The story basically says—-If only the uneducated boobs among the public were better informed they wouldn’t fear that their country was being “invaded.”
Shipment of Syrians (?) arriving on Malta’s shores.* Nah! No invasion here, nothing to see, move along!
Longtime readers know that we have been following the plight of the tiny Mediterranean island nation of Malta as it has been overwhelmed for years with boat people (asking for asylum) from Africa—-most recently the flood is a result of the glorious Arab Spring and the US-supported (US-driven!) ouster of Gaddafi in Libya.
Our interest in Malta is two-fold. First, as much as I hate the worn-out phrase ‘canary in a coal mine’ that about sums up what Malta represents, and secondly the US State Department (egged on by their Jesuit friends on Malta) is transforming Malta’s illegal aliens by the hundreds into “refugees” destined for your town!
Seems that a major news outlet on Malta—-Malta Today—did a survey and found that shock-of-shocks, the general public is feeling invaded.
Here is a bit of the story:
MaltaToday survey indicates that a majority of respondents (55%) support the pushback policy. [Go here for some of our coverage last month of the proposed push-back policy.—ed]
The MaltaToday survey held this week reveals that the greatest concern the Maltese people have about migration by ‘boat people’ is the fear of being ‘invaded’ or seeing their country ‘taken over’ by migrants.
The survey indicates that a majority of respondents (55%) support the pushback policy considered by the new Labour government in July, before the European Court of Human Rights stopped any such action. It had already ruled such a policy illegal when practised by Silvio Berlusconi’s right-wing government in Italy.
Support for pushbacks is particularly strong among Labour voters and those lacking a tertiary education.
LOL! It is my experience that the less-formally-educated country class (working class) on whole are much smarter when it comes to mass immigration then their “tertiary-educated” and politically-correct fellow citizens.
The photo is from this story, although there is no caption, this must be the boatload of Syrians referred to in the article.
* Correction, a reader has reported this boat actually landed in Sicily. Malta has only gotten a few Syrians, most arriving there are Africans.
Liberian-flagged MT Salamis was kept from docking in Malta for nearly three days after picking up illegal aliens off the coast of Libya.
This is a story I’ve had in my queue for the last few days and didn’t get to because news is hopping all over the world on the asylum-seeker/refugee front. So this morning I see the crisis has been averted by Italy agreeing to take its passengers—another batch of migrants. American readers, please continue reading—this story involves you!
Malta told the tanker ‘no way’ were they entering Maltese waters with that cargo.
A stand-off of almost three days ended early this morning when a tanker carrying 102 migrants lifted anchor and headed for Syracuse after having been blocked just outside Maltese waters on Sunday night.
The MT Salamis had rescued the migrants from a boat just 24 miles off Libya and had been heading for Malta when it was stopped from entering Maltese territorial waters. The government said the ship’s master had ignored orders by the Italian and Maltese rescue authorities to return the migrants to Libya.
Last night the government said Italy had accepted to take in the migrants, diffusing the situation after diplomatic contacts between Malta, Italy and Greece.
Prime Minister Joseph Muscat thanked Italian Premier Entrico Letta and said his decision would continue to reinforce the good relations between the two countries.
Meanwhile, a new group of 86 migrants arrived in Malta this morning after being rescued off the coast.
Visit the Times of Malta for more on this story.
Malta is under-going a boat people crisis as thousands of North African illegal aliens attempt to reach its shores. The situation is growing worse and there is no doubt in my mind (after nearly 6 years following the Malta mess) that the increasing numbers arriving on the island nation are partially due to the US State Department transforming hundreds of them into “refugees” bound for America in what is surely a perversion of international refugee law. True asylum seekers are expected to ask for asylum in the first safe country in which they land—-not shop for a country as is apparently also going to be encouraged in Papua New Guinea.
Malta in US propaganda!
Just a reminder that the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service (LIARS) has produced a piece of propaganda using Malta.
I hate to give them any space here with their “Myth Buster” campaign being used in the US at the moment to shame Congress and the public into accepting more refugees and illegal aliens as the Gang of Eight bill progresses in Congress. See my earlier post on their campaignhere.
Check out LIARS (formally LIRS, but a reader recently suggested a more appropriate acronym!) hand out implying that Malta is more generous than the US because it “resettles” more refugees per 1,000 sq. km. than any other country. THESE ARE NOT REFUGEES, THEY ARE ILLEGAL ALIENS and poor Malta is trying to figure out how to stop them from coming and to keep them from staying!
I guess at some point I should go over the whole handout above and show you how LIARS (96% funded by US taxpayers) is twisting the facts on refugees with the help of the hard Left at the Center for American Progress.
Why? Because the US State Department assigned the supposed non-profit that role after a foolish Governor gave it up. Writer and Nashville resident Don Barnett tells us more about this stunning loss of state’s right in his opinion piece at The Tennessean today (posted below in its entirety).
Old graphic, but you get the point! Nashville (the home of country music) has more refugees than 29 other US states.
Be sure to have a look at my post in February, here, also about Nashville and how it’s all about turning ‘red’ states ‘blue.’
Barnett (emphasis mine):
At what level of taxpayer support for an entity do we stop calling that entity a “non-government organization” or a “religious nonprofit”?
Revenue in 2011 for Migration and Refugee Services, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) refugee contracting arm, was more than $72 million, about 98 percent of which came from the taxpayer in the form of government grants or federal contracts. Would it surprise anyone to find it subject to the same incentives and laws of behavior that have driven federal contractors since the birth of the republic?
USCCB’s main source of contracts and grants comes from refugee resettlement. The U.S. resettles nearly three times the refugees as the rest of the industrialized world combined, and the USCCB wants that number increased.
According to a recent report from the Washington think tank Migration Policy Institute (MPI), publicly funded private resettlement agencies, USCCB being the largest of nine, “meet with state and local agencies on a quarterly basis regarding the opportunities and services available to refugees in local communities and the ability of these communities to accommodate new arrivals. They also consult with the state refugee coordinator on placement plans for each local site. … If a state opposes the plan, the State Department will not approve it.”
A July 2012 GAO report was a little more real world than the MPI report stating that “Most resettlement agencies … consult with some public entities such as state refugee coordinators; however, most public entities such as public schools and health departments generally said that agencies notified them of the number of refugees expected to arrive in the coming year, but did not consult them regarding the number of refugees they could serve…”
Both reports assume a state government role in the resettlement process. The state refugee coordinator evaluates the plans of the private contractors, representing the interests of the taxpayer in the process. That’s the way it is supposed to work, in theory.
In Tennessee, however, the state refugee coordinator is an employee of Catholic Charities, an affiliate of USCCB. Resettlement of the U.N.-selected refugees is Tennessee Catholic Charities’ largest mission and largest revenue item by far.
In 2008, Gov. Phil Bredesen thought he was streamlining the process and saving money by outsourcing the state coordinator function to the contractor. Instead, he gave up the opportunity for the state to have any input in a process that affects the state and set up a textbook illustration of a conflict of interest.
The annual cost of the program to Tennesseans went up immediately after the state handed over the position of state refugee coordinator. Today, Metro Nashville alone resettles more refugees than each of 29 states in the U.S.
A bill introduced in the 2013 Tennessee legislature had the modest goal of requiring Catholic Charities to keep an accounting of the numbers of refugees it places into programs that carry a cost to the state taxpayer. TennCare, for instance, is about 30 percent funded by the state and most refugees are placed in TennCare upon arrival.
Opposition to the bill was led by none other than the state refugee coordinator, whose motto seems to be “the less the public knows about this, the better.” The bill was deferred for “summer study” where bills often die. In this case, however, it may well come up again.
Hopefully, the 2014 legislature will act to require the contractor to record at least a portion of the costs it is running up on the taxpayers’ tab. A reasonable next step is for Tennessee to reclaim the function of the state refugee coordinator. This office should be representing the taxpayer, not the interests of a private contractor.
Note to citizens elsewhere—-you should at minimum be demanding to know what refugees are costing your state for healthcare, food stamps, Section 8 housing, education and other social services.
Nashville is so significant that we have an entire category (53 previous posts!) devoted to the city and the problems there with refugee resettlement, click here. Be sure to see some of the recent posts on how Nashville’s open borders advocates are taking their Nashville game plan to other cities.
LOL! I’m thinking they used the wrong photo to illustrate their point—this guy looks a little rough to be “vulnerable.” Don’t you think?
Frankly, I can’t tell if the Malta Independent has published a news article or an opinion piece with this title: Are asylum seekers illegal immigrants?
What alien entering a country such as Malta would enter with any other story than he/she was seeking asylum? They are not stupid. So, I say they are illegal aliens until proven otherwise.
There must be a lot of people who agree with me and thus the Open Borders word-police are trying to regain control of the language with this below.
Asylum seekers who arrive in Malta by boat are neither engaging in illegal activity, nor are they immigrants. [Aliens then?—ed]
The UN Refugee Convention (to which Malta is a signatory) recognises that refugees have a right to enter a country for the purposes of seeking asylum, irrespective of how they arrive or whether they hold valid travel or identity documents.
The Convention, to which Malta is legally bound, stipulates that what would usually be considered as illegal actions, such as entering a country without a visa, should not be treated as illegal if a person is seeking asylum.
This means that it is incorrect to refer to asylum seekers who arrive without authorisation as “illegal”, as they in fact have a right to enter the country to seek asylum.
In line with Malta’s obligations under the Convention, Malta permits unauthorised entry into the country for the purposes of seeking asylum. Asylum seekers do not break any Maltese laws simply by arriving on boats or without authorisation. [Let’s see—five paragraphs say the very same thing in each one, do you dummies get the message now?—ed]
Such allowances are made because it is not always safe or practicable for asylum seekers to obtain travel documents or travel through authorised channels.
For new readers, here is our archive on Malta. We follow the illegal alien issue there regularly because the US State Department has brought thousands of illegal alien men, like the one in the photo, to your towns and cities as “refugees” in a perversion of international refugee law.
A day at the beach in Mogadishu! Finally showing some gumption, Somalis have returned to take their country back from the Islamic terrorists—al-Shabaab. UN Photo
UN: A moment of hope for Somalia!
In light of our recent stories from Malta, why should Malta have to put up with Somalis arriving by the boatload from Libya?
They need to go home to Somalia and fight to keep their own country and re-build it! Not go on welfare in Europe and America!
And, why is the US still resettling thousands of Somalis to America this year alone? (4,921 as of May 31st) It is insanity straight up!
Nairobi – Tens of thousands of Somali refugees have returned home as security in their homeland has improved, the United Nations said on Wednesday, saying it would support a further 60 000 refugees who are ready to go back.
[….]
At least 20 000 Somalis have returned from neighbouring countries this year, the UN refugee agency UNHCR said, although it warned that some returns may be temporary. The UNHCR has also helped more than 16 000 internally displaced Somalis get home this year.
[….]
“This is a moment of hope for Somalia,” UNHCR head Antonio Guterres said.
So how about my suggestion, here, to Malta and the EU, buy them plane tickets and give them some seed money and fly them to Mogadishu! Or, would that make too much sense? LOL! Can you just see the NGOs squawking over that idea!
US readers, you must tell your elected officials to tell the US State Department to turn off the Somali spigot!
