From Mr A. Spiteri

I read with interest Simon Busuttil’s draft report on a Common Integration Policy for Europe. First of all I must stress that his “burden sharing” idea is anti-phase to my beliefs. It simply fulfils the venture of so many Africans seeking entry to mainland Europe. Malta would become the African gateway to Europe should “burden sharing” be applauded. It’s up to the reader to ponder on whether such an idea counters or promotes illegal immigration!

The common integration policy article caters for economy but fails to protect our race and culture. Mr Busuttil recognises the fact that something has to be done as quickly as possible to counter illegal immigration. To start with, it is evident that the general public is not only worried but fed up, partly due to the problem itself and due to the lack of governance as well. I for one shift the whole weight on the government because it’s due to its reticence and inaction that we find ourselves in such a situation. Even if we are part of the European bloc we have to devise ways to safeguard our island first rather than wait for the EU to come to the rescue. Politicians should reflect the will of the citizens. Mr Busuttil had already voted in favour of Turkey’s admission to the EU. Did this vote reflect the will of the Maltese majority?

Point 11 – Stressing the need of integration. This paragraph recognizes the fact that integration is more difficult to achieve in countries facing significant migratory pressures. It fails to list the reasons why this is so. However, it is a known fact that the party in administration had listed in its manifesto the need of anti-discrimination laws. No minister had mentioned this in his electoral campaign. Anti-discrimination is a judicial tool aimed to silence people and abolish racialism, which nowadays is taken to mean racism in most dictionaries. It does not; simply because in a world worried about the extinction of an insect, it is no offence that one loves his race and wills to protect it. This is racialism. Racism is the expression of hate towards other races. Loving your own doesn’t mean hating the others. If the Maltese majority is against integrating with African illegals that come from different tribes and cultures (and carrying a multitude of maladies too), then anti-discrimination is a way of forcing integration down their throats. Down the throats of the same voters that elected the current politicians! The report fails to list the repercussions that illegal immigration poses and moreover stresses the need of tolerance and equality. Europe’s leaders are rendering the laws so welcoming whereas our peoples are treated differently whenever they set foot in most of the African nations. Respect should be reciprocal. If integration is a problem, the worst thing a politician can do is force it!

Points 17 & 18 – Human tragedy and Frontex. So far Frontex has failed miserably to halt the influx of illegal immigrants. I contacted Frontex three years ago asking what policies it applies whenever illegal entrants are intercepted. The reply was very plain: it all depends on the country’s policies. The report fails to list the truth and portrays the illegal immigrants as victims. It is a known fact that whomever ventures to cross the channel knows beforehand what risks such journey entails. Human trafficking or not, Europe shouldn’t play the Saviour and welcome illegals. We cannot worry about those who threaten us by their own skin. They can move to other African nations that offer shelter and protection. Why choose mainland Europe? Economy.

Kurt Guillaumier, then mayor of San Gwann, had proposed on a local programme three years ago that it would be much cheaper to set up a ferry service from Malta to Libya rather than fund Frontex whose role is to relay illegal immigrants. Apart from being much cheaper it would be much safer for the Africans too. The day after, an official from his own party stated that this behaviour was “unacceptable” (MaltaToday, 11 June 2006). Mr Guillaumier had been forced to submit a document stating he was not xenophobic. Why was this necessary?

Burden sharing is listed in point 30. Mr Busuttil again stresses the need of such a mechanism. He intends pushing this wretched idea forward even though it would amplify our problem. When the millions of Africans who are seeking entry to mainland Europe learn that we are a gateway to Europe, they would definitely come in their thousands.

Few paragraphs later, Mr Busuttil goes on stating that immigration is one of the foremost challenges Europe is facing. If he comprehends this, how come he’s so convinced that burden sharing works? We cannot afford experiments for we “risk being overtaken by events” as he went to say. To add insult to injury he quotes that “when migrants land in our country, they tend to move to other areas of the Union”. This supports my argument: “Malta will become a gateway to Europe”!

The most ridiculous part, and the one which proves Mr Guillaumier right, is found under “Prosperity and Immigration”. “Unless Europe wants to become a fortress continent which lives in denial of its obvious attraction to immigration from third countries, a common integration policy must necessarily include rules on legal entry to Europe. Indeed, a legal route to Europe means that the scope and incentive for illegal routes is greatly reduced”. One need not be an expert to understand that if legal entry is relaxed the number of illegal immigrants will decrease. Illegal entry becomes legal. Based on such a view, it would be cheaper to set up a ferry service.

Why is Mr Busuttil thinking that Europe should attract immigration from third countries – in fact ending the report stating that “regional offices should be established in certain third countries to provide practical assistance in the area”?

I quote another piece from section 1.2 (Integration). It reads: “For immigrants who enter in a legal manner and who can stay on a long-term basis, integration should be supported because it is beneficial both for the migrants as well as for the host society”. I believe the reader is able to assess how beneficial for the hosts integration proved to be in Britain and France to name two. London is a case study. Spotting a Brit in London has become as difficult as glimpsing a shooting star. Cosmopolitanism corrupted it. Let alone immigrants preaching hate against the hosts (a known fact). With France it’s enough to watch a national football game to understand how they were affected.

However, contrary to what most foreigners claim, Mr Busuttil still believes integration is beneficial to all! As illegals hold violent protests, as the country is handed over and pressure mounts, officials from both main parties vow to continue their game of sympathy. The coming months will prove a challenge as we’ll be holding MEP elections in June. Everything indicates that illegal immigration would mark new records by then. The Maltese voter would have the opportunity to decide whom to trust for the next four-year term. One of the candidates will be Mr Busuttil, who will go on with his ‘burden sharing’ ideology; the philosophy of sharing the burden rather than eliminating it. It is a fact that a tiny number of illegals are facing hell back home. However, Europe’s politicians should not portray the small continent as a Saviour, turning to the taxpayer in the middle of a recession and budget our own money for “burden sharing” and in doing so subsidising annihilation.

Adriano Spiteri

BIRKIRKARA