Migration conference
Judging by your reports on the conference on Immigration, Racism, Diversity and the Media, organised by the Institute of Maltese Journalists (October 5, 6 and 7), and the well-known positions of the selected speakers, it seems the organisers were more...
Judging by your reports on the conference on Immigration, Racism, Diversity and the Media, organised by the Institute of Maltese Journalists (October 5, 6 and 7), and the well-known positions of the selected speakers, it seems the organisers were more interested in weighing in on one side of the debate than in providing a balanced and impartial appraisal of a controversial problem. Maltese public opinion was not mentioned in your reports. Should it be ignored? I have two comments in particular.
Ruth Farrugia was quoted as saying: "The use of 'illegal' and 'irregular' to describe immigrants was, legally speaking, passé because entering Malta without valid documents had been decriminalised" (October 5). I am not a lawyer, but I have a dictionary. An act violating rules or regulations is irregular; if it violates a law it is illegal; if it violates the criminal law it is criminal. When a person, without valid documents, pays a trafficker in human beings to ferry him to a foreign country with a view to settling there in breach of that country's laws, he acts illegally. Once the act was decriminalised he is no longer considered a criminal, but he remains an illegal immigrant. Traffickers in human beings are criminals.
The report also states: "Neil Falzon, UNHCR's local representative, asked whether the government had actually carried out an economic and social impact assessment before concluding that immigration was bad for the country" (October 7). There is ambiguity on Dr Falzon's status. In The Times (July 18, 2006), he is referred to as "UNHCR's senior legal assistant". The report on Malta by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights (March 29, 2006, www.coe.int) describes him as "the UNHCR consultant in Malta". These various designations have different legal, diplomatic and financial implications. For example, a UNHCR representative could have diplomatic privileges and immunities, but not a legal assistant or consultant. It would help if UNHCR could clarify Dr Falzon's title, status and functions.
Dr Falzon's intervention typifies the stance UNHCR has taken on Malta, namely, that attack is the best form of defence. UNHCR has been unwilling or unable to resettle the thousands of refugees, asylum seekers, illegal immigrants and humanitarian cases at present in Malta. Instead, it attacks the government's policies on detention and related matters. UNHCR should resettle our uninvited guests in one of the 45 African countries which are at peace and more spacious than Malta. Are refugees also choosers and given the option of going only to European countries? Why does UNHCR campaign in favour of immigration into Malta? Has its mandate been extended to make it the UN's immigration agency?