Immigration hasn’t featured as much on the agenda since Josie Muscat last took his well-deserved rest from right-wing lunacy. And that’s worrying, but not because Josie had anything intelligible to say about migration. Because even news of a small-scale protest inside the closed detention centres never saw the light of day until an inquiry by government advisor Martin Scicluna made its findings public.
But part of the reason why not even government bulldogs are fretting over immigration as much as they used to before, is perhaps thanks to the new Commissioner for Refugees, Mario Friggieri, whose silent revolution inside Malta’s refugee-determination process has achieved credible results.
Friggieri replaced the former commissioner Charles Buttigieg in 2007, who had the task of handling asylum claims since the office was first set up under the Refugees Act back in 2001. Previously, Friggieri, a former Jesuit, coordinated an integration project at the national social welfare agency Appogg, counselling over 100 refugees to hone their employability. Since taking over, things have changed dramatically inside the offices at Fort St Elmo.
Notable among these changes is the absence of the backlog that haunted the Commissioner’s office. In January 2007 there were just two case-workers, and a high turnover of staff. Today there are 13 case-workers, largely thanks to Friggieri’s insistence on beefing up the office. Effectively, before taking over in July 2007, the enormous backlog of asylum claims, coupled with the coming and going of employees, left many asylum seekers waiting, possibly inside detention centres, for their claims to be processed. With the new cohort of case-workers, more claimants can be processed through the system.
“I felt there were some important changes that had to take place. Today we have four offices in Safi for us to hold interviews and process applications there and then, cutting down processing times. We have two interview rooms in Lyster. Every case-worker has their own laptop, when previously they were sharing just three laptops. Today, we can attend international meetings easily. We have a core group of translators proficient in eight languages. And claimants can post their applications in a special letterbox inside their rooms which are then collected by the office’s workers.”
Friggieri even has the figures to prove it. In the first six months of 2006, 410 cases had not been yet closed. Until May 2008, the office has already closed 808 cases and another 326 are in conclusion phase. “We have closed all cases for 2006, and we have to process some 226 claims for 2007 and 90 claims for 2008. This is due to an increase in financial and human resources… everyone thought this phenomenon that was about to subside when it first started. But it didn’t turn out like that of course…”
And hence the need to beef up the refugee determination process, rather than just erecting a ‘deterrent’ through the detention system – a system that has earned the scorn and criticism of international NGOs and institutions such as the Council of Europe. Improving the system of refugee determination has killed off a backlog of asylum claimants that would have otherwise spent their time inside the open or closed detention centres.
“From the 1,800 landings of asylum seekers we get, it is important that we distinguish between genuine claims and those that aren’t. We do pay attention to particular cases. For example last year we immediately dealt with the landings of Somalis and Darfurians, who benefited from some sort of protection, by processing their claims faster. Prima facie genuine cases should not be kept in detention for a long period of time.
“I am grateful to the government for the increase in resources, and I am still asking for more. When today we are talking of just over 300 claims left to be processed, and the claims for 2006 all finished, and just a month’s work left to process the claims for 2007… it means we are ready to handle a certain flow of work for this year.”
Parliament is currently passing through two European directives, namely the Qualifications (minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection) and the Directive on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status.
“The hope is that when all member states will have adopted these two directives, there will be standardization in Europe (common vision and conditions, criteria and requirements, rights and duties, etc) and that this will make possible the free movement of all those persons who had applied for refugee protection and been recognized some sort of protection.
“The adoption of these two directives will bring about considerable changes for all countries. Each country up to now had more or less its own way of going about things and each country will have to improve on some but also feel proud with what has been achieved in others. Malta is no exception, improvements will be required in some areas but it in certain areas Malta is already doing very well. I believe that Malta has one of the best systems when it comes to unaccompanied minors. It is true that is often hampered by false minority age claims. Moreover contrary to what is often declared, vulnerable persons (unaccompanied minors, women with children, pregnant women etc) are released from detention without having the need of applying for asylum and have their status determined. The only thing needed is medical clearance, which could be a matter of days.”
The directives effectively aim at cutting down asylum shopping, a term that describes which nation asylum seekers choose to seek the best benefits system or short detention periods, or else when they apply for asylum in several member states just in case they are rejected in one state. The Dublin II Regulation stipulates that if caught, a failed asylum seeker is returned to the country where they first entered the European Union. The law was designed to clarify which member state is responsible for any particular asylum seeker, and ensure that at least one member state deals with the application.
However, it also means that asylum seekers who first lodge a claim in Malta, will always be sent back to Malta if they slip away into Europe. So countries of first reception such as Malta, Italy and Spain, or Cyprus, are usually at the ‘receiving end’ of Dublin II – that is, they can find themselves having to take care of failed asylum seekers who are re-entering Europe at various stages.
“We had the case of someone who came into Malta from North Africa, had his fingerprints stored in the EURODAC database, and after his application was refused, he was sent back to his country. Then he again entered Europe through the UK, and was sent back to Malta,” Friggieri says.
But one of the most difficult aspects of the asylum system in Malta is how to take care of failed asylum seekers. They are usually the so-called economic migrants, those whose applications for protection have been rejected by both the Commissioner for Refugees, and the Refugee Appeals Board. Their next stage is supposed to be deportation back to their home country. But that process alone is not simple, meaning many of them stay here to either wait for their repatriation, and in the process taking up bed space inside the open centres. Bed space that could otherwise be taken up by other asylum seekers.
“Deportation, in the case of Malta, is difficult,” Friggieri says. “Half of the arrivals in Malta do not qualify for any sort of protection, therefore legally they should be returned to their country of origin. This is practically impossible for Malta – single-handed. Most other European countries are not spared this problem. The European Union wants standardization and common policies – but why is this less visible when it comes to a common repatriation policy? Why shouldn’t the European Union use its influence to make sure that African countries who ask for aid, will also accept to take back failed asylum seekers?”
But if they cannot be deported, failed asylum seekers are more likely to be taking up bed space for genuine asylum seekers, or else drifting into illegal employment, or even being trafficked again outside of Malta.
“These are all big risks and problems and very real. Speaking from personal experience, the first victims of false minority age claim are the genuine unaccompanied minors. In the same way it is essential that a distinction is made between those who are genuinely in need of protection according to the Geneva Convention and others. Considering that roughly half of those who apply for asylum are not granted Convention status or humanitarian protection, if they are not deported they are taking up the place of who deserves real protection. We should exercise a great sense of responsibility. We should make sure that we are able to cater for those who really need protection.”
But even so, many of the failed asylum seekers here represent an invisible segment of real poverty, living on meagre government handouts inside open centres. Or else, they are being absorbed into the black market and being exploited. If they cannot be deported, should they be left to languish inside the shadows?
“Malta, again as a consequence of its uniqueness, is most probably the only country in Europe which provides accommodation to irregular immigrants at any moment of their stay in Malta. Even after their asylum claim is definitely rejected. Most probably Malta is also the only country which through its work permit makes it possible for all to have a job. I assure you that this is not the same in other countries. The real problem is that the number is proportionally big and the fact that failed asylum seekers do not always manage to leave the island only make things more difficult. Obviously there is still a lot that can and must be improved, but for this to happen it must be a concerted effort both in Malta and in the European Union.”
Does the racism encountered here make it harder for them to integrate?
“More than racism or xenophobia, I think it is the fear of the unknown. Migration is a new phenomenon for Malta. It is difficult to integrate. The problem is that this phenomenon cropped up at once, and in great volumes. Many of them don’t even think of staying here, which is why they keep to themselves.”
Friggieri points to an oft-quoted statistic, indeed commonly invoked by politicians: the proportion of asylum claims in Malta, compared to the population. So on the basis of 2006 figures, Malta with a population of 400,000 had 1,780 asylum claims. Italy, with a population of 52 million, had 14,500 claims. The figure is extrapolated to argue that, for Italy to have had the same burden as Malta’s, it would have to take in 255,000 claims. So our share is 17 times greater than Italy’s, 10 times greater than the UK’s, 12 times greater than Germany’s, 36 times greater than Spain.
But it’s purely a mathematical extrapolation. The reason Malta has a higher ratio of claims is because of its tiny population. In real terms, Malta still had a lower number of asylum claims than other EU countries of reception. What says most about an asylum policy is the rate of acceptance of refugees and those awarded subsidiary protection. Asylum claims alone highlights the burdens of search and rescue operations for Malta, and the expense involved for accommodation and processing logistics.
Friggieri responds that the figure of claimants highlights Malta’s situation being very particular to Europe. “Together with its novelty, we are still trying to come to terms with migration. I say this to rebut the allegation of perceived racism by the Maltese. The way some people express themselves tends to lend to the idea they are racist. You have to consider the population density of our country as well.”
Considering that the majority of these migrants want to move on into Europe, I ask Friggieri whether he sees Malta’s role in the medium term becoming that of a ‘processing’ centre for asylum claims.
“To be honest, unless burden sharing and real help is forthcoming, the European southern flank could end up being a ‘processing’ centre and maybe even more than that. It is imperative that this is understood and there is a concerted Maltese effort. The bulk of African asylum seekers pass through Italy, Spain and Malta.
“In Malta we need a programme of information regarding this phenomenon. Doubts, fears, questions are healthy but if not catered for can eventually become dangerous. The media can surely help in this. Usually we Maltese are bombarded by titbits of information, and this could be risky in the long run. The Maltese people deserve to have more information about the situation in African countries (it will help understand why these people risk so much and leave their countries), the responsibilities of European countries when they were colonizers in Africa, how this continent is still exploited today, how Europe can really help. The Maltese have the right to hear how the international bodies have tried to defend these persecuted persons. Maltese should fully understand that asylum is a human right, and how we can guarantee it.”
In the meantime, Frontex patrols are touted as being, in some manner, able to restrict the flow of migration through the Mediterranean – something that is in itself hard to achieve unless countries had to discard once and for all the ancient law of rescue at sea.
“Facts show that roughly 50% of requests for protection made in Malta are considered as eligible. It is not the role of this office to express itself on Frontex and what it is doing and how it is doing it. One only has to repeat that boat people are potential refugees. I have no doubt that Frontex, being part of the same Union that has issued the Qualification and Procedures Directives are aware and do respect that,” Friggieri says, referring to the fact that even if boats of African migrants are intercepted far out at sea, their right of innocent safe passage cannot be stopped, let alone the fact that potential refugees could be out there, rightfully seeking a country of refuge.
Friggieri imparts an indictment of the rest of the world. “I feel the international community has failed the African continent. The point of departure is the Scramble for Africa and its partitioning amongst the powers. First it was colonised by military means, now since the Second World War, following the American model, it was colonised economically. This often entailed the putting in power of puppet governments – and the continued exploitation of natural resources. The international community has failed African people by not being able to safeguard their rights in their own countries, and then by failing to do the same in neighbouring countries. The rights of a Somali for instance cannot be guaranteed in his own country, or in neighbouring countries, or in his own vast and enormous continent of Africa. He feels obliged to leave not only his country but his continent. This is a clear proof of the failure of the international community.
“I am sure that Malta is doing and will continue doing its part and is ready to do even more if needed. But unless the European Union and the international community try to do more than what they are doing at the moment, a real lasting solution will never be achieved.”