Signing the UN conventions on statelessness risks absorbing Malta’s human resources and choking up the system with numerous irregular migrants saying they are stateless, according to Home Affairs Minister Carmelo Abela.

The government is analysing the provisions of the 1954 and 1961 UN conventions on stateless people before deciding whether Malta should become a signatory to one or both.

Malta is among only four EU member states (together with Cyprus, Estonia and Poland) that are not party to either of the UN statelessness conventions.

“If we had a system in place to assess statelessness, all undocumented migrants could potentially declare themselves to be stateless,” Mr Abela told the Times of Malta.

“You could have scenarios where certain migrants would already have applied for inter­national protection and, having been denied it and having been issued with a return decision, they might decide to latch on to this.

“It’s like a drowning man clutching at straws. They would know that the chances of a successful application are minimal but would decide to give it a go anyway,” Mr Abela said.

Despite a dearth of official data on stateless people in Malta, research conducted last year by the UNHCR found that the island did not host many such individuals.

By definition, a stateless person is anyone who is not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law. Arriving irregularly and being un­documented in Malta or staying and working irregularly does not make a person stateless.

‘Signing convention a strain on system’

Joseph St John, a ministry officer assigned to policy development, said statelessness arose from particular political climates that targeted minorities. For instance, statelessness affected Syrian Kurds, thousands of whom were stripped of their citizenship by the regime during the 1960s and 1970s.

The Rohingya, an ethnic community originating from Burma (Myanmar), were rendered stateless under dictator Ne Win in 1982.

Stateless people in Malta lacked entitlement to a protection status based on their statelessness. They could only be protected by regularising their stay based on other grounds, such as by meeting the criteria for recognition as a refugee. This, Mr St John said, was the case with Syrian Kurds, many of whom were granted international protection through refugee status or subsidiary protection.

Such a status granted them a refugee passport or Third Country Nationals (TCNs) travel document issued from Malta as well as a residence permit allowing them to travel abroad and access welfare assistance.

“Refugee status is very powerful, even if it does not confer nationality. They are not Maltese citizens but they are protected and cannot be deported,” Mr St John said.

Though no procedure is in place to identify stateless people, Malta’s domestic legislation contains certain provisions and safeguards against statelessness. For instance, if a foundling is abandoned by unknown parents, the infant can be granted Maltese citizenship.

Mr St John said that the 1954 convention listed a number of rights a stateless person was entitled to. The list of rights varied – some are comparable to those granted to TCNs while others are equivalent to those enjoyed by nationals.

In terms of social security and welfare benefits, the convention stipulates that a stateless person would have the same rights and assistance as a Maltese national.

With other issues – such as housing – a stateless person would be treated as other TCNs.

Some countries that were signatory to the UN convention had included certain reservations on some articles, Mr St John continued. Countries such as Bulgaria, Denmark, the Czech Republic, Finland and Sweden introduced reservations on the social security clause.

“We don’t have a large number of stateless people in Malta but that doesn’t mean that, if there is a system in place to determine statelessness, there won’t be a large number of applications,” Mr St John said.

“From an administrative point of view, it can strain the system, even if claims are not justified because, naturally, once you have a system in place you have to assess each and every application submitted.”

A number of EU countries were facing a problem with applications from the Western Balkans, he added. Although many were not at risk of persecution, it still choked up the system.

“Those who suffer are the genuine refugees, whose applications end up clogged in the system.”

Mr Abela said the government was waiting for the results of the analysis conducted by the experts. Once concluded, it would be weighing the pros and cons of signing one or both of the conventions.

kim.dalli@timesofmalta.com