A hard-working single mother of a seven-year-old boy has been put through hell. Identity Malta decided to deport her child because her annual income was only €12,480.
Home Affairs Minister Byron Camilleri was asked about this heart-wrenching case. Without flinching he declared: “We don’t want people to migrate here and live in poverty.” Showing absolutely no emotion, he added: “We have regulations which must be obeyed.”
Khatia Pipia had been living in Malta since 2019. She was employed on a full-time basis as a waitress with Strike Ltd. When COVID struck and restrictions were implemented, Pipia’s income dropped. Pipia’s seven-year-old joined his mother in May 2021. She applied for him to live and attend school in Malta.
Identity Malta refused her application on the grounds that she wasn’t earning enough. To allow her son to stay, Pipia needed to earn the equivalent of a median wage of €15,354 and an additional 20 per cent for her son. In desperation, Pipia took her case to the Immigration Appeals Board.
The board turned down her appeal and decided to deport her son. Pipia’s employer testified that she had been employed since 2019 on a full-time basis on an indefinite contract and that she worked hard and showed dedication. The appeals board didn’t care.
“The board cannot, in good conscience, accept the appeal, knowing that a mother and her son would have to live in Malta solely on the mother’s wage, which amounts to €12,480 yearly – such an amount is clearly insufficient.” They decided they couldn’t allow her seven-year-old son to stay because he would be “a burden on our country” (Piż fuq pajjiżna).
The stony Camilleri insisted that “children of third country nationals are only deported when irregular methods are used to bring them in”. He was adamant that “the government should not encourage people to come to Malta”.
But just one day earlier the same minister was bragging that “over 1,000 nomads and high net worth people applied to move to Malta last year”. “The programmes of Residency Malta,” he announced, “seek to attract foreigners who want to move to Malta for a better quality of life.” Isn’t that exactly why that seven-year-old was here? What could be a better quality of life for a seven-year-old than being with his mother?
Residency Malta’s website boasts that “Malta (is) welcoming expatriates to its shores and embracing diversity”. It seems not all expatriates are welcome. Only “well-to-do individuals” are.
The Labour Party boasts that “the strong social conscience of this government shines in its treatment of the most vulnerable” (ir-ruħ soċjali qawwija li jħaddan dan il-gvern tispikka…).
The prime minister’s wife, Lydia Abela, in the pre-electoral campaign, told ONE that “Labour has a strong social conscience” and that “we need to invest in children because children are our country’s most valuable gem”.
Clearly, that seven-year-old was not part of Labour’s plan. Labour’s plan for that seven-year-old was to deport him, separating him from his only parent – his mother.
Thousands of low paid third country nationals keep the health service afloat and the economy humming- Kevin Cassar
Despite having been in school for one year and having learnt Maltese and English, the Appeals Board concluded that the child should be separated from his mother “in the best interest of the child”. Faced with such heartless bureaucracy, Pipia took her case to court.
She pleaded with the court to overturn Identity Malta’s and the Appeals Board’s decisions to deport her son. She couldn’t understand how the board decided it was in the best interest of the child not to remain with her, based solely on their assessment that her yearly earnings were below what they considered a decent income.
She pointed out that the decision breached Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights. She argued that it broke directive 2003/86 EC that ruled that “the right to family reunification should be exercised in proper compliance with the values and principles recognised by the member states, in particular with respect to the rights of women and children”.
Identity Malta was unmoved. They accused the woman of “appealing to sentimentality”. They mercilessly insisted that “nobody forced her to come to Malta and nobody will stop her leaving”.
This was typical Labour. Labour’s Malta welcomed the woman to its shores as long as she was contributing to the economy, participating in servicing the tourist industry, boosting their golden GDP and paying her taxes. She was welcome as long as she was useful.
That is how hundreds, if not thousands, of low-paid workers from third countries are treated by Malta’s Labour government. Silvio Schembri articulated Labour’s social conscience elegantly when he told all third country nationals who lost their job during the COVID pandemic that they would be kicked out. Like lemons, they would be discarded once squeezed dry.
Thousands of low-paid third country nationals keep the health service afloat and the economy humming, they care for our abandoned elders and deliver our food.
They’re welcome to stay but they have no chance in hell of bringing their young children over. No, no! Their children can stay back home in the Philippines, Nepal, India or Bangladesh with the grandparents or their aunts.
We’re not going to let them come here and take up spaces in our schools or use our hospitals. We only need their parents as our slaves to do our dirty work. In Identity Malta’s words, “nobody forced them to come to Malta and nobody will stop them leaving”. If they dare bring their children over, we’ll swiftly deport them.
Camilleri’s ministry was asked how many children have been deported. No reply.
Thankfully, the court saw sense. It found in Pipia’s favour, publicly chastising Identity Malta. “There is certainly no question of sentimentality here, as the agency implies,” Mr Justice Lawrence Mintoff ruled, ordering Identity Malta to bear all the costs.
As for Camilleri, he’s happily uploading photos of handcuffed migrants being deported. Next time it might well be a seven-year-old.