During the course of any serious police investigation a key question that needs to be established is the motive for the crime concerned. The vast majority of all crimes are carried out for some reason or another. Crimes that are carried out without clear motive on the part of the perpetrators are more likely to involve a degree of insanity than not. Even in the event of a crime where no suspects have been immediately available for questioning, potential suspects may be identified through the establishment of likely potential motives.

Unfortunately it does not immediately appear that the Maltese authorities are seriously investigating the continuous flow of illegal immigrants to Malta and neighbouring landmasses. If the patterns that I perceive in the media’s reporting and lack of reporting are anything to go by then one might be forgiven for pointing out that the lion’s share of analysis ever carried out gravitating around the question of motive has typically centred around the collective motives of the illegal immigrants themselves.

Yes, we know that the vast majority of them have economic motives, in search of greener pastures, that a few are escaping famine and war; and that a few others are possibly escaping the law of their respective countries of origin. This is all well and good but such information is about as useful as health authorities asking restaurant-goers why they choose a particular fast food chain to dine at – it is of limited value in the context of determining the health impact of such a fast food chain.

More relevant questions would be levelled at the traffickers themselves and those who aid them. Why do they do it? Does any question really begin and end with the money that changes hands between trafficker and would-be immigrant? Are there no entities beyond these that bear a potential interest in aiding or perpetrating the inundation of southern members of the European Union with illegal immigrants?

After all, illegal immigrants could potentially be very useful if it were in one’s interests to destabilize the economy of a country or a region. If one were to, say, turn a blind eye to the issue, or even pay a tidy sum to others to turn a blind eye… and if one were to make it such that such illegal immigrants find it very hard to find legitimate work… and if one were to also be of a disposition to offer unofficial employment, especially if one were to have one’s hands in the pockets of key individuals to ensure that such an operation runs smoothly… then mighten one not only be an opportunist but also a criminal involved in high treason?

A fantastic hypothesis worthy of Hollywood perhaps, and perhaps also similarly lacking in concrete backing, but I would say that it is not complete hogwash and find it difficult to believe that the level of incompetence thus far exhibited by the nationalist government has been a complete coincidence, but then again I take many coincidences with a pinch of salt. Perhaps if they were to make a show and actually start up an investigation of any such avenues, then I might be able to swallow that past incompetence has, in fact, just been incompetence. Faced with a choice I would rather deal with honest incompetence than dishonest competence and I am sure that many others feel similarly.

The boats continue to land upon our shores, bringing in an average of two-to-three dozen illegal immigrants per vessel. Our slightly more southerly neighbour, Lampedusa, consistently receives larger consignments of many hundreds of immigrants but as of yet we have been spared shipments in excess of a couple of hundred. Fortunately for them they have the direct support of Italy to help ease the stresses of the situation involved.

Rumours about the organized nature of the trafficking of the immigrants have been going round for ages. Such rumours were based upon the observation that the rate by which illegal immigrants have been entering have been somewhat consistent. Some persons have even coined the term of ‘the magic 27′, referring to the median number of immigrants per boat. One might almost start to picture a bookings agent attending to immigrants queries and taking reservations in a secluded alleyway in some congested North African village. Days ago it was reported by the Times that an improvement in the safety standards on the boats with which immigrants drift northward itself suggests that the traffickers have grown more organized, however that is as far as connections seem to have officially gone.

The people are to believe that all else is merely a coincidence, including the GonziPN campaign’s utter downplay of its relative inaction for as far as the illegal immigration crisis was concerned during the previous administrative term, suspicious considering the uncannily convenient reduction in the inflow of immigrants in 2007 and the similarly uncannily convenient increase in the inflow of immigrants in 2008, already practically confirmed to be a record-breaker with over 2,000 illegal immigrants received so far this year – in the middle of August.

Earlier in this series I had stated that Josie Muscat’s proposal for burden sharing is not the solution to the illegal immigration issue. I made it very clear as to why this is so, but will now add that this does not mean that burden sharing has no place within the tackling of the issue. After all, Lampedusa would likely be in much worse shape were it not for the redistributive efforts of Italy and, while the Maltese Islands have received relatively paltry assistance in redistribution, we could very well do with it, especially when one considers that this year’s tally exceeds 0.5% of the entire population of Malta. Who knows how many were accumulated during the past years following the turn of the millennium.

The concept of redistribution is not to be forgotten. It buys time to properly deal with the masses of illegal immigrants already here. It would be hasty to attempt to push them back south of our respective borders and would likely turn out to be a very painful experience. It makes more sense to tackle such matters in a more organic fashion over the middle-to-long term, relations with our southern nations crucial to mutual benefit and success.

Several micro-steps have been sketched out so far. As of henceforth I shall make the assumption that those mentioned thus-far will have been heeded so as to pave the way for future micro-steps. I shall ignore the fact that the reality is such that little if any of the thoughts encapsulated within them have been heeded and as I delve into the realm of fiction I can only hope that the powers that be have the interests of the Islands at heart as they plod on into the territories of the grey marshes. Yes, sadly the following is not reflective of the reality.

The government has finally grown aware of the impending and dark future that unabated mass immigration is set to plunge the Maltese Islands into. They have finally recalled their oaths taken as well as where their responsibilities primarily lie – the people whose grudged trust and vote they gained through brook and through crook. The government has finally declared illegal immigration to be a major crisis facing the Islands and pledge to actually treat the issue as such in future.

It is fast and yet belatedly realized that it would not only be practically impossible for the Islands to attempt to resolve the issue alone but it is also realized that any such solitary attempt would most likely be seen in a very negative light in the eyes of international observers looking in from their perch far away. Thus diplomats become busy at work both North and South, West and East of the Islands, steadily and tirelessly bringing about conditions more favourable to any continuation onto the next stage.

Our MEPs actively work to place pressure upon the European Parliament so as to treat the issue as not only one for what some members may perceive as ‘periphery buffer states’, but to treat it as an issue for Europe as a whole. Further dignitaries head to Spain, Italy and Greece and a further delegation heads to Libya to initiate precursory discourse while the other dignitaries liaise to determine a common front and goal in more intensive talks with Morocco, Libya and Egypt respectively.

In their evaluation of the history of mass migration worldwide the partners conclude that, unlike that which was true for the past both in the Mediterranean and south of the United States, there can be no two ways of going about matters. In subsequent dealings with their southern counterparts they are cordial and forthright, stating in no uncertain terms that boatloads of illegal immigrants will no longer be accepted by the respective nation states and that any such vessels or individuals shall be turned away at the earliest possible opportunity.

In the ensuing weeks the Maltese Islands and her partners west, north and east experience a number of difficult situations and decisions but remain true to their word. Over a hundred boats carrying migrants are intercepted by patrol boats conducting a 24 hour watch of our respective naval borders. The boats are invariably turned back. Boats with insufficient provisions and fuel are reasonably resupplied for their southward return, Boats unfit to carry the numbers aboard are supplemented by refurbished boats of previous intercepted vehicles stocked on land, including the substitution of such vessels if need be. Dozens of migrants are held temporarily for treatment at sea and even a couple of babies are born in a vessel suitably equipped to enable medical procedures to be carried out at sea. Such cases are kept upon the waves for several weeks before also being sent back. A boat of drowned immigrants takes hold of the headlines worldwide.

These were weeks when pro-immigration and human rights groups took to the streets to air their discontent and disapproval of the major shift in foreign policy. These are the weeks when protests both peaceful and not so peaceful erupt amongst various quarters. The thousands of illegal migrants already within the Maltese Islands also react in a variety of ways, more peaceful but some more violently so. These are the weeks when even the European Union uses words of consternation in spite of the best efforts of our MEPs to maintain calm upon the level of European Parliament.

However after those initial weeks of turbulence something interesting starts to take place. The number of boats intercepted begin to dwindle sharply and a month later days go by without a single boat in sight. Back in North Africa the news travels fast as would-be immigrants return to the shores of their country of departure and air their discontent both with their traffickers as well as with their friends and families, and fewer and fewer individuals are willing to pay good money to a trafficker on a hope that he or she knows is false, seeing everybody else has been turned around, even that one boat that managed to make it to shore.

The carrot is no longer there and so few, if any, hazard the journey. Crossing the Mediterranean is thus made infeasible by the same governments who now proceed to reinforce and expand upon their contacts within the nations of their southern counterparts. After all, this is only the beginning.

The boats continue to land upon Maltese shores. Whether the vessels be made from wood, steel or inflated rubber, and whether the vessels are ultimately seaworthy or not, the nature of their cargo remains the same – African individuals making their way into our territories illegally in the hope of a better life. The sum of these individuals encapsulate both a significant as well as a major crisis facing the Maltese Islands today.

In a previous micro-step I had stated that in the context of any crisis the first thing to do is to ensure that the crisis cannot become worse, entailing either the removal of the victim from the vicinity of the problem or to shut down or prevent the source from further contributing to the problem. Such therefore suggests that preventing the entry of further shipments of illegal immigrants is the logical initial step in any serious attempt to tackle the crisis at hand.

In order to illustrate the importance of this revelation, let us take a brief look at the situation of the coast of the United States of America where they too have a problem with illegal immigration. In particular I would like to home in upon Cuba. In other words, unlike the situation of Malta, facing immigration from a vast continent, I’d like to look at a vast country facing immigration from a very small country.

The Americans have their own way of tackling illegal immigration. They deploy patrols and survey the separating sea in an effort to intercept any would-be immigrants. Any individuals successfully intercepted are sent back to Cuba. In this much the American example does reflect effective crisis management. However in spite of these efforts many Cubans still attempt the hazardous crossing in the hope of making it to shore. You see, while American policy is to return those individuals caught in the sea, any and all individuals that actually make it to shore are automatically granted asylum status and become naturalized American citizens, which would explain why there is a prominent Cuban minority community in Florida.

In other words in spite of the apparent efforts by America to keep illegal immigrants out of the country, they still suspend a juicy carrot of citizenship. As a result of this contradiction tens of thousands of Cubans have attempted the crossing and still attempt the crossing to this day, in-spite of the thousands who drown and the many more who are intercepted. The carrot remains suspended and so the tragedy is perpetuated year after year.

In the case of the Maltese Islands we too suspend a carrot. While it may be less certain than the one suspended by America, our carrot is potentially every bit as tempting and, without even a solid return policy in place, African numbers are rising on a yearly basis. To persist in our folly would be akin to a small boat rowing into the vast crowd of survivors following the sinking of the Titanic. A few more souls would be saved only to be swamped by the crowd, not caring about little things as capacity. Malta does have a capacity and whether it has been surpassed depends entirely upon whether the observer holds the welfare of the Maltese people at heart or not. I say that we are excessively low in the water and need to act fast, but those who should feel responsible for the welfare of the Maltese Islands are not acting. Remove the carrot and not only should the in-flow ebb away but the consequent loss in human life should similarly diminish.

As readers may or may not have by now noticed, by steps I actually refer to micro-steps. I have long since concluded it both unnecessary and risky to condense too much information into too little space as it is clarity, rather than wordiness, that is of importance when conveying ideas. This being said, this particular micro-step refers to the importance of prioritization in crisis.

In any hazardous emergency situation the first thing that any survival manual recommends is to first and foremost ensure the survival of your own life. You have to save yourself before you can save the life of another. This advice makes a lot of sense. If a would-be rescuer were to squander time with other persons then it is more than possible that he or she would become too weak to complete the task, collapsing and becoming yet another victim in need of rescue. In such an event the would-be rescuer not only fails but worsens the chance of survival as resources have to be attributed to the rescue of more individuals, complicating matters.

Similarly if an individual is an electric-shock victim or has collapsed within a burning house then treatment in both scenarios is extremely difficult and hazardous not only to the victim but to the rescuer. In such situations the main is switched off or the victim relocated to a place outside the burning building before any first aid treatment begins. It is common sense.

So too also should this legacy of common sense apply to the Maltese context for as far as our handling of the illegal immigration issue is concerned. Before serious consideration of how to properly deal with immigrants already within the islands can begin we need to look at ways to prevent further immigrants from entering the country illegally and hence causing the problem to grow.

In this regards the European Union is proposing the return directive, which is a step in the right direction, although it does not actually address the problem with the same brand of common sense present within crisis-management materials. Locally it was only Norman Lowell who offered a compatible proposal which could be succinctly summed up as “14 miles out”. Unlike all other politicians he actually proposed prevention from entry, which does bear resemblance to shutting off the electricity in the event of an electrical hazard. Sure he may not have expressed his ideas on the matter in a fashion that was palatable to many people’s ears, but he remained consistent enough in his proposed solution. Of course he received both grudged respect and thinly-veiled vilification, and still receives both to this day… but that doesn’t change the fact of the matter, that turning immigrants around at the border would be a method compatible with crisis-management practice. Reasoning supporting this upon the conceptual level shall be expanded upon in another micro-step.

As the boats continue to land upon our shores and the tally of individuals illegally entering the country surpasses a thousand-strong, eyes are increasingly cast towards the Nationalist government for some kind of a solution.

On the part of the Maltese authorities we have seen an incredible degree of reticent passivity in terms of the measures that they put into motion in the past half-decade. Even Nautilus has been admitted to ‘not be a solution’ for the Maltese situation. Not only have we seen immigrants’ boats brought to our shores from dozens-to-hundreds of miles away, and immigrants themselves detained for lengthy periods of time, but we have also heard much talk of integrating such immigrants into Maltese society.

As such I feel that it is important to point out the differences that there exist between a legal immigrant and an illegal immigrant, especially as it appears that some do not seem to be sufficiently aware that any appreciable difference exists.

The first difference to make note of, and probably the most crucial, is that it is reasonably possible to regulate and to demographically plan for a sustainable society where legal immigration is concerned while it is not possible to do likewise where illegal immigration is concerned. This may initially seem unimportant but if one were to consider the economic sphere of any given economy is only able to provide a specific standard of living for a specific number of individuals then it stands to reason that any increase or decrease in population will inversely effect the overall average standard of living. Any significant unplanned influx of a net-benefactor population would consequently also vie for the resources of the present economic sphere and therefore result in significant detraction to the existing population in terms of their standard of living. So important is this first difference that all others fall to the levels of trivia.

While there is no hard rule to suggest that an illegal immigrant necessarily fits within the category of net-benefactor, there is no denying that the pool of illegal immigrants within the Maltese Islands do, siphoning tens-to-hundreds of thousands of Euros towards their upkeep. The reverse is more or less true of legal immigrants. True, a legal immigrant could end up on welfare, just as any local individual could, but this is about as significant an exception as a net-contributory illegal immigrant is within their respective contexts.

While it would be politically correct to state that there is no racial connection between legal immigration and illegal immigration, the reality of the situation demands otherwise. African blacks and African Arabs almost exclusively makes up boat immigration while Asians and Eastern-Europeans make up the bulk of individuals who arrive on a valid temporary visa and allow it to expire, remaining here and hence becoming illegal immigrants of a sort about which too little information exists to be certain of. Beyond the racial realities lie geopolitical realities, where disparities within the reality of the grand scheme of things lead to mass illegal migratory trends. One of the factors that cannot be too lightly stated is the fact that freedom of movement is not uniform from around the Mediterranean basin. It is also clear that even if legal avenues were easily accessible from the southern rim, it is highly unlikely that Malta would have approved even 5% of those who arrived via illegal means.

Does this make all the talk of legality and illegality null and void? I would think not. If anything it further highlights that there is a need for inadequacies in present policies to be recognized and for alterations to be made in the name of improving our survival chances through adaptation to our circumstances.

A spokesperson for the EU border security agency Frontex has stated that Nautilus is not the solution to Malta’s illegal immigration. The general feeling gotten is that it is Libya that is to blame for the failure of Frontex to solve the problem. This spokesperson then went on to compare Nautilus with the sister project Hera in the vicinity of the Canary Islands and how relative success was achieved there thanks in no small part to the cooperative efforts of Senegal and Mauritania.

This may indeed be the case and Libya may very well not be cooperating with Nautilus but there is a fundamental question that nobody in Europe seems to be asking. Why should Libya bear the weight in responsibility for the mass illegal migration from an entire continent? Is this truly a productive or constructive attitude towards solving the problem or is it merely provoking the very same stonewalling that Libya is accused of?

Libya is every bit as much of a victim in this matter as Malta is and likewise has every bit as much of an interest in solving the problem of illegal immigration from their own perspective. Libya unofficially has some control over the flow of illegal migrants from its shores; it is almost unfathomable to imagine it being any other way considering the highly engineered flow of immigrant, waxing and waning to conveniently cater for political events.

However how different is this strategy from the concept of “burden sharing” brought up in the run-up to the previous election? It may sound good on paper and I am pretty sure that Josie Muscat had done his homework on the matter (which compares favourably to the Nationalist’s non-plan of action in both its previous term and its current term in government) but I feel that there remain a number of logical flaws, some of which are pungently, if effectively, highlighted through comparison to Libya’s own brand of “burden sharing”.

Returning to Libya as a topic, let us attempt to identify its relationship to the issue at hand, illegal immigration, and classify it accordingly. Firstly Libya is not a source country but a country of transit, just as some people claim that Malta is. Secondly Libya is criticized for its treatment of African immigrants within its borders – it is not a picture of harmony. Therefore to attempt to ’solve’ illegal immigration from a purely pan-European perspective would be an exercise in futility as too many essential pieces of the puzzle are disregarded.

We will get absolutely nowhere if we continue regarding our closest southern neighbour with this degree of suspicion and disregard to their own interests. Once we successfully adjust our egotistically-geared nationalistic perspectives to more communitarian-geared nationalistic perspectives, where benefit within a neighbouring nation is deemed a positive not only to that nation but to one’s own nation, especially if prominent in its adjacency, then I feel that we would have taken a second crucial step to solving the illegal immigration issue.