Call for shorter detention period seen detrimental

Opposition EU spokesman George Vella said yesterday that Malta could not afford to reduce the detention period for illegal migrants, a measure which the EU is likely to propose.

Speaking in Parliament during the debate on a Bill amending the Refugees Act, Dr Vella said such a measure, if it were to come about, would cause problems for Malta.

No country the size of Malta could allow such people to wander around without knowing anything about them. The EU had to understand this.

Indeed, the EU had to show it believed in solidarity and assist Malta, which after all, wanted to assist the rest of Europe. Yet the EU had sent a delegation to look into the situation of illegal immigration in Spain and Lampedusa, but it had not yet sent one to Malta.

The Bill, which started being debated last week, will enable Malta to immediately deport migrants whose application for refugee status is declared to be manifestly unfounded by the Refugee Commissioner, such as in cases where migrants were found to have been in employment before coming to Malta.

Dr Vella insisted that illegal immigrants should always be treated as people who were going through a bad patch.

It was an unfortunate fact that the seeds of racial hatred had been sown even in Malta. The phenomenon of illegal migration had different aspects which the people were confusing and those who had an interest in creating xenophobic and extreme right reactions did not explain the facts.

The Maltese, as Christians, should offer the migrants fleeing persecution their rights, dignity and protection.

But many of the refugees who were coming here were economic refugees, seeking greener pastures. The problem behind these people's enthusiasm to go to richer countries was the growth of human trafficking.

It was true that Europe had a policy on immigrants but this was limited to the slow inclusion of a number of persons from third countries to some European countries where the birth rate was low and the population was in decline.

In Malta, however, the influx of migrants was placing a burden on its resources and the armed forces.

Several non-governmental organisations gave lip service but never actually offered to accommodate anyone.

Although the country had a moral obligation to help those in need, it also had its laws. The amendments presented to the House were addressed at economic migrants who made unfounded applications to be granted refugee status. The national interest came before that of economic migrants because no one could give from what one did not have.

Sadly, Malta did not have the resources to give these people rights. The opposition was conscious of the problem and the government could be guaranteed of its support.

How could the country offer these people suitable accommodation if this was not available? The legal obligations were being followed. But given such limited resources, how could the detention period be reduced to six months, as some were proposing in the EU?

Dr Vella said that together with other members of the Labour Party he recently had a meeting with the Birzebbuga council to see how the community was being affected by migrants who were living in the locality.

The council's reaction, contrary to the impression that had been given, was that many of the migrants were well behaved and caused no trouble at all. Dr Vella pointed out that if there were prostitutes among them, it was the Maltese who were seeking them.

Dr Vella called for a media campaign to stop prejudice against the migrants. Although he did not wish to see these people take over the country, he said, there was no harm in mixing with these people.

Leo Brincat, Opposition foreign affairs spokesman, reiterated the opposition's readiness to support the government on the migration issue. He was concerned, however, that the government was being too weak on the matter. Malta was not finding the necessary help from friendly and neighbouring states. NGOs were accusing the country of being inhumane with immigrants, the international press was putting Malta in a bad light, and the issue had led to the creation of a movement whose emblem was similar to the Italian neo-fascist party even though it denied being fascist.

Mr Brincat pointed out that a technical meeting on illegal migration held in Malta in July was attended by Libya and only 15 of the EU's 25 member states, although all were invited. Such apathy showed why the EU was taking it so easy to reach a common position on migration.

It was positive that the government had written to international organisations about the problems of illegal immigration, but did it follow this up? Moreover, the government was being too apologetic. Home Minister Tonio Borg has said that Malta should be generous with those who deserved help but tough with those who did not. Yet, facts were showing otherwise. One had to keep in mind that this was organised crime - illegal human trafficking through which an illicit profit was being made.

Mr Brincat asked what had become of the government's efforts to reach a repatriation agreement with Libya, from where most migrants started their trip.

The Prime Minister was right to raise the issue of illegal immigration in the United States because Malta should knock on all doors. Cyprus, he said, did not seek help just from the EU but also from Israel, which gave its assistance.

On the other hand, Malta was facing the indifference and apathy of neighbouring countries and it was also getting flak from international media and non-governmental organisations. Mr Brincat said he was worried about the security aspect and could not understand why the minister was so indifferent to this problem.

For if only one to two per cent of arrivals were terrorists, a nucleus of terrorists would be created here.

Referring specifically to the Bill, Mr Brincat said that the government should have reacted a long time ago to the nature of refugee applications being lodged. What was the government planning to do if the EU insisted that migrants should be held for a shorter period before being released?

The EU's track record on illegal migration was not heartening and it was unlikely to have a joint asylum policy before another five years. But Malta could not afford to wait that long. It needed short-term measures.

Although he believed in solidarity with those in need, one should not forget the need for solidarity with Malta. He acknowledged the symbolic assistance given by The Netherlands and the Czech Republic to Malta but one had to bear in mind that this was only a symbolic gesture.

Mr Brincat asked what the government's position was about Malta's search and rescue area. Would it be reduced?

He urged the government to be more proactive, dynamic and result oriented. The opposition's criticism to the government was that it was not being tough enough, he said.

Other speakers will be reported tomorrow.