The response from the spokesman for the interior minister to Azzjoni Nazzjonali’s press statement (TMID, 28 August), which set forward a few proposals to limit irregular migration, is simply a series of sorry excuses with which he thinks he can justify his government’s lethargy and incompetence. Furthermore, it is evidence (not that we needed it) that the government does not have the intention, let alone the will, to tackle this issue.

At the root of all our difficulties relating to migration lies a simple cause, and the minister charged with guaranteeing our safety does not have the guts to admit it.

It is the Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees. The 1951 convention is outdated and is being abused of. We reiterate that it was not intended as a means to move economic migrants or those who are merely dissatisfied with life at home, around the world. It will not be possible to “amend” this international document; therefore we need to consider withdrawing from it so we are no longer bound by it, and if necessary institute our own convention, addressing our own needs.

This is called sovereignty, but evidently our government doesn’t know the meaning of the word. In the absence of credible alternatives, such action is not only reasonable, but necessary. We would not be the first ones to contemplate it. Australia’s success in tackling irregular migration only came about after it unilaterally redefined its understanding of the convention and passed a series of acts to that effect (http://www.hrdc.net/

sahrdc/hrfeatures/HRF49.htm).

Britain too recognises the problematic nature of this convention. In fact, the PN’s British fellow members in the EPP, the Conservatives, had this to state in their 2005 electoral manifesto: “On asylum, a Conservative government will not allow outdated and inflexible rules to prevent us shaping a system which is more humane, more likely to improve community relations and better managed. So we will take back powers from Brussels to ensure national control of asylum policy, withdraw from the 1951 Geneva Convention, and work for modernised international agreements on migration. Our objective is a system where we take a fixed number of refugees from the UNHCR rather than simply accepting those who are smuggled to our shores.”

Jack Straw, in his capacity of Home Secretary, had likewise also described this convention as “out of date” and that asylum law should be placed on a “more rational basis”. Switzerland, which we once hoped to emulate, went further. They have passed a law by popular consent (a lesson in true democracy), whereby only those who have full documentation will be considered for asylum.

So long as Malta is signed up to the convention, we are required to admit whoever claims asylum, and keep them here, pending a lengthy legal process to determine their claim for refugee status. The minister claims that “Malta does not lure immigrants to our shores.” We beg to disagree. How does he explain the fact that many of the distress calls lodged with the Armed Forces emanate from immigrants who are already residing here?

Malta does lure irregular migrants thanks to its generous welfare provisions, the most lax citizenship laws in Europe (as was excellently described in Anna Mallia’s article in the Malta Today on 24 August) and a detention system which ensures that every irregular migrant is released after 18 months, whether deservedly or not.

In a separate comment, he stated that Malta is strict with those who do not deserve our protection. Fine words, but can he cite concrete examples? How many sub-Saharan economic migrants have been deported for entering our country illegally? How many of those charged with an offence have been repatriated?

Commenting on a fixed quota, the minister cynically asks whether Azzjoni Nazzjonali would let people in distress die when the quota is exceeded. Far from it – we would feed them and clothe them, provide them with a temporary visa and send them on to another destiny of their choice within the month. That way, our European partners who are quick to condemn us get the chance to practise what they preach.

His attitude towards a fixed quota begs another question. The rate of arrivals of irregular migrants is already half that of our birth rate. Where does he believe will our responsibility stop? When it exceeds it? When we are overrun?

His first “moral and legal” obligation is to defend the citizens of his own country. It is disturbing that of all people, the Interior Minister cannot comprehend this fundamental duty of the government.

Finally, in his comments, the minister states “there is no part of our national territory which is a no-go area for the forces of law and order.” Perhaps, but are law and order actually being enforced? And what about for the rest of us? The public has a different perception of the state of affairs.

It is crystal clear that the three other political parties are not willing to tackle irregular migration.

They are falsely telling us there’s nothing we can do about it and we might as well resign ourselves to fate. Switzerland and Australia, to name but two, have demonstrated otherwise.

It is only Azzjoni Nazzjonali that believes and has the resolve to seriously address this “silent invasion” and it is up to the public to ensure it won’t be too late.

Dr Josie Muscat

Party leader,

Azzjoni Nazzjonali