The results of an immigration enforcement initiative undertaken over the weekend were spelled out by the Malta Police Force in a current public notice. Legally found living or working in the statement, 35 people were under arrest. Across Malta’s public venues, nightlife destinations in Paceville, and public transportation systems, among other places, the operation aimed at people from many different countries including Syria, Ghana, Brazil, Sudan, and Nepal.
The detainees have allegedly been issued deportation orders and moved to holding blocks to wait repatriation either to their home countries or to other European nations where they are thought to have residency permits. Still, although the enforcement was framed as a clearcut legal action, the bigger picture paints a more complicated and disturbing scene.
Conspicuously missing from the official police statement was any mention of businesses or property owners who might have intentionally hired or sheltered illegal immigrants. Human rights activists who contend that such enforcement unfairly targets migrants while ignoring people benefiting from their vulnerability have had their complaints rekindled by this omission. Critics argue the problem is the selective use of justice—one that fails to tackle institutionalized exploitation but rather turns the immigration problem into one of boundary control.
This newest operation follows several contentious remarks from Prime Minister Robert Abela’s sharply more strict migration policy, which has been under close review. Particularly, his most recent claim that failed asylum seekers do not justify the reinforcement of human rights protections has sparked great criticism. Such language, observers say, runs the danger of turning Malta with illiberal European political forces, positioning immigrants not as persons seeking sanctuary or opportunity but as threats seen to national cohesion.
Abela’s stated endorsement of Italy’s now abandoned outsourcing of migrant deportation to Albania adds still more difficulty. The Italian policy, which domestic courts rejected on the basis that it contravened international legal standards—including non refoulement—seems to provide a model for Malta’s own goals. An essential aspect of international refugee law is the nonrefoulement principle, which forbids the returning of asylum seekers to nations where they might be subjected to persecution. Supporting or copying systems that erode this safeguard poses a major impediment against European legal norms.
Notwithstanding these changes, numbers point to an over embellished view of a migration catastrophe in Malta. In 2023, the country handled about 600 asylum applications—a number much lower than the 33,000 residence permits given to foreign workers in 2024. This suggests that the bulk of Malta’s population changes come from economic migration rather from asylum seeking or irregular migration. A change propelled by the nation’s dependence on foreign labour to support its economy, foreign nationals currently account for more than 28 percent of the population.
Meanwhile, criticism of Malta’s migration management plan has grown over its supposed cooperation with non-state entities in Libya. Reports seem to indicate that the government has kept unofficial deal with Libyan militias meant to reduce emigration from North Africa. These organizations have been well known to operate detention facilities where forced labor, torture, and sexual violence especially abound. More gravely, Malta has been charged with helping illegal pushbacks to Libya even though judgments from the European Court of Justice confirm that such behaviors violate international and European human rights responsibilities.
Malta’s recent decision to participate in Italy’s legal challenge before the European Court of Justice, intended to undermine current EU migrant protection laws, only compounds the problems. These meetings with Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, according to reports, further show Malta’s strategic movement toward a political bloc known for anti-immigrant and nationalist policies.
In total, Malta’s present immigration approach shows a more general readjustment of its legal and ethical obligations under populist pressure. The government’s behavior and rhetoric, though portrayed as essential enforcement, raise pressing issues about the equilibrium of sovereignty and rights, law enforcement and accountability, and national policy and international obligations. The implications for human rights protections—that are particularly sensitive—are now increasingly hard to overlook as the country defines its position within the European migration debate.
