pact, perhaps it is time to reflect on this issue objectively and dispassionately.
The reactions of the three political parties were as follows: the government/Nationalist Party - a great step forward; Alternattiva Demokratika - a first step forward in a process that has to be continued; Labour Party - only a voluntary system, which placed no obligation on member states to take part; but more: it has called on the Prime Minister to vote against the pact in the European Council!
First of all, it is a pity that the new MLP leadership and, particularly, the leader himself, until recently a member of the European Parliament, do not seem to realise or, for partisan reasons, pretend not to realise, that burden sharing cannot (at least as things stand) be imposed on EU member states. So why pretend it can? Is Joseph Muscat already reneging on his pledge to seek the national interest first and foremost?
Secondly, it is significant to point out - and, again, this is another swipe at the anti-EU MLP - that had Malta not been a member of the Union in the first place (as the MLP wished) there would have been no pact and no burden sharing and no Frontex and financial aid, for that matter. We would have had to go it alone. So that's so much for Labour's present stand.
Thirdly, I would think that the position taken by the PN and AD are similar, if not the same. Yes, the burden sharing concept in the pact is positive but we must now attempt to move forward and obtain stronger commitments from member states - even, possibly, a legal obligation, at least in the long run. But, for goodness sake, nobody in his right mind can doubt that this was a positive, even if limited, step forward; let alone urge the government to block it!
And while on the subject of "illegal immigrants" - although (an aside) I prefer the word migrant, which, in fact, is the neutral and more precise term used officially. There has slowly been a tendency to move away from the use of the misnomer klandestini (clandestines) but perhaps one should use the word migrants, or at least, irregular immigrants or, more casually, boat people. These people are neither klandestini nor illegal immigrants. They never intended to come to Malta but, rather, to mainland Italy.
They were brought here by our patrol boats, for their own benefit, no doubt, but often against their will. Let alone could they have attempted to come into Malta undercover or clandestinely. Klandestini is just a somewhat sensational word to use; perhaps it sounds smart for certain sections of the media. Klandestini are stowaways, such as those hiding in a container, for example. Illegal immigrants are those who come into Malta without a visa or who overstay their permitted time on the island. Not the boat people.
But, what I was going to say in the first place, before I interrupted myself, was that it is heartening to see considerable efforts to make their lives more comfortable, even decent in terms of physical conditions, and valid attempts to integrate them into our society; employment for adults, education for the children. A recent seminar highlighted the serious problems in achieving this integration. The exercise is not easy and it will be very slow. It may even take a generation. But, at least, the effort is being made.
May I suggest, while I'm at it, that an educational programme be also prepared for the many rascists and xenophobics that still live among us? Perhaps it will help them integrate into reality and the world around us.
As to physical conditions, two projects worthy of praise and encouragement are those for the provision of prefabricated housing at the Peace Laboratory (well done, once again, to Fr Dijonisju Mintoff and his helpers, like Joe Abela) and the makeover of the Marsa open centre by Fondazzjoni Suret il-Bniedem (with EU funds, Labour please note). Could I propose that the makeover be extended to the surrounding area of the school - that rat-infested swamp or marsh (which is what Marsa once was, after all)?