Fighting racism

Your excellent editorial of January 30 rightly emphasises the need for effective action to be taken against those who incite racial hatred among the community. Candidates for political office should be particularly held responsible for such actions.

One particular wand-waving candidate expressing such views was considered to be little more than a joke at the last election but in fact may become a kernel around whom those with extreme right-wing might congregate and vent their phlegm.

It is also true that, as you say, Malta with half of its population living overseas, and the other half having relatives living abroad, should be particularly aware of the needs of those who for one reason or another leave their homes to establish themselves in a foreign land.

What I am not happy about is your comparison of illegal migrants with ordinary migrants. You imply that the main difference between migrants and illegal migrants is that the latter are forced to rely on unscrupulous agents to effect their transition from their homeland to their destination.

In effect, the main difference between the two categories of migrants is that one is legal and the other is not. This point needs to be stressed. I am particularly annoyed with headlines in newspapers which refer to 'migrants' when in effect they mean 'illegal migrants'. This habit, meant as a shorthand notation, has the effect of conflating the two issues with resulting confusion in the minds of readers. In places like Australia, which are the recipients of considerable numbers of both types of migrants, the distinction is never blurred.

The dilemma consists in ensuring that illegal migrants are treated humanely, without at the same time encouraging the opening of floodgates for illegal migration. The difficulty of reconciling this dilemma is seen in the utter inability of most nations to come to grips with and resolve this dilemma.