Asylum seekers are not smuggled goods

Calling asylum seekers ‘illegal immigrants’ puts these human beings in the same category as smuggled goods or illegal substances

James Debono 30 September 2013, 12:00am

3 min read

Prime Minister Joseph Muscat has sent a conflicting message to two different audiences

The incorrect and misleading term "illegal immigration" was used in two successive official press releases issued by the Office of the Prime Minister, the latest on Friday incorrectly referring to asylum seekers from Somalia as "illegal migrants."

The official government statement referred to a meeting with Somali Prime Minister Fawzia Yusuf Adam in which Somalia is described as the country from which "the largest number of illegal immigrants hail."

The meeting was described as "a step to reduce illegal immigration" on the front page of Labour's official weekly Kulhadd on Sunday.

The term is incorrect, because migrants hailing from Somalia are in their vast majority asylum seekers, who according to international law qualify for international protection. Therefore these persons are not committing any illegality according to international law.

Moreover most of these persons are rescued on the high seas and are therefore brought in to Malta.

What is illegal is the trafficking of these persons by organized crime, not their entry in Malta.

Over the past years the mainstream media, including One TV which referred to these people as "irregular migrants", has not used the term "illegal immigration". This is not a case of political correctness but one of providing correct information to the public.

It took years of painstaking awareness by NGOs to stop the use of incorrect terminology, which only serves to reinforce prejudice. Now it seems that this trend is being reversed in official statements.

This was even more bewildering considering that the Prime Minister himself has referred to the humanitarian tragedy facing migrants arriving to our shores in his speech addressed to the United Nations' general assembly.

In his eloquent speech Muscat correctly referred to "irregular migrants" and not "illegal immigrants".

Once again, it seems that the government is sending conflicting messages to different audiences on a sensitive issue where official discourse has a key role in the deligitimisation or legitimisation process of prejudice, thus contributing to the construction of popular common sense.

Lets not forget that the term "invasion" was grounded in a series of declarations by exponents of Nationalist-led governments like present EU commissioner Tonio Borg and former junior minister Tony Abela, both of which repeatedly used the term illegal immigration. It was only after 2008 that these terms started to disappear from official discourse.

By using the term "illegal immigration", the State is failing to live up to the tradition of European social democracy and instead doing nothing more than mimic the terminology employed by the far right.

Apart from that, the government appears ignorant to the fact that one of the greatest obstacles to any attempt towards social inclusion is the perception that migrants are "illegal." This puts these human beings in the same category as smuggled goods or illegal substances. For how can one accept integration with people whose illegality inevitably turns them into a danger to society?

The present government has already given official legitimacy to the far right's favourite policy: the "pushback" of asylum seekers. This policy was legitimised following an attempt to send back a group of asylum seekers to Libya which was only stopped following the intervention of the European Court of Human Rights. Although the migrants were never sent back, the government sent a clear message that pushbacks can be an acceptable policy.

The message sent by the latest press statements is that referring to asylum seekers as illegals is acceptable, and that immigrants belong to the same category as smuggled cigarettes or cocaine.

James Debono is MaltaToday's chief reporter on environment, planning and land use issues, ...

More from James Debono

•

James debono il posts li ma jogbux jahtahom barra, tiegha wahda minnom. grazzi.

•

Obviously James Debono's opinions are hardly similar to those of social democrats. Frankly they remind me of European Communist Party opinions i.e less than 10% of voters. This does not mean that they are to be condemned or must not be expressed in a tolerant democracy but they are absolutely wrong. Mr Debono does not seem to know what entering a country illegally means. I do not suppose that he has done a basic course in introductory law? "Illegal" depends on fact NOT opinion! I wish I could define legal terms according to my opinions! I thought everyone knew that. One must distinguish between established legality and kindergarten wishful thinking about law. Now let's grow up, dear James. Tut tut!

•

One wonders how many other comments were witheld on this opinion. It's a true reflection of how you do not practice what you preach. While you write against discrimination towards illegal immigrants you discriminate against Malta Today readers who do not share your views. That is a true measure of a relevant journalist.

•

What's in a name James? The Somali Prim Minister himself said that many of those claiming to be Somalis are in reality not Somalis at all belong to other nationalities. Please don't talk about what social democrats should, or should not do; you are not one of us are you? Perhaps we should abandon our own poor-17% of our population- to embark upon a 'cool' crusade helping not our next door neighbor, but others. Of course whom we shall help will be dictated by you or by NGOs paid from our taxes? Why should the local poor carry the weight of globilisation James? Up to now neither the middle classes, nor the workers, or those on precarious jobs have benefited from this 'globilisation': only international capital has benefited cause this has no religion, no skin colour, no country, no culture except that of creed and money. Of course we should help the international poor- but not at the expense of the local poor. Indeed I can't understand the hypocrisy of those who call others racists, but then speak maliciously of the Asians and the Chinese in particular. Even worse these same Nationalist people who practice apartheid vis a vis the labourites, call other 'racist'! Unbelievable but true!

•

No to illegal immigrants, call them what you like james, any body weather he is black, blue, red, white, yellow or any other colour or nationality,coming on a boat, plane,ship or any means of transport without any documents he or she is an ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT, and they should be sent back with out any questions asked.James you are barking at the wrong door, have a break.

•

James have a look at the dictionary and find out what irregular means: uneven, unequal, asymmetrical, unbalanced, lopsided, rough, crooked and jagged. This distorts all your comment. Yes James illegal immigration is the right word. So according to you to sum up your wording, anyone coming here without any legal documents , that would be irregular? Right? which means uneven, unequal, asymmetrical, unbalanced, lopsided, rough and jagged. Trying hard even to convince the simple minded people that Dr. Muscat speech at the U.N. conference including the wording was wrong.

•

iva Sur Debono DAWK emigranti illegali, iprova mhur go pajjizzhom BLA passaport u BLA ras tispicca!!

•

Whether you liek it or not James, they are ILLEGAL and yes, they are SMUGGLED because they don't come through the legal channels with all their papers in order like decent people.

•

The term illegal immigration is used quite frequently by governments around the world without any intention of lessening the predicament of authentic asylum seekers. Together with terms such as: Irregular, clandestine, undocumented, border incursions, etc.. Illegal immigration simply means not reporting to a duly authorized official post of entry before entering a country. Asylum is granted after what should be an exhaustive investigation and not simply because someone says he is being persecuted. Your latching on to a widely used terminology to try to insinuate that the PL government is somehow insensitive to the plight of genuine asylum seekers is distasteful and suspect. All the present government is requesting is that Malta be relieved of some of the onerous burden it has been made, unfairly, to bear. Your wrath should be directed at Malta's EU "partners" who are quite happy with the status quo while pontificating otherwise. If the previous administration had acted convincingly to remedy this unsustainable position we would not be in this present inherited mess. Simon B quoted that, "Ten years of talks had been put in jeopardy!" SB's comments, in a nutshell, describe the onset of the problem, i.e. talk but no action. Would you prefer another 10 years of "consultations" while the problem continues to fester?

•

Sometimes one sits down to read the only worthwhile English newspaper in Malta and frustration begins to set in, because the comments by the journalist towards his readers are absolute banality. Truthfully James, one must question the substance between your lines because it is becoming quite clear that your rebuttal to the government’s use of language to explain the problem of irregular or illegal immigrants seeking shelter in Malta towards immigration to the European Union must be taken with a pinch of salt. Hereby is one of your own quotes on this issue. “What is illegal is the trafficking of these persons by organized crime, not their entry in Malta.” You have acknowledged that these immigrants travel to Malta’s territorial waters through the illegal trafficking of organized criminals who simple take their money and drop them off at Malta’s doorstep. You cannot deny that these immigrants are well aware of the illegal plan and are willingly paying good money to fulfill their immigration course to countries that do not want them. It is also acknowledged that most of these people travel without personal identity and the suspicious level is raised even higher as to their intent in relocating to another country. It seems absurd that by trying to make a case for accepting irregular immigrants as you call them you are endorsing the illegal trafficking by organized criminals of persons without identity who has paid to try and smuggle themselves illegally into an island that cannot afford the consequences. One must not forget that illegal immigrants become irregular immigrants only when Maltese patrol boats intercept them and bring them ashore.

•

James Debono said "Migrants hailing from Somalia are in their vast majority asylum seekers". Now Sharif Ahmed known as Makaburi declared that " we shall all die" and will be targeting western interests and people. He recruits members for Al-Shabab, a Somali terrorist organisation. So James are we to believe that all Somali arrivals are genuine asylum seekers or maybe we are facilitating the infiltration of terrorists to our island and possibly to the rest of the western world. Some of these immigrants end up relocated somewhere and even to the USA. Do not forget that terrorists only have to get lucky once to cause mayhem. I think we should refuse asylum to Somalis for security reasons on the grounds that they could could be terrorists.