The minister for justice and home affairs Carmelo Mifsud Bonnici presented the second reading of the amendment to the immigration law to introduce a mutual recognition of decisions on the expulsion of third country nationals, in parliament yesterday.

Although the amendment does not cater for the aspect of illegal immigration, the discussion often shifted on the topic by both the government and the opposition.

The amendment is applicable for individuals coming to our country legally but remain here unauthorised after their visa or travelling documents expire.

After the council of the European Union took in consideration the treaty establishing the European Community, the initiative of the French Republic and the opinion of the European Parliament, it adopted this directive.

Common EU policies on immigration stem from the decision to remove internal borders such as the Schengen agreement.

In his discussion, the Minister said the original text of the law includes a number of statements that recognise expulsion orders of persons who are not EU citizens or illegal immigrants.

The amendment should bring the local immigration law in conformity with the immigration laws of the other EU member states.

The law stipulates that when a member state issues an expulsion order, another country need not judge the person again. The expulsion order would apply to all member states.

This does not imply that each country has to expel a person automatically. The individual would be given the opportunity to apply for a refugee status

Each member state must ensure that the EU convention for human rights as well as the Geneva Convention of1951 are respected throughout.

The minister insisted that the common immigration law is not a carte blanche to send-off anyone without offering reasonable protection.

The need for conformity and uniformity in this sector was felt across Europe. Cooperation between member states should ensure such conformity and recognise one country’s decisions in the other EU states.

The minister pointed out that although in reality the draft amends only one article, it is one of high importance. He also mentioned that it does not answer questions about current illegal immigration difficulties encountered by our country but those remaining in Malta without the necessary travel documentation beyond expired visa dates are to be sent off to their country of origin.

This amendment would not apply to EU citizens. They will remain free to travel from one member state to another.

EU countries have the right to demand the sentence application of another EU member state when an expulsion presents a threat to national safety. They can also appeal if there is proof of national security threats or delinquency. Any member state has the right to protect his public order and national security.

The law was scrutinised before Malta became a member state and Maltese laws on immigration had to be in conformity with EU legislation.

The minister added that one of the problems faced by Malta is that many immigrants enter the EU without passports or other travelling docs. This deters the EU states from executing an expulsion, as the country of origin does not accept the persons unless they prove they are truly from that country.

In Malta the immigration office administered by the police commissioner which has administrative and executive authority will be required to force the new regulations.

“The authority of each state depends on the respective state. Our country has a good track record in this direction. We adhered to good practices over the years and we intend to continue doing so,” said the Dr Mifsud Bonnici.

In his rebutting, labour spokesperson on internal affairs and security also highlighted that the amendment does not talk about illegal immigration. Nevertheless he still made a comment about the issue. He said that he would have preferred if the discussion was on illegal immigration especially since it seems that the government made a u-turn and the prime minister and his party are considering that burden sharing is a joke. He continued that the asylum pact became more like a farce than serious action.