Your editorial of 22 March dealt with the crisis of illegal immigration exclusively from the point of view of some NGOs and is completely lacking in balance. Let me make four points.

First, I do not agree with “Malta’s very credibility on the global stage is at risk”. In his article “Immigrants, statistics and policies” in The Times of 18 March 2009), Prof. Henry Frendo, chairman of the Refugee Appeals Board, put it in a nutshell when he referred to “unfair and downright incorrect allegations and accusations by international bodies, often fed through local sources”.

The local NGO community feeds one-sided information to international bodies and then trumpets it back to Malta as if “the whole world” is scandalised by Malta’s treatment of detainees in detention centres. The fact is that all European countries resort to undesirable measures to discourage illegal immigration.

The Guardian of 21 March (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-calais-lsquoguantana morsquo-1650592.html) reported that Britain and France are discussing the creation of a new immigrant holding centre within the Calais docks that would be “inside Britain” under immigration law and allow cross-Channel asylum-seekers to be sent back to their home countries easily on charter flights. Britain’s immigration minister Phil Woolas said: “We want to increase the profile of the deportations because we have to get the message back to Afghanistan and Iraq that Britain is not the Promised Land”. If Britain is not the Promised Land, neither is Malta. And if Britain’s and France’s credibility on the global stage is not at risk, neither is Malta’s.

Second, it is not the case that Maltese public opinion on illegal immigration is “fuelled by a handful of misguided individuals”. There are now enough illegal immigrants in Malta for people to form their own opinions without the guidance of would-be gurus. Public opinion is formed by what people see on buses, in the streets and on television and the day-to-day experiences of countless individuals in their place of work, while shopping and during their daily activities. I follow several phone-in radio programmes and the deep and cogent reasoning of anonymous listeners who express very sound and down-to-earth arguments always impresses me.

Third, you invite us to take a “look at the country’s humanitarian obligations towards its migrant population”. When the phenomenon started we were told the arrivals were refugees and heard many a sob story about war-torn countries and civil wars. So now we are told it is a “migrant population” to whom we also have humanitarian obligations regardless of whether we invited these immigrants or whether we want them or need them.

Lastly, you mention the “findings by Médecins sans Frontières”. It was obvious to whoever has an ounce of common sense that MSF was on a political mission. They wanted Malta to drop its detention policy. When they failed, they withdrew before fulfilling their commitment and staged a publicised press conference on the eve of a visit of an EU Commissioner to maximise the damage to the government. Knowing the unfortunate diseases with which Africa is afflicted, it is hard for a person of average intelligence to believe that the detention centres are responsible for the state of health of the detained illegal immigrants.

Unfortunately, your editorial did not admit the simple truth that the vast majority of the common and unsophisticated (but thinking) people of this country feel that illegal immigration has now reached an intolerable level.

Louise Vella