In his four articles on "illegal immigration", Martin Scicluna gave an overview of the legal and institutional framework in which the government of Malta deals with the refugees, asylum seekers and other boat people who find their way, intentionally or not, to our shores. It is important for all who are concerned with irregular immigration to be aware of this framework, as well as of the related undertakings to which Malta has subscribed under the auspices of the United Nations, the European Union, the International Organisation for Migration and so on. In addition, the human rights treaties to which Malta is party require governments to protect the human rights and dignity of any person under their authority, not just of their citizens.

Mr Scicluna also addresses the government's policy of detaining irregular immigrants for up to 18 months, concluding that it is the right policy in Malta's present circumstances. He supports this conclusion with a number of general references to social, cultural, economic, budgetary and other stresses he fears would result from greater openness.

He speaks, too, of threats to security, internal stability and public order. I confess that I find these generalisations speculative and unconvincing, in the absence of facts based on the experience of the last few years. Moreover, let loose in the hands or mouths of people with xenophobic or racist motivations - which is not Mr Scicluna's case - such words can be an emotive code to drum up their followers.

We do need more facts and less emotion: facts, for a start, about numbers. If 7,000 "irregulars" arrived since 2002, 2,000 were granted protection and 1,400 are detained, where have the other 3,600 gone? How many of the 7,000 not detained or repatriated are still living here?

Next, what stresses have arisen in fact from the application of the present policy? Have there been threats to Malta's security and stability? Has there been a decline in public order linked to the presence of irregular immigrants in our midst? If so, does it result from offences committed by such immigrants or against them or both?

We need to know what the present mix of detention and open centres means for the conditions of life of people thus housed: Are the vulnerable members of the immigrant communities - children, women, elderly, infirm - protected against abuse and exploitation, whether by other members of those communities, by their carers, by employers or by the host community in general? What is the disciplinary system in detention centres and who ensures it is justly administered? Are basic health and disease-control services being provided in the centres? What can be done to moderate the frustration and degradation of being penned in? Are school-age children of irregular immigrants being educated in government schools and, if so, have they been integrating in the mainstream? Are freed adults integrating or congregating in ghettoes?

We need to know, as well, how other countries have coped with similar situations. While Malta's small size is adduced as proof of uniqueness, I dare say we could benefit by learning from what goes on in Spain, Italy and Greece - including in their small offshore islands. Have there been shared assessments of relative merits of being "tough", to deter deliberate arrivals, or more accommodating, to reduce tensions onshore? Does "toughness" increase the risk of ill-advised or even tragic decisions on repatriation? What is the point of playing "tough" to the political gallery if an irregular immigrant who has served the full term and cannot be repatriated is allowed to stay anyway? Has regularised immigration contributed to economic growth (as reported from Spain)?

Finally, racism and racial profiling are indeed deplorable but nevertheless real reactions to confrontation with "different" - especially black - people, whether they turn out to be irregular immigrants or visitors mouthing the urban accents of London, Paris or Rotterdam. Is education being offered, especially in the public service, to counter these tendencies?

So many questions. Perhaps Mr Scicluna will take up his pen again after the holidays and try to answer them!

We need facts. Armed with them, we can debate openly and constructively the policies to manage immigration and deter xenophobia that best meet Malta's future needs. These issues must not be swept under the carpet of political convenience. Malta is living in a world of globalisation, of ever-freer movement of goods, services and, yes, people. By joining a diverse and multi-ethnic European Union, that needs rejuvenation if it is not to decline, Malta has accepted the shared challenge of managing these flows and drawing the positives out of diversity. We cannot now cringe on the margin of Europe, turning our back on the reality of our chosen future.