Dispute over Malta's cold shoulder for refugees

[Rainman05]

Dispute over Malta's cold shoulder for refugees | Europe | DW.DE | 14.07.2013

The Mediterranean island nation of Malta is the first destination for many refugees. Malta has been criticized by the EU for its efforts to keep the refugees out, but the rest of the EU may be part of the problem.

Recently, authorities in Malta were planning on sending a group of African refugees straight back to their country of departure, Libya, as soon as they arrived in Malta without checking for any possible asylum claims. Only a last-minute decision from the European Court of Human Rights prevented them from doing so.
The Maltese government was warned by the court that they were in violation of EU and international law if they denied refugees on Maltese soil the possibility of an asylum application. The court was also clear that preventing refugees from being sent back immediately did not mean they had a right to stay.

'Asylum is a right, not a privilege'

Despite arguments of people like Hirsch, the situation remains difficult in Malta. The Maltese Prime Minister Joseph Muscat bows to the will of the court, but has also spoken of a "national interest" to put a stop to the flood of refugees.

Read the rest from the link.

I agree. Asylum is a right, not a privilege... if it were truly that. Refugees, once the thing that they run away from is gone, should return back to their country. Not stay in the country that provided them asylum. They are very temporary guests, not permanent visitors.

If these people ran from the civil war that broke out in Libya, well, it's over. For better or worse, order has been restored and the people decided that they would want to live under sharia law. So the refugees should be returned to Libya.
Running away from bad economic situation is not a reason to grant people asylum.

So by all means, all the refugees that ran from countries which are now stable should be returned immidiatly and new asylum seekers should be just those who are from countries where there is civil war or similar unrest.

 

[HonestJoe]

Libya is hardly stable at the moment but anyway, there being a civil war in your home country isn't sufficient justification for asylum alone. There would need to be a specific threat to the individual (such as the victors in a civil war imprisoning or killing their ideological opponents) and that could well remain even after a country returns to nominal stability.

Asylum is notoriously difficult to handle. It can easily be a matter of life and death yet is also open to abuse, both calculating and out of desperation. The people who have to make the decisions are in a really difficult position that I for one don't envy. There are some clearly bad decisions at either end of the scale but that doesn't mean it's usually that straight forwards and I think your overview grossly over-simplifies things.

 

[Rainman05]

Libya is hardly stable at the moment but anyway, there being a civil war in your home country isn't sufficient justification for asylum alone. There would need to be a specific threat to the individual (such as the victors in a civil war imprisoning or killing their ideological opponents) and that could well remain even after a country returns to nominal stability.

Asylum is notoriously difficult to handle. It can easily be a matter of life and death yet is also open to abuse, both calculating and out of desperation. The people who have to make the decisions are in a really difficult position that I for one don't envy. There are some clearly bad decisions at either end of the scale but that doesn't mean it's usually that straight forwards and I think your overview grossly over-simplifies things.

That's why asylum seekers need to be processed. To determine which is here because he should be here and who doesn't.
And Libya is a lot more stable. It is indeed, stable in a bad regime but nobody's life, especially not the muslim majority, is in danger of anything.

Look. After 2003 when the americans invaded Iraq, a LOT of iraqi's sought shelter in European countries, most notably Sweden. Till this day, when there is peace in Iraq and elections and all good, they are still in Sweden and won't ever leave. It's just wrong. Whatever threat they faced has been removed and they can return and rebuild their lives and their country.

I do not understand this desire to not be in your country. If I were a refugee and my country had been through civil war or whatever... and let's say I was a refugee for 2 years until the violence stopped and things got back to normal, I would desire to return back to my country. Rebuild it. Start anew. I trust I learned valuable lessons abroad that would help be rebuild my country and aid my kinsmen in recovery. I cannot understand why others would choose to not do this and I have relatively distasteful opinions of those who decide to leech and not return home.

 

[HonestJoe]

That's why asylum seekers need to be processed. To determine which is here because he should be here and who doesn't.

I'm not saying they shouldn't be processed and indeed that they shouldn't return as soon as is reasonably possible. I am saying that you're view of asylum and the circumstances that lead up to it is grossly simplistic and unrealistic.

And Libya is a lot more stable. It is indeed, stable in a bad regime but nobody's life, especially not the muslim majority, is in danger of anything.

There are reports of people associated with the ousted regime being arrested, with no prospect of fair treatment as I see it and there have been protestors killed on the street. There is no current government and it is entirely unclear when one may be established or what that might be. There remain at least some Libyan refugees for whom it would not be safe for them to return.

Look. After 2003 when the americans invaded Iraq, a LOT of iraqi's sought shelter in European countries, most notably Sweden. Till this day, when there is peace in Iraq and elections and all good, they are still in Sweden and won't ever leave. It's just wrong. Whatever threat they faced has been removed and they can return and rebuild their lives and their country.

In a lot of cases that may well be true. In some cases it will not be. There is probably not much push in official Europe to remove legitimate asylum seekers who could leave to do so when they account for such small numbers and probably generally cause fewer problems compared to illegal immigrants.

I do not understand this desire to not be in your country.

I agree. All the more reason to recognise that asylum seekers who are still not willing to return to their nominally stabilised homeland may still have legitimate (or at least understandable) fears behind it.

I think there is also the factor that many of these people will have lost everything they owned in their escape. Returning to their country would likely mean being dumped at an airport with literally the clothes on their back and no prospect of any kind of support. You could consider this "not our problem" but you can't complete ignore it as a factor in the situation.

 

[Rainman05]

I'm not saying they shouldn't be processed and indeed that they shouldn't return as soon as is reasonably possible. I am saying that you're view of asylum and the circumstances that lead up to it is grossly simplistic and unrealistic.

There are reports of people associated with the ousted regime being arrested, with no prospect of fair treatment as I see it and there have been protestors killed on the street. There is no current government and it is entirely unclear when one may be established or what that might be. There remain at least some Libyan refugees for whom it would not be safe for them to return.

In a lot of cases that may well be true. In some cases it will not be. There is probably not much push in official Europe to remove legitimate asylum seekers who could leave to do so when they account for such small numbers and probably generally cause fewer problems compared to illegal immigrants.

I agree. All the more reason to recognise that asylum seekers who are still not willing to return to their nominally stabilised homeland may still have legitimate (or at least understandable) fears behind it.

I think there is also the factor that many of these people will have lost everything they owned in their escape. Returning to their country would likely mean being dumped at an airport with literally the clothes on their back and no prospect of any kind of support. You could consider this "not our problem" but you can't complete ignore it as a factor in the situation.

I agree that I didn't create an inclusive rhetoric regarding all the possible reasons for asylum. It was never my case. We are just discussing about refugees from Libya who claim to depart because of violence, not because of other reasons.

I disagree. I think Libya is a lot more stable than say, Egypt. Yes, former supporters of the Ghaddaffi regime are still in danger and there may be people on that wave of refugees who are in such positions... but I doubt it. Most of the people who were part of the old regime and realized they were on a sinking ship left Libya long ago.
And the refugees who were part of the old regime should still be given political asylum. But all the rest ,which are the vast majority, no, their time by all means, is up.

You don't just dump them at the airport of their old country, that's now how it works. You make an agreement with the new government which will take back the refugees and aid them in re-establishing their lives in their native country.

 

[HonestJoe]

I agree that I didn't create an inclusive rhetoric regarding all the possible reasons for asylum. It was never my case. We are just discussing about refugees from Libya who claim to depart because of violence, not because of other reasons.

Are we? I thought we were discussing Malta sending them all back without even checking. We have no idea why any of these people came to Malta, even if Libya was their home country, what their legal status is or whether they have any legitimate claim for asylum.

There is a legitimate question to ask (albiet one with no real answer IMO) regarding how to deal with refugees as their home nation returns to some form of stability but I don't think it's reasonable to address that question in the context of these people.

I disagree. I think Libya is a lot more stable than say, Egypt.

I'll admit that I mixed the two up in my head, though ironically, pretty much everything I said was still valid.

You don't just dump them at the airport of their old country, that's now how it works. You make an agreement with the new government which will take back the refugees and aid them in re-establishing their lives in their native country.

I'd be interested to know how that works in practice, especially given these are often countries with little or no state infrastructure in place.

 

[Rainman05]

Are we? I thought we were discussing Malta sending them all back without even checking. We have no idea why any of these people came to Malta, even if Libya was their home country, what their legal status is or whether they have any legitimate claim for asylum.

There is a legitimate question to ask (albiet one with no real answer IMO) regarding how to deal with refugees as their home nation returns to some form of stability but I don't think it's reasonable to address that question in the context of these people.

I'll admit that I mixed the two up in my head, though ironically, pretty much everything I said was still valid.

I'd be interested to know how that works in practice, especially given these are often countries with little or no state infrastructure in place.

No and yes. We are discussing the policy of asking for asylum, and the start point for the discussion is Malta. It does go beyond Malta but the whole affair is extremely complex.

We do know that the country they ran from was Libya. And they have no legitimate claim for asylum unless they are members of the old ruling regime, which they most likely aren't. So they are under no threat in their home country. Anyway.

we can discuss the principles of asylum seeking if you wish, outside of any real life context.

And the way it works in practice is that you have a government that was overthrown or is in a rebellion or a war or something. A lot of people, due to the conflict, fleet to safety and are taken in by another country.
Once a new government is restored and it gets back to work, and there is stability in the country, the country that adopted the refugees enters discussions with the new government on how to best go about sending back the refugees to their country so that they can start their lives. A treaty is made and signed and each side sticks to the terms it agreed. In turns, citizens get sent back to their country, at the speed to which both countries are happy with and can sustain it.

There is enough state infrastructure to manage a country, there is enough to manage the return of a citizens who fled the country. In a country you usually have millions or tens of millions. A few tens of thousand of people are no biggie.

 

[Red_Dave]

No and yes. We are discussing the policy of asking for asylum, and the start point for the discussion is Malta. It does go beyond Malta but the whole affair is extremely complex.

We do know that the country they ran from was Libya. And they have no legitimate claim for asylum unless they are members of the old ruling regime, which they most likely aren't. So they are under no threat in their home country. Anyway.

we can discuss the principles of asylum seeking if you wish, outside of any real life context.

And the way it works in practice is that you have a government that was overthrown or is in a rebellion or a war or something. A lot of people, due to the conflict, fleet to safety and are taken in by another country.
Once a new government is restored and it gets back to work, and there is stability in the country, the country that adopted the refugees enters discussions with the new government on how to best go about sending back the refugees to their country so that they can start their lives. A treaty is made and signed and each side sticks to the terms it agreed. In turns, citizens get sent back to their country, at the speed to which both countries are happy with and can sustain it.

There is enough state infrastructure to manage a country, there is enough to manage the return of a citizens who fled the country. In a country you usually have millions or tens of millions. A few tens of thousand of people are no biggie.

I find it off that's you limiting asylum to cases connected to war when that only covers a fraction of cases. A country like Iran for example is perfectly 'stable' but people have plenty of legitimate reasons for fleeing I.E Journalists, members of religious minorities etc.