In the name of national security, the latest bandwagon demands that the government should take emergency action on immigration. But the protestors' suggestion-list is very short and, so far, little more than voodoo politics: black magic replacing policy.
Some make no suggestions at all. Others largely propose illegal actions. They effectively advise the government to become an outlaw state, degrade and endanger the lives of other human beings and hang the consequences. The snag is, the consequences would hang us.
An outlaw state becomes a pariah. The international and, especially, European sanctions would be severe, destroy Malta's reputation and cripple its economy. Nonetheless, the witchdoctors say, our national security would be enhanced.
The one suggestion that actually cites a precedent involving a western liberal democracy has been made by Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando (February 27). He proposes to tow immigrants out to international waters, point them in the direction of Libya and leave them there. This action, he says, is "practically identical" to the policy implemented by the US Coast Guard in the face of irregular migration by boat people from Cuba and Haiti.
Dr Pullicino Orlando breezily admits one difference. The US returns immigrants to their country of origin whereas Malta, under his proposal, would be pointing immigrants back to a transit country, Libya.
Is that really all?
The US policy towards Cuba, at least in practice, is not the same as that towards Haiti. Cuban would-be immigrants benefit from the "wet foot, dry foot" policy: those who manage to make it to dry land get a chance to remain in the US and pursue permanent resident status; those who are intercepted ("interdicted") at sea are repatriated to Cuba.
How is this "practically identical" to Dr Pullicino Orlando's proposal? The repatriations are made on the basis of a US-Cuba agreement but Malta has no agreement with Libya.
In the case of Haiti, the US policy dates back to 1981, with twists and turns in different periods. However, essentially the US Coast Guard's role has been to intercept Haitian boats in international waters.
What it does, and how it does it, differ in at least three fundamental ways from Dr Pullicino Orlando's proposal.
First, with few interruptions, the US has had either the formal cooperation or informal collusion of the Haitian government. For many years, the US Coast Guard was permitted to patrol very close to Haiti and sometimes with Haitian officials to hand.
Second, the US escorts the migrants back to Port-au-Prince. The US justifies its policy by saying it minimises loss of life by picking up immigrants on dangerous high seas. Dr Pullicino Orlando proposes to abandon them right where the US picks them up.
In some quarters, the US has been accused of breaking international law. The US claims that it is respecting the letter of the law, which, it argues, only applies once immigrants reach US territory (hence, the importance of interception in international waters and, when unavoidable, detaining migrants at a safe haven like Guantanamo Bay. Yes, that Guantanamo: in Cuba).
Here, then, is the third big difference: The mighty US cares to be seen to be upholding the law; Dr Pullicino Orlando says we should just break it.
At various periods, like today, the US has forcibly repatriated Haitians. Where possible, as in the Cuban case, repatriation was made on the basis of an agreement with Haiti's government. When the latter sometimes tried to squirm out of it, the US pushed its weight.
Size, alas, matters. The Maltese protestors harp on the disproportionate impact of immigration on a minuscule country. But they conveniently forget that size also matters when it comes to international cooperation agreements: they are far easier for large powerful countries to obtain since, often, one or two arms may need to be stroked or twisted.
US policy therefore provides no legal or political cover for Dr Pullicino Orlando's proposal. The difference between the two is fundamental. Oh, and did I say that the US uses a fleet that Malta on its own cannot begin to match?
Dr Pullicino Orlando's proposal is "practically identical" only to Thailand's widely-condemned policy. Far from providing a short-term solution to a real problem, it would antagonise Libya and make cooperation even more remote, if not prompt military action. At the same time, we would be losing the support, if not outright membership, of the EU.
He correctly recognises, in my view, that some of the provisions of international law are inadequate for today's situation. But brazenly breaking the law is the most effective way of rushing the international community to its defence. Changing it can only be a medium-term strategy that requires EU support.
There is, regrettably, no quick-fix solution to our predicament. The online vigilantes of national security may shake and writhe at this brutal truth. But the only remedy they suggest is sticking needles into a doll.
ranierfsadni@europe.com