Identity Malta Respond To Allegations That Family Reunification Policy Is Not In Line With EU Directive
Identity Malta has clarified its logic behind “anti-poverty measures” that may result in children of non-EU families being removed from Malta, measures that have since been criticised by parents, educators, as well as the Chamber of Psychologists.
A spokesperson for the agency informed Lovin Malta that “the Commission’s guidance for application of Directive 2003/86/EC on the right to family reunification makes it possible for Member States to establish benchmarks to ‘indicate a certain sum as a reference amount’ while making an individual assessment of each request.”
“In its 2008 report on the implementation of the aforementioned directive following an examination of the Member States’ respective national legislation,” the spokesperson continued, “the European Commission did not express any reservations on the reference to the average wage in the Maltese legislation.”
“Subsequent to the publishing of the said report and the above-mentioned guidelines, the issue was explained to the European Commission and Malta’s position has been accepted,” they said.
In Subsidiary Legislation 217.06, the sponsor is required to, firstly, prove prospects of permanent residence and, secondly, have stable and regular resources which are equivalent to the national average wage.
However, in cases where applicants do not meet the two requirements, ID Malta still gives the main sponsor an opportunity to be joined by their relatives in Malta.
For such ad-hoc requests to be approved, the income of both parents is taken into consideration and compared to the at-risk-of-poverty benchmark established in the Statistics on Income and Living Conditions Survey (EU SILC).
When calculating the parents’ income, Identity Malta takes into account their basic income and deducts national social security contributions as well as accommodation costs (based on the rental contract provided by the applicant). For the purpose of this exercise, Identity Malta assumes that the sponsor is not paying any income tax.
When asked about whether or not the poverty threshold being considered was unjust, especially with the current statistic of 80,000 people in Malta being at risk of falling below it, ID Malta responded saying that “the at-risk-of-poverty threshold of €8,868 referred to represents a household consisting of a single adult and does not factor spouses and children”.
“The basic threshold is then used to calculate the at-risk-of-poverty line for larger households.”
Over the last few weeks, a number of families were reportedly still receiving letters during the run-up to Christmas, from ID Malta, informing them of the decision to deny their child residence in Malta.
The policy outlined by ID Malta has fallen under scrutiny in light of these revelations, with a number of people pointing to the EU Directive on Family Reunification.
The EU Directive states:
Stable and regular resources which are sufficient to maintain himself/herself and the members of his/her family, without recourse to the social assistance system of the Member State concerned. Member States shall evaluate these resources by reference to their nature and regularity and may take into account the level of minimum national wages and pensions as well as the number of family members.
But in a response posted to ID Malta’s Facebook page after news broke of 22 kids facing deportation, the government agency said that “the sponsor is required to prove prospects of permanent residence and have stable and regular resources which are equivalent to the national average wage“.
Many have been quick to jump the defence of the families, including the Malta Chamber of Psychologists:
“The Malta Chamber of Psychologists strongly objects to the recent decision made by Identity Malta that denies a residence permit to the children from non-EU families,” the post reads.
“The Chamber appeals to the authorities to appreciate that some of these families have been settled in our community for years. These parents have been clearly persevering to establish some semblance of stability; a better life for themselves and for their children.”
The post also goes on to explain that uprooting the children “would be both traumatic and detrimental to the well-being and mental health of the entire family”.
“The damage caused by parental deprivation has long been known. Let us not be catalysts of that. Let’s strive together as a community to make it possible for these families to remain united and settled in Malta.”
The Maltese Association of Parents of State School Students also joined forces with eight NGOs to urge the government to revert their decision.
“Revoking residency to these children is clearly not in their best interest, given the likely repercussions,” MAPSSS say, listing the “forced uprooting” from what the children will consider as home, the separation of family members, the interruption of childcare and education and social and emotional stress as all potential factors to the detriment of the children’s wellbeing.
“Suffice to say, the Government’s decision puts these children’s parents and guardians under unjustifiable and, frankly, cruel stress, as well.”
MAPSSS also said it was clear that economic aspects are the “sole basis” for ID Malta’s decisions, “at the detriment of social, emotional and psychological considerations, which is completely unsustainable and plainly wrong”.
But some people still can’t seem to see the issue the families have, asking the families why they would choose to remain in Malta if their children will be sent back to their home country.
With one comment on a post in the Facebook Leave them kids alone – a group run by those in advocacy for the children and the affected families – claiming that the uproar is only due to anger arising from the parents “wanting to be free from their children”.
Speaking of the policy, one Maltese member of the group has shown solidarity in saying “it is inhuman to use children as pawns”.
“It is true that similar laws exist in other European countries, but let us all show that as Maltese we are a caring nation.”
“It is the state’s duty to intervene in aiding needy families especially if they are law-abiding working and paying taxes and national insurance contributions which ultimately will benefit Maltese people.”
“What they are doing to these unfortunate people is petty, stupid, illogical, shameful and vindictive.”
A petition started urging the government to reverse their decision garnered the support of 3,234 people, including the University of Malta’s Dean of Education, within 24 hours.