Of Detention and Geese
In the south of Europe the warmer weather brings with it a heated debate about illegal immigration as the calmer seas allow boat loads of migrants to cross the Mediterranean in search of a better life. Despite the good weather, their journey is often unsafe and many perish at sea.
Those who survive the crossing find that their ordeal is not over. Most European States have detention policies whereby illegal immigrants rescued at sea or intercepted on the shore are held in camps pending conferment of refugee status or repatriation. The detention periods vary from one Member State to another, with France capping the period at 30 days, and the United Kingdom having no upper limit.
A draft European directive would have capped the period of detention at six months, with a possible extension of a further twelve months under special circumstances (See the EU Observer’s report here). In other words, the directive would have allowed Member States to detain immigrants for eighteen months without being charged with the commission of any crime, their only proven illegal act being the irregularity of their entry into Europe. Despite the latitude afforded to Member States, the directive risks being blocked because of opposition to the proposed cap on the period of detention. By way of example, the new Interior Minister of Malta, Europe’s southernmost Member State, said that his jurisdiction should be exempt from the capping rule because of the tiny State’s particular circumstances.
I must concede that illegal immigration poses a major challenge. There is often no way of readily ascertaining the origins of immigrants and whether or not they have a genuine claim to refugee status; nor is there any way of weeding out criminals who abscond to Europe; worse still, the spectre of terrorism weighs heavily on the minds of governments at the historical border between Christianity and Islam.
Yet it is in trying times that the mettle of liberal societies is tested. Much like the challenge posed by terrorism, illegal immigration is viewed by governments, and their consenting electorates, as a special case that allows them to flaunt human rights. Immigrants are held without charge, often in deplorable conditions. Some years ago I visited a detention centre in Malta. I was sickened to find hundreds of men housed in large tents, fenced into a small area with one football as their only means to pass the time (save for airplane spotting at the international airport that is ironically in full view of the detained migrants). All this is occurring at a time when Europe and its ideological allies strive to export liberal values. Clearly what is good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander.
Those who survive the crossing find that their ordeal is not over. Most European States have detention policies whereby illegal immigrants rescued at sea or intercepted on the shore are held in camps pending conferment of refugee status or repatriation. The detention periods vary from one Member State to another, with France capping the period at 30 days, and the United Kingdom having no upper limit.
A draft European directive would have capped the period of detention at six months, with a possible extension of a further twelve months under special circumstances (See the EU Observer’s report here). In other words, the directive would have allowed Member States to detain immigrants for eighteen months without being charged with the commission of any crime, their only proven illegal act being the irregularity of their entry into Europe. Despite the latitude afforded to Member States, the directive risks being blocked because of opposition to the proposed cap on the period of detention. By way of example, the new Interior Minister of Malta, Europe’s southernmost Member State, said that his jurisdiction should be exempt from the capping rule because of the tiny State’s particular circumstances.
I must concede that illegal immigration poses a major challenge. There is often no way of readily ascertaining the origins of immigrants and whether or not they have a genuine claim to refugee status; nor is there any way of weeding out criminals who abscond to Europe; worse still, the spectre of terrorism weighs heavily on the minds of governments at the historical border between Christianity and Islam.
Yet it is in trying times that the mettle of liberal societies is tested. Much like the challenge posed by terrorism, illegal immigration is viewed by governments, and their consenting electorates, as a special case that allows them to flaunt human rights. Immigrants are held without charge, often in deplorable conditions. Some years ago I visited a detention centre in Malta. I was sickened to find hundreds of men housed in large tents, fenced into a small area with one football as their only means to pass the time (save for airplane spotting at the international airport that is ironically in full view of the detained migrants). All this is occurring at a time when Europe and its ideological allies strive to export liberal values. Clearly what is good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander.
Comments