The treatment of irregular migrants in Malta is problematic from a human rights perspective, for it contravenes the principle of universalism that is intrinsic to human rights philosophy. Malta is unusual among states in that it imposes mandatory detention on such migrants, including asylum seekers. Based on a reading of foundational documents of the modern human rights movement, especially the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the article argues that the principle of human dignity underlies the concept of human rights, but that the bypassing of this principle enables the Maltese government to continue its detention policies while claiming to uphold human rights. It is an approach contested by NGOs in this area, which point to the dehumanising effects of detention on migrants. It is not just the appalling conditions in which migrants are held that renders their lives miserable, but the dehumanisation produced by detention itself.

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) rescued over 110,000 people in the Central Mediterranean Sea between 2015 and 2017. From 2017, EU member states and agencies increasingly criminalized these organizations, accusing them of ‘colluding with smugglers’ and acting as a pull factor. In this climate, as Italy, Malta and the EU increased cooperation with Libya to stop people from taking to the seas, many suspended their operations. This article explores the search and rescue efforts of NGOs in the Central Mediterranean Sea between 2014 and 2018. We examine the criminalization of this NGO activity and argue that it is made possible through an oscillating neo-colonial imagination of the sea as mare nostrum and mare nullius, our sea and nobody’s sea, respectively. We build on the work of other scholars who have pointed to the activation of the Mediterranean as ‘empty’ in response to migration flows, erasing the historical connections of colonialism, empire, trade, and exchange in the Mediterranean as well as the contemporary legal geographies that govern the space. Here, we go further to develop the idea of a neo-colonial sea, which is alternately imagined as empty and ‘European’. We explore how NGOs disrupt these depictions, as well as the disappearing figures of the migrant and refugee amidst the contestations between NGOs and states.

Hospitality and hospitality-laden language feature highly among people working in or around structures of first reception in Italy and Malta, two countries at the European Union’s (EU) external border. This is peculiar because hospitality rarely features at first reception, which forms part of the state’s border system. Characteristically, security issues are prioritized, and the first reception system is managed by the member state’s security agents, in collaboration with EU and international security agents. In practice, first reception refers to the processes of identification, registration, and classification that irregular migrants go through after having crossed the border without authorization and, often, without identification. Drawing on long-term and multi-sited ethnographic fieldwork in Italy and Malta, this article examines some of the uses of hospitality language by a spectrum of territorial borderworkers operating with state, non-state, security, humanitarian, and activist entities in the two countries that are the object of this study. Discourse analysis yields interesting insights into how the use of the hospitality paradigm and hospitality terminology in first reception is less about hospitality practices and more about power. It proposes that the hospitality paradigm be conceptualized as a Laclauian empty signifier, and therefore, as a locus of power.

This article questions whether the presentation of the return and deportation of irregular migrants as a solution to the so-called ‘refugee crisis’ is ethical. Legally, the return of irregular migrants may be a legitimate activity by the state, but the current pressure by the European Commission on member-states to increase the current 40 percent rate of effective returns can lead them to operate returns below minimal human rights standards in a bid to increase the rate. Detailed knowledge of the impact of returns – including deportation from and to different countries – on migrants’ welfare and human rights is scarce. Based on studies on returns from EU member-states to different countries, I make three arguments. First, due to the complexity of the return process, statistics need to be unpacked better. Second, there are key conceptual problems underpinning current EU returns policy. Third, research strongly indicates that returns can render people vulnerable. In the absence of in-depth knowledge on the effects of return on migrants, I conclude with an appeal for returns to be treated with caution and their linking to the refugee crisis to be avoided.

The first reception system for irregular migrants taking the Mediterranean route into the European Union (EU) is dictated almost solely by border control and security concerns. There is no recognition of the role of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) as human rights monitors in first reception, and access is limited, controlled, and dependent on local authorities. Newly arriving migrants are at their most vulnerable during first reception. Traumatization and retraumatization brought by violations of human rights, or alternatively, care and welcome within the first reception system will pave the way for subsequent integration processes, by ensuring migrants' well-being, decreasing hostility, diffidence and subjugation, and peaceful relations with European host communities. By critically assessing the current system, backed by the author's long-term ethnographic fieldwork, this article explores the links between policy, practice, and mental health consequences for migrants. It shows that there are multiple risks of human rights violations of a vulnerable group of people. The article is critical of the absence of an official role for NGOs 1 as human rights monitors arguing that NGOs have a unique role to play. The article suggests that the dignified conduction of first reception could have a positive influence on integration processes, and concludes that first reception should not be designed within a security framework but within a reception one. Public Significance Statement This article explores the social and political factors of irregular border crossing into the EU.