Tag: immigration

Categories
Citizenship Immigration Mediawatch Politics

Human Value

human_value_akkuza

The Authorities (capital A) have decided that the status known as Temporary Humanitarian Protection N(ew) – THPn in short – will no longer be renewed for what seems to be hundreds of migrants living in Malta. You may have seen stories in the press by now about Malta-born kids to Eritrean families who face imminent deportation thanks to such a decision. It does not matter whether these families are gainfully occupied, whether they are fully-paid up on their taxes and whether they have somehow integrated into our way of living – none of the above matters – they will not have their THPn renewed and this will mean their being sent back wherever they came from (if possible).

Prime Minister Muscat is quoted as having said that “We would have no credibility with the EU if, after we have been insisting so much on the country not being able to take in immigrants, we fail to repatriate immigrants who have been found to be here illegally.” It’s a matter of credibility then. There is already a bit of a fallacy there since the issue of legality had been dealt with pretty superbly under national sovereign law with the creation of this TPHn system – it is now, and only now, that the labour government has decided to change this state of affairs in line of the winds of change propelling the likes of Trump to the seat of power. Also, after all, the nation holding the rotating presidency of the EU must lead by example no?

There is a deeper issue at play here though. This is not your normal immigrant/refugee situation that falls under the black and white category of whether a nation is willing to take on the “burden” of life saving. The deeper issue is the value that we attach to humans – the human value – in our political field. If these were just souls wandering in on a dinghy and waiting the cynical sorting that goes on in such situations it would be a “simple” immigration issue. Instead we have discovered that these carriers of THPn permits might run into the hundreds (a very conservative estimate would be around 600). Most of them have settled in one way or another and are earning their bread in gainful employment

Suddenly the mass deportation of a substantial figure of Malta’s working population has direct consequences on the economic market. The more cynical among us might not have batted an eyelid when it came to deporting individuals straight off their dinghies of death. Instead we saw genuine concern by employers of these people who are set to live in a short limbo of uncertainty that will culminate in a loss of employees. This is not some trumped up figure of record unemployment thanks to an incucio between the GWU and government magicking thousands off the record books. These are real employments that risk being wiped off the fragile Maltese markets – and funnily enough it might finally give Maltese society as a whole a reason to care.

This news comes at a time when the Nationalist Party is trying hard to attract what we used to call SME’s to the fold with new taxation incentives – for those who behave a 10% tax. Numbers and money all seem nice as the PN and the PL vie for the title of champion of the  businessman. With the party in government selling off anything they can get their hands on, the PN opted to champion the middle ground in business terms and good for it.

What happens now though when the two parties notice that this move of cutting out completely the holders of the THPn will end up with a huge gap in the employment market that will not and cannot be easily replaced? Will we finally see some value in the humans that they are because they can be quantified as real contributors to the economy? Will we be cynical enough to take a step back (in the case of government) or champion their cause (in the case of the opposition)? Or are the winds of Le Pen, Trump and Geert Wilders too strong for comfort?

« Considerate se questo è un uomo
Che lavora nel fango
Che non conosce pace
Che lotta per mezzo pane
Che muore per un sì o per un no. »

– P.  Levi

Categories
Mediawatch

No Peace for Nice

peacenice

With the end of EURO 2016, Nice and its inhabitants must have thought that they had closed their account with violence. The football tournament had been the scene of some violent moments when “supporters” hailing from different nations wreaked havoc on many of the host towns in France. Nice was one of them. When the violence among fans erupts we tend to hear two arguments. Firstly there are those who claim that these are not “real fans”, that they are only on site in search of violence and ways to display their pent up anger. Secondly the reaction this time round was to threaten deportation. Some of the fans arrested after violent nights were in fact returned to their country of origin.

Last night, during the 14th July celebrations on the Nice Promenade, an individual who has now been identified as a French-Tunisian ploughed into the huge crowd watching the event with a van and ended his mad drive by firing shots into the crowd before being put down by policemen. President Hollande stated that this attack had a “terrorist character” that cannot be denied and that we need to do “everything we can to fight against terrorism’. Once again a Western nation squares up against an invisible enemy…. a chimera. The reaction to such events is still a siege mentality of us vs them – as though there is an invisible army among us ready to strike again and against whom measures have to be taken.

It is now almost 15 years since the brutal attacks on the Twin Towers in the US and it seems that we have not moved much further forward. The war on the ground in Syria, Afghanistan and other parts of the Middle East gives us the illusion that a battle is being won or lost. Daesh gives an ephemeral shape and face to “the enemy” whenever one is needed but soon fades in a cloud of confusing and contradictory information peppered with amateur youtube videos of beheadings and crucifixions far from the “civilised West” that is under attack.

Reactions closer to home are very much like those we witness in the football violence month. An attempt to define “them” (the real fans vs the fake fans) ends up in the simplification of the all encompassing term “terrorist”. Those who sow terror. The knee-jerk reaction fuelled by ignorance is to assemble an identikit based on the cliches – islam, immigrants, arabic…. – and ask that all of these get thrown out. Donald Trump? A hero. Give us more walls. Suddenly the Brexit vote does not look so dumb. Just as in the football months , just as every time a mad idea to “purify” society seems to be taking over the idea of “deportation” begins to gain in popularity. But will it work?

If, as the reports are claiming, this was a French-Tunisian, then blaming the EU and its policy on immigration has little or nothing to do with the events.  Tunisia was a French colony until the mid-fifties. Persons of Tunisian, Algerian, and Moroccan origin coloured the French landscape adding a touch of diversity  long before the sudden awareness on “immigrants” was given a new tinge of alarm by a disgruntled part of the population. Thousands of persons of Maltese and Italian descent pepper the coast of France as they do the north coast of Africa – relics from a time when the concept of free movement across the Mediterranean was much more fluid and economic based than it is today.

The truth seems to lie more in the fact that the perpetrators of recent events labelled as “terrorist” are more likely to be angry misfits in society. We used to call them criminals. They perpetrate violence on large number of people while hanging on to the excuse of “martyrdom” or “vindication” but we should not be side-tracked by the mask that they choose to show when committing the crime. Normal society, acting calmly and rationally, has laws for criminals and sends them to prison. Criminals are not deported, they are punished for their crimes.

The 2000s have been a fertile ground in the Western World for the creation of angry generations of individuals. I have already spoken about this not so long ago (Killing in the name of – June 16th):

The truth is that it is all of society that is threatened – as it always has been – by the existence of misfits and grudge-bearers who would do more than write a letter to the editor complaining about how society’s mores have gone to the dumps. Intent and motive is beside the point if not only to understand how much pent up anger exists or needs to exist in an individual before he resorts to violence. The Orlando and Paris killers may have pinned their banner to ISIS and some contorted view of a religion but the fact remains that their twisted acts are the result of violent social misfits.

It is not even their creed or origin that should be under focus but the reasons why they failed to fit so badly in the societies in which they were brought up. Badly enough to pick up a gun or dagger and kill fellow human beings. Badly enough to not care.

I came across a chat this morning where one of the people (an Australian based individual) was advocating deportation and exit from the EU for France because of the EU’s “immigration policy”. The implication is always the same. The problem is immigration and immigrants. Is it really? Not too far back in time Sarkozy’s government faced huge riots in French suburbia. We read about battles between the police and suburban angry youth burning cars and rioting in the streets outside and around Paris. Was this Islam or immigrant inspired? No it was not.

Western democracies are having to face a bigger problem than terrorism. The bigger problem is the huge number of individuals who no longer feel safe or happy in our society. Economically downtrodden, socially marginalised and with no hope these are the fertile grounds for explosions of anger and acts of desperation. From Orlando to Nice the resorting to angry deeds becomes almost a natural consequence.

Society needs to notice that creating a convenient label such as terrorist or immigrant does not take the monster away. It also needs to be told fast that Trump-like solutions or Farage-like fear mongering are not on the table. Isolation gets nobody nowhere. Rather than concentrating on demonstrations of strength the problem should be tackled at the roots – ironically projects such as the EU intended for economic and social betterment of the peoples of Europe are being hijacked by fearmongerers and the jackals of war.

Listening to Farage, Trump and the like will not solve anything. It will only exacerbate the very problems that we need to be solving.

 

Categories
Mediawatch

Europe, Gender, Demographics & Shakespeare

gender_akkuza

Sex. There’s much talking about sex these days. For starters the immigration agenda has taken a bizarre sexual twist ever since the New Year’s Eve events in Cologne when males of an Arab/Middle Easten complexion assaulted a large number of women taking advantage of the cover afforded by the holiday celebration confusion. As if the immigration issue were not a problem on its own, the further twist in the tale has meant that new warning signs have been flagged as to the huge gender imbalance when it comes to the influx of refugees to Europe.

Most refugees, about one in four, are male and the prediction doing the rounds is that this will cause a huge demographic shift in Europe with an even worse male to female ratio than already exists. We were used to hearing how the new wave of immigrants were beneficial for the economy in the long run, how they would plug the holes caused by the low birth rate in Europe and how they could be part of a long-term solution to solve the pension time-bomb. The worry now is that there are too many men among them. The danger in this sense is sociological since it turns out that social scientists have long been telling us that violence is linked not to poverty or religion but to the failure to provide a critical mass of young men with something constructive to do.

Which is ironic really since Europe with its crisis-driven unemployment rate had already a large mass of bored young men who could have been easily attracted to violence. Little wonder really that the perpetrators of the Paris attacks were homegrown Europeans and not refugees from the latest Syrian conflicts. The warnings do not stop there. Skewed sex ratios in immigration flux means not only new dangerous masses in Europe but also the neutering of the countries of origin. Those left behind will never be able to recover and reconstruct. The Single Male Refugee risks becoming a new problem.

Funny then that the new director (Emma Rice, the first female artistic director) of the Globe theatre – the spiritual home of Shakespearean drama – has chosen her debut season to skewer the figures of acting on stage. She believes that more females should take up the male roles in theatre and has set a 50/50 numerus clausus for performances. It is not only Lady Macbeth who will be calling to be “unsexed” in the future – this banal effort at ultra-feminism threatens the foundations of Shakespearean drama but is set to mirror the absurd results we are now used to seeing when it comes to promoting feminist extremes.

It is dangerous to define the issue of immigration on the basis of gender. A refugee’s nature should not be determined by gender but by nature of his or her plight. While the perils of massing large numbers of unemployed men in Europe are understandable the solution should lie beyond a banalisation of some kind of gender driven numerus clausus. All the world may be a stage, but emulating the Globe’s new artistic director’s trends would be quite a comedy of errors.

Categories
Mediawatch

The truth, if he lies

turhtjospeh_akkuza

La vérité, si je mens (The truth if I lie). We’ve carried that movie motto on this blog as from the start back in 2005.  I was reminded of this motto when I read Dr Muscat’s interview on the Times today. It’s the truth, if I lie – it’s a nonsensical phrase actually that can be substituted by “I promise” or as we were used to hearing on the streets of Malta when we were young “Promise to Jesus”. Whatever your choice of phrase is, Muscat’s assertion really needed this kind of appendage at the end. Here’s what he was reported to have said:

“As for the dwindling number of arrivals to Malta, Dr Muscat denied suggestions made by his predecessor, Lawrence Gonzi, that this was the result of some form of agreement with Italy, insisting this was only due to better collaboration with the neighbouring country.”

We can safely assume that Muscat was already squirming uncomfortably at this point since he had already had to pull out an enormous amount of somersault arguments to deal with the Michael Falzon hot potato. I’m sure in the back of his mind he was blaming the failure of Saviour Balzan and his name dropping stunt to distract attention from the myriad scandals that the Labour government is brooding upon.

But back to his statement. Muscat gave us a clear example of his Magritte Policy – the “what you see is not what you get” statement. In the very same sentence he tells us that there is no form of agreement with Italy but that ther is better collaboration with the neighbouring country. Come again? In what universe of CHOGM flop organising and nation paralysing nincompoops with a degree in management and economics is an agreement not a form of collaboration?

We are not talking about two friends meeting in a pjazza and deciding who will pay for the pastizzi and coffee at is-Serkin. Nor is this a “gentlemen’s agreement” to rent a flat that will only be put to paper should circumstances require and should pressure be too much. No. These are two sovereign nations dealing with each other at diplomatic level and reaching agreements that has repercussions on the operation of their administrative and military forces. Orders will be given as a result. Priorities will be set in an IF/THEN format such as: If migrants are rescued at sea THEN do not take them to Malta BUT proceed to ITALY no matter where they are found.

That sort of thing requires formulation, confirmation and agreement in the form of positive action usually in the form of signatories scribbling their names on very formal paper. More importantly, an agreement normally involves obligations on both sides. Now we can all see for ourselves that Italy is taking on the bulk of migrants (erm ALL recently found migrants) – Muscat himself has never denied this and we have questions being asked in Italy and the EP about it too. So we know what Italy’s side of the obligation consists of. What then is Malta giving back?

Muscat wants you and the kool-aid drinkers to believe strongly that this is the result of “better collaboration with the neighbouring country“. If this vague meaningless phrase can be put quickly in succession after a denial of anything the dastardly Gonzi said then it will add muchly to its level of credibility. What Muscat does not and will not answer is what Italy are getting in return.

Maybe Dr Gonzi is right, maybe he is wrong. That is not the point. The point is that Muscat will only say the truth if he lies. He will not tell you what he promised Renzi and Italy because, as we know by now, he is above accountability.

And for the next two weeks he will be more than that. He will be busy having tea with what he sees as the selfie-imposing VIP while you are confined to your house and (if you are a businessman) losing money due to the national paralyis that is needed by the party that couldn’t be trusted to organise a piss-up in a brewery.

The truth, if I lie.

 

Categories
Immigration

The Statesman of the Dead

deadman_akkuza

 

They’re not gone. The boats full of hopefuls attempting the dangerous crossing are still there. We might have shifted our media attention to the new parliament but wave upon wave is still being intercepted – only yesterday a couple of hundred persons were to be distributed between Sicily and Puglia.

The problem remains notwithstanding the incredible show of caring and compassion that was put up by Europe’s leadership in the wake of  the 800 dead. I use my words carefully. It is Europe’s leadership and not the EU that is guilty of the dragging of feet and of an overall reluctance to deal head-on with the issue. Juncker tried hard to push the leaders into doing more but in the end the EU remains the sum of many parts and without the real determination of those parts to look the issue of immigration in the face we will not move on.

They’re not gone. We have managed simply to focus on one part of the problem that had hitherto not got the attention it deserved. European leaders chose to focus on the people smugglers. They are base beings who profit on other people’s misery. It is the 21st century form of slavery in many ways. The only difference is that the price paid is by the very people who are being trafficked and not by a European buyer. The Europeans stand aloof disgusted at the large numbers and threats to their integrity – rushing to the latest wagon prepared to brandish populist ideals.

Smuggling is part of the problem.  One German scientist observed that a flight to Europe from central and Saharan Africa costs less than the trips of death. Why don’t more immigrants use that route then? Simple really. Through legislation the European states have made sure that airlines are burdened with the “processing” of individuals before they even set foot on the departure gate. No visa, no flight – so forget processing for refugee status unless you are prepared to submit to the ordeal of trial by Mediterranean Crossing. In other words we (the Europeans States) force the immigrants into that route.

Processing centres in Africa? Just look at Spain’s underhand collaboration with Morocco in the case of Ceuta and Melilla.  Seriously? Meanwhile much of Europe mourns Italy’s abandoning of it’s earlier programs. They had begun to serve as a buffer zone. Renzi managed to make some noise thanks to the 800 dead and Joseph Muscat was quick to join the dance.

You had to be stupid not to realise that there is some sort of arrangement going on between the two. Muscat has arranged to “deal” with the dead while Renzi would transform Italy’s south into a showcase of the impossible nature of dealing with such a huge wave of arrivals. Muscat put up a show with the ignoble grandstanding surrounding the burying of the souls of the unidentified. Ah yes, unidentified. It really turned out that the bodies were only useful for the show for the media. When relatives turned up in the hope of identifying the dead they were refused access to the body. Human? Who are you kidding Joseph Muscat?

Some corners of the press were quick to hail Muscat’s roundabout turn in policy – from pushback to statesman they said. I don’t see how this latest cynical move qualifies as statesmanship. A hundred years from the Gallipoli campaign when Malta proudly stood up as the Nurse of the Mediterranean all Muscat has managed to do is transform our island into a supersized Charon, the ferryman of Hades.

One can only wonder what coin was placed in the mouths of the dead in order to appease our modern day Charon.

Categories
Immigration

Panacea Mediterranea

panacea_akkuza

The power seems to be in the numbers. If it’s birds then we’re asking how many must be illegally shot before it becomes blatantly obvious that the season must close. If it’s votes then we’re interpreting results as best suits our party of choice – and it seems that everybody can be happy in their own way. If it’s migration then we must sadly count the dead. Yes, the power lies in and among the number of dead because the political situation is such that unless many die (and preferably in as tragic manner as possible) nobody will give a damn.

So a tragedy involving close to 900 souls just about made it to push the issue of migratory flows onto the EU agenda. The Council of Ministers (Foreign Affairs) is having an extraordinary meeting in Luxembourg as I type. We have reached the point (again, may I add) when (as a Union) realise that there is a huge problem at our doorstep. It is impossible for the nordic nations to continue to turn their noses away from the stench of floating dead (I would apologise for the graphic nature of the description but then again there is a bit of anger built up and words are my only weapon).

We must understand though that there is no Panacea Mediterranea. What we see is actually a symptom of problems that originate elsewhere. The sub-Saharan belt will continue be the source of migrants in search of a land that treats them better, that will provide them a sense of decent belonging and dignity. The story of Moses and the errant Israelites of biblical fame continues to repeat itself century after century with huge masses of humans being displaced from areas of uncertainty either because of natural disasters or human cruelty.

The migration flow will, like water, seek the easiest passage to flow through, and right now the easiest exit point is the chaos that is Libya. So long as the Maghreb nations are in chaos they will prove to be the choice transit point for these peoples who have been so reduced to desperation that even risking their lives to Triton the god of the sea becomes a no-brainer.

Politically and diplomatically an entity such as the EU has two different spheres that it needs to influence and assist. First should be the source of the migratory flows – the war and famine torn dark belly of Africa – and secondly the transit nations that are currently submerged in chaos. Heaven (and more practically Earth) forbid that Daesh take further control of these exit points because they will exacerbate the religious tension thrown into the equation (and fools are those who will fall for the trap deeming Muslim migrants as some form of Satanic reincarnation).

It’s a tall order and one that has to be placed into the geopolitical context too. The UK is facing elections soon. Greece is still menacing to play a Samson and pull apart the pillars of the EURO by forcing an exit. Economic recovery on the Old Continent is still way away from forgetting the word “austerity” (though it has been banned from the books). Getting the electorate to understand the importance of economic (and maybe military) intervention in the weak points of the migratory flows is no easy task.

There is no panacea really. What we can strive for is more respect and more humanity. Whether it is when we are discussing the issue and whether it is in our engagement (in our smallness) whenever we can. Demonisation of migrants who made it through does not help anyone and only further increases the tensions. Playing into the facile hands of the populists who would erect a big wall in the sea and forget the problem until it explodes in their face manifold in the future is neither here no there.

It’s a human problem. One that involves all humanity. Whether we like it or not.