One of the most controversial and sensitive topics at the moment is the one concerning illegal immigration in Malta and Europe. Rather than directly replying to the increasing number of contributions to this and other newspapers, I would like, as a real Nationalist, to provide some food for thought.
Malta is a small island and is the second most densely populated country in the world, the first being Singapore. This is indeed a very rich and “sacred” island, but its limitations are also considerable. We are geographically very small and have very little, if any, mineral, natural or industrial resources. Our poor and fragile infrastructure is thoroughly overburdened. Our roads, electricity, water supply, drainage systems are hardly adequate to cope with today's needs. The government too, considering the current economic situation, seems at a loss on how to best resolve these problems.
A situation predominantly brought about by a combination of mismanagement and inefficiency/unaccountability at all levels.
Considering this state of affairs, as well as a plethora of other statal and national deficiencies, how can we possibly afford, in terms of space, economy and otherwise to welcome and maintain a regular and increasing influx of immigrants? May I clarify that this is not a matter of race, skin colour, culture, religion or mentality. They could be coming from outer space, for all it matters. We simply cannot take them in. Our current logistics do not permit it.
This does not mean that we are not ready to help others. Far from it. The huge sums and large quantities of various items donated during periodic charity events, aimed at helping others in the most remote corners of the planet substantiate this claim. We are predominantly a Catholic nation, and are well known to be a generous and friendly people with a large heart. Helping others though, does not mean that we are in a position to let the forsaken nations, races and peoples come here in their hundreds, or worse, in their thousands.
However, even if we had the money, space and all the rest, I would still be against the influx of these people/s. This has nothing to do with racism or anything of the sort. That is a misconception fuelled by those who see themselves as the purveyors of the “politically correct” way of doing and saying things. But after all it might not always be correct to be politically correct!
One undeniable fact is that the immigrants who land here and in the rest of Europe come from African countries. Nothing wrong with that per se. Unfortunately, the vast majority of these people come from nations which have little or no infrastructure. Most have been brought up in conditions of war, genocide and revolt. Their political system is practically non-existent; The same goes for their educational, welfare, sanitary and social/cultural structures; These people never had any say, and if they did, they never put it to good enough use. Instead of solving the situation, they decided either to massacre each other or to run away in their thousands. Now if one had to ask what constitutes a civilised country, I suppose that it is a combination of the former elements.
By default therefore, if one had to remove these elements from any particular society, it stands to reason that this society generically tends to become uncivilised. This may explain why people coming from such an environment are at a loss when they find themselves in a civilised society, where everybody is expected to do his/her part, to abide by common rules, legislation, and so on.
These people have come to Europe and Malta to take not to give. I shall try to substantiate this further by recommending any would-be critics of this article to carefully observe larger EU countries that long ago opened their doors to these “refugees”.
One might thus ponder the following considerations: Did they blend in with the cultures and social way of life of the nations which took them in? Did they integrate within those societies in a peaceful and harmonic manner by observing the respective countries' social rules and legislation? Did they bring prosperity to the areas and countries they now live in? Did they negatively affect the quality of life of the countries' citizens in any way? Did they overburden the economic, structural and social institutions of these countries? Are they at all grateful for the assistance in the form of social benefits, housing and so on offered them? And lastly, did they try in any way to impose their way of life, culture, language, religion, etc. on the countries' citizens?
Rather than being a matter of skin colour or race, it is a matter of the attitude and aptitude these peoples bring with them. It might not be their fault if that is the only way of life they know. But why should it be ours (as Europeans)? And why are we expected to suffer for it?
Africa is slowly draining itself. Europe and the Europeans is/are paying the price, in terms, due to this. When is somebody going to realise that this exodus from African lands is unsustainable for both Continents? All the people who are leaving these (African) countries are doing so because they are unable to solve their own problems. Unfortunately, running away can never be the correct solution to solve their dire situation.
Thanks to political correctness, Europe has opened its gates to these 'refugees', and millions now live within its confines, in most instances, on the dole, in social housing, and basically on the taxes and with the resources of the country hosting them. How correct is this? And how sustainable is it?
To worsen matters further, instead of accepting the fact that they are guests in another country, and conforming and integrating themselves within the society of the host countries, they do all they can to impose their traditions, culture, language, religion etc. on their co-inhabitants.
I agree that not all immigrants are like that; but it is also a fact however that across Europe, in most of the areas where they thrive, the host peoples have witnessed a decline in their quality of life and conversely, a huge rise in crime rates, problems of a sanitary nature, extreme cultural differences, and so on, that the latter have had to leave.
Imagine having to offer hospitality to a guest in your house. You set down various rules and instructions for the benefit of all. But while you and your family honour the commitment in this regard, your guest starts doing what he likes, and worse, tries to impose his own rules and ways on you and your family.
Now if this example had to be expanded further, whereby the guest becomes the incoming foreigner, your house becomes your village or country, and your family becomes your compatriots; the result of this ignorant and unlawful guest's attitude and behaviour is evident. When multiplied to national level, the ensuing consequences are terrible. This is what is happening in the whole of Western Europe.
It is indeed unfortunate, but that is the scenario we are facing. Now the problem has reached our shores too, and instead of carefully studying the situation abroad, and learning from the mistakes of others, we have people criticising the growing right wing movement for being the only para-political faction trying to open our nation's eyes and ears.
In this country, to do practically anything that might affect one's neighbours in any small way or otherwise, one has to apply a myriad of regulatory bodies and authorities. Above all, one must draw up an Impact Assessment Report. Maybe the likes of I.M.Beck should start working to draw up an impact assessment on whether the country's welfare and culture have improved, or otherwise thanks to these immigrants!
One must also take into consideration that shortly the working figures and estimates will have to be increased once again as soon as the skies clear and the summer breeze draws in the next batch of creaky, rusting boatloads of people, with the blue waves.
Where is this country's contingency plan if this happens? How much more can we take? How much more can we spend to sustain them? How many additional taxes will we have to pay for their sustenance? How much longer can our Security Forces maintain their huge efforts?
Does anybody realise that when a government starts thinking of chopping away at public holidays and taking such measures as raising the retirement age to 65, it means that the economy is in trouble. And while it is all right to work an extra number of years and lose a few days leave a year for the general benefit of the economy and thus our society, I find it extremely unfair, that over Lm1.5 million every year, which comes from our taxes and worked holidays, is going to people who have not only been unable to make the most of their vast, mineral-rich countries, but are now, (possibly involuntarily) negatively affecting ours.
Many do not realise that with every new immigrant that is accepted as a refugee and made a citizen of Europe, a ray of hope lights up in 10 of his ex-co-nationals to do the same.
Having said this, all across Western Europe, there are certain people who favour mass immigration due to vested interests. As an example one might consider various huge multi-national corporations. The greater the influx of asylum seekers and refugees, the better it is for them as having a huge number of prospective employee replacements lowers the bargaining power of the workforce.
Pay and benefits could be reduced, and if anybody speaks up, the chance is that that the European breadwinner might lose his job. Even if he or she doesn't do so, the steady deterioration of the relative working environment, and a greater influx of people who speak their own language and have their own ways on the said workplace, will eventually force the individual to leave.
He is expendable however, because while he joins the ever increasing number of European nationals on the dole, his place is immediately filled in by a 'refugee'. And so is suffering? Who is paying to keep him alive? His poor taxpaying countrymen of course! And the country's burden escalates further and further.
Many governments and political factions, which in many cases are backed by the said commercial giants, (which are many a time foreign to the country anyway), have often stated the importance of hosting immigrants in their respective countries because apart from it being politically correct to do so, they are also doing jobs that, say, the British nationals do not want to do. What a joke!
The British do not want to work in various sectors because the jobs are poorly paid. So the employers can afford to lower wages because they know that it is not a problem to find people ready to fill in the gaps: The immigrants of course. So what's the point in raising wages or improving working conditions?
As more immigrants flow in, the more convenient it becomes to dismiss the workforce composed of the countries' nationals and employ these newcomers in their stead because these will do the same job at a fraction of the pay, and with practically no benefits at all. This obviously cuts down the commercial enterprises main cost, i.e. wages, along with all the overheads normally incurred due to other benefits and allowances they would legally have to offer to workers of the countries in question. What better way to increase productivity, become more competitive, and above all, maximise profits?
This begs the question, at whose expense?
If one had to give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, Africa is theirs, but Europe, and Malta in particular, is ours. I believe we should keep it so, and while all the above might not seem “politically correct”, to me it sounds very correct indeed!