NEWS | Wednesday, 25 February 2009

PRINT THIS ARTICLE

Raphael Vassallo
Josie Muscat, firebrand leader of the far right movement Azzjoni Nazzjonali, this week issued a set of 10 proposals to combat illegal immigration... at least eight of which violate local and international law.
Here they are, with commentary, in numerical order:

1) The country should declare a state of emergency...
Apart from the possibility of abuse – a state of emergency can be used to suspend laws and consolidate power – this proposal is bound to have serious economic repercussions for Malta. AN has not explained how a state of emergency may affect our tourism industry, in a country that markets itself as a “safe” and “tranquil” destination. Doubtless it would result in mass-cancellations of holiday bookings ahead of the peak summer season, with crippling effects on the catering, leisure and hospitality industries.

2) Malta should renounce its Dublin II and Geneva conventions obligations
Former Justice Minister Tonio Borg floated this suggestion in 2002, and had to quickly repeal it when it was made apparent that it would be illegal. Both Dublin II and Geneva are international treaties that form the basis for international law; as a signatory state, we are legally bound to observe the resulting international obligations.
To put it another way: If Malta can pull out of such treaties because it has reservations about their implementation, then by the same reasoning any citizen should be free to disregard any law, simply because he or she disagrees with it.

3) Immigrants to be put in a detention centre indefinitely until they decide to return to where they came from
This was Malta’s actual policy up until 2004, when the government was forced to review it to come in line with international law. Reverting to the pre-2004 arrangement would be a direct violation of Article 9 of the Human Rights Convention: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile”. (Detention becomes “arbitrary” if it is meted indiscriminately, “unduly prolonged” or “not subject to periodic review”.)

4) Illegal immigrants intercepted at sea should be told the situation they would be faced with if they continued on their way to Malta. If they opted to go to another country, they should be given all necessary assistance and provisions to be able to continue on their way in peace.
This tactic has already been tried without any success: in 2003, a boatload of 148 immigrants was intercepted by AFM in Maltese territorial waters, and given enough fuel to reach Italy... only to be sent back on arrival by the indignant Italian authorities.
Besides: if (as AN continually maintains) the transitory migrants are travelling illegally... won’t the Maltese authorities automatically become accessories to a crime, by aiding and abetting an illegal human trafficking operation?

5) Illegal immigrants in detention centres should, after a few days of rest, start doing maintenance work that was needed in the country under supervision. This would entitle them to food, drink, electricity, water and clothing.
There is another word for this policy: “forced labour”, and it is a crime against humanity according to Article 4 of both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention of Human Rights. Furthermore, this policy also violates Article 23 of the same convention, namely: “Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.”

6) Illegal immigrants should not be given Maltese citizenship under any circumstance, even if they married Maltese citizens.
A former conviction can already be cited as an impediment to citizenship in any country. But in the case of migrants, the term “illegal” does not refer to conviction by a court of law. Article 14 of the European Convention allows everyone “the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution”; until such migrants are proved to be ineligible to asylum, they cannot legally be classified as criminals.

7) Malta should not allow anyone from any country or organisation to examine detention centres and dictate to Malta what it should do.
Coming from a former Nationalist MP who had fought against the Foreign Interference Act in the late 1970s, this proposal simply beggars belief. When the Mintoff administration made it illegal for foreigners to come to Malta and address political rallies, the Nationalist Party instituted (and subsequently won) a Constitutional Case citing the fundamental freedoms of expression and association (Articles 19 and 20, HRC).
AN’s proposal would violate the same two principles, and also one of the four basic freedoms of the European Union – freedom of movement of persons.

8) The Maltese government should give EU states an ultimatum, that unless an agreement on obligatory burden sharing agreement was reached within a stipulated time, it would withdraw its cooperation in the formulation and implementation of European legislation...
One of the only proposals to fall well within the parameters of lawful political engagement (though whether it also falls within the sphere of practical political wisdom is a matter for debate.)
As for the “formulation and implementation of European legislation”, this is carried out by the members of the European Parliament. Is AN therefore suggesting we renounce our five seats in the EP...?

9) Irrespective of European legislation, those caught employing illegal immigrants without a permit should automatically lose their business licence while those caught human trafficking should automatically get life imprisonment.
More than violating international law, this proposal clearly indicates that European legislation is a matter that can be sidestepped at will. This may have been the case before accession in 2004, but as a member State it is clearly no longer an option. Is AN suggesting full withdrawal from the Union?

10) The repatriation process of illegal immigrants in open centres (should) be accelerated.
Repatriation is a perfectly legal option for those asylum seekers whose applications have been rejected on appeal, and where the necessary international bilateral agreements or arrangements exist. Exactly why AN focuses only on open centre residents is, however, unclear. Safety of return must also be guaranteed for those on removal orders.

PRINT THIS ARTICLE

Any comments?
If you wish your comments to be published in our Letters pages please click button below.
Please write a contact number and a postal address where you may be contacted.