|
The murder of a young Russian woman has again confirmed how lightly certain visas are issued by the Principal Immigration Officer, who is at present the Commissioner of Police.
It is not the first time we have harped on the problem of visas, and how new regulations and new procedures ought to be introduced for this thorny issue. In this case, the victim was granted a fiancé visa. In Malta this can be done against a simple declaration, with no verification and no tax whatsoever. Lawyers and other observers have stated ad nauseam that fiancé visas abroad are not issued on a simple declaration. In the UK, for example, a Maltese friend who was living with, but not married to, her English boyfriend, had to produce an abundance of documentation when applying for a fiancé visa. This was needed to confirm that she had a job in Malta, that she held a bank account there, to declare what property, if any, she owned, and so on. This was 10 years ago… and she was also made to pay GBP 300 before the visa was issued.
In Malta we have learnt that a fiancé visa can be issued without any clarification whatsoever. Not only that, but nobody checks to see if the alleged Maltese boyfriend is married. They simply go on the declaration of the applicant. And this attitude shows in the number of Russians boarding a plane to Malta every Friday. I fail to understand how these Russians make it to Malta without a hassle, when other, genuine cases find it very hard to get a visa.
Mind you, what applies to the Russians applies to all nationalities. In this case I am referring to “the Russians” only because the murder victim happened to be Russian.
Having said that, there is clearly something wrong with the system, and the police can only blame themselves. First of all, because the visa section should be properly manned and equipped to treat all cases with the same attention. Secondly, because I for one believe that the Immigration Section should no longer be under the control of the Commissioner of Police. Thirdly, the issue of visas is a vulnerable section and the staff should be rotated every few months in order to ensure transparency.
When it comes to this week’s murder case, I expected Tonio Borg, as minister responsible for the police, to conduct an internal investigation in order to ascertain how the victim was issued with a visa extension. He should not be treating this murder like any other murder, because it is different. There is more to it than meets the eye.
The minister has a lot to investigate: how the visa was issued; who issued it, and on what basis; who issued the extension of the visa; what enquiries were conducted before the extension was granted; how many visas are issued to Russians annually; how many extensions are given to Russians; who are the people applying on their behalf; are they always the same individuals; and is their identity verified before processing the application? I suspect the Minister would be in for many surprises, if this investigation were actually concluded.
I do not know if the police officers investigating the crime have also interrogated any of their colleagues in the visa section, who were responsible for the granting of the fiancé visa and the extension of the same. But I am sure that they will do so, because in any investigation you cannot pick and choose but you have to explore all avenues in order to come to the aggressor or aggressors.
This reminds me of the lap dancers who were recently arraigned in court. No mention was made by the police of the visas given to these dancers. Were there any false declarations in their visa application? It seems that the police fear to tread on visa territory, for reasons which remain a mystery.
Even lawyers can learn a lesson from this murder. It is not enough for us to recommend a candidate to the Principal Immigration Officer for a visa or a visa extension. We must also make sure that we know our client, and that a photocopy of the identity card of the client is attached to the letter, although this is not envisaged by law.
I cannot understand how these Russians make it to Malta. I do not know if they come as fiancés, or students or tourists. What I do know is they certainly know how to go about obtaining a visa. It is the duty of the Commissioner of Police in his role as the Principal Immigration Officer, who has the family very much to heart, to ensure that from now on, applications for visa are to be processed differently. This can only be ensured if a set of regulations is issued on such processing.
The Commissioner is well aware of the perception of the public regarding such visas, and I do not need to elaborate. There are good police officers in the visa section and those who are not so good. And the only thing to weed out the not-so-good elements is to regulate. There should be no discretion, but a set of regulations for each circumstance: a tourist visa, a fiancé visa, a working holiday visa, and extensions to such visas, and so on. It is only in this manner that he will ensure the public of transparency.
I am sure that if the Government does not issue regulations, there will be cause for Maltese citizens to complain to the EU Commissioner Frattini, responsible for immigration. We can no longer live in a European Union where regulations for the attainment of a visa differ from one member state to the other. Other countries take the issue of visas very seriously, and impose as many restrictions as they can in order to try and curb abuses. In Malta, we cannot expect to treat the issue of visa on the basis on declarations without any investigation on their veracity. We must enquire with Brussels, and with other member states, about their experience and their regulations in this regard and adopt what is best suited for Malta.
Personally I do not know how the government can claim to be against divorce and against lap dancing, and at the same time allow this leniency in the issue of visas. If we want to avoid another victim of people trafficking, sex slavery and other forms of exploitation, we have to revamp the system now before it is too late. |
