Editorial: Malta is changing. This citizenship rule should follow

Before entering into the merits of the citizenship proposal made in a recent Church report, bear in mind that the Maltese Citizenship Act, which came into force in September 1964, is not a static document.

Indeed, it has been amended dozens of times over ensuing decades, right up until recently.

The debate on the right to citizenship stretches back across countless phases of migration and independence, the need to boost populations, to offer people refuge from persecution and to find workers ready to build up future infrastructure.

Destination countries for migrants have constantly juggled between the need and the duty to accept people from beyond its shores while ensuring that it could provide for them as well as for their own populations.

Over the years, this meant deciding between citizenship awarded by ‘right of the soil’ – independent of parents’ citizenship or legal status – and ‘right of blood’, where citizenship is determined by the nationality of one or both parents, regardless of birthplace.

It sounds far more straightforward than it is. Compromises between popular sentiment and fear, between economic need and human rights created loopholes through which far too many fall. Consider how disastrous solutions were for those affected, from the Windrush generation in the UK, to Turkish workers in Germany, Algerians in France and Mexicans in the US.

What about Malta? It opted for the ‘right of blood’ model as the basic principle. An important point: there is nothing in the Act which refers to how the parent or parents came here, whether they were irregular migrants or temporary workers.

However, the Citizenship Act cannot ignore current reality and future forecasts: according to the National Statistic Office, 30% of the population is foreign.

Bear in mind that Malta’s Labour Migration Policy establishes important parameters, including the promotion of long-term integration of the workforce as well as safeguarding the rights and working conditions of all employees.

The magic word there is ‘integration’, embracing migrants and all that they offer, allowing them to do so without creating an underclass or two-tier society, without allowing fear and xenophobia to leave them without the tools they need to survive and thrive.

Let us learn from the mistakes of others. We have a country which accepted, willingly or not, thousands of people, mostly fleeing Africa, a few decades ago, only some of whom were granted refugee status.

They had children who were sent to schools here, who learned Maltese, but who are now getting to the age of 18 and fall into a legal limbo.

That is what the Gozo Church commission identified: a specific problem for which it has proposed a specific solution: citizenship that reflects the ‘right of culture’. And it is not only the Kummissjoni Djakonija which has identified this issue: so have other organisations, including Moviment Graffitti, the Jesuit Refugee Service and the Malta Foundation for the Well-being of Society.

We are faced with a situation that needs to be discussed and resolved: it will admittedly not be easy.

We have an overheating economy, a declining birthrate, overpopulation and numerous other issues that refuse to disappear merely because an election is coming.

This is the first generation of adults whose parents migrated to Malta in search of a better life, however they came here, whenever they came here, and for whatever reason they came here. The time has come for a mature discussion on where we are and where we want to get, respecting the rights and aspirations of those who have helped to make Malta what it is.

It is the least that they and their children deserve.