Before we are slaves by force. Now we are coming by ourselves to be slaves, says Anday, an Eritrean asylum seeker in Malta .

Anday’s observation is chillingly accurate. Although modern-day migrants decide to leave their homeland, this all too often implies an almost total loss of power over their lives and futures, now shaped by forces over which they have no control.

They are at the mercy of the elements and, possibly more frightening, of the powers that be, whose main concern, it seems, is to keep them out. It matters little that a significant proportion of them may need international protection, that they will face serious harm if sent back home. The individual needs of the migrants are all but forgotten as states focus on protecting their borders.

All too often, particularly during the summer, migrants are left stranded, making desperate calls from sinking boats, clinging to tuna pens or crowded on board the vessel that rescued them from certain death, while states wrangle over who should accept them.

Those who make it to European shores are often forgotten, held for months in over-crowded detention centres with poor services, while they await the outcome of their asylum applications.

In an attempt to coordinate border control more effectively and avoid “humanitarian tragedies” Frontex, the EU border agency, conducted patrols off Malta and Spain last summer. During the first phase of the Nautilus II operation off Malta alone, more than a thousand lives were saved and more than 700 illegal immigrants were intercepted. The Hera III mission off Spain reportedly intercepted a further 1,500 illegal immigrants trying to reach southern Europe.

These statistics beg the question: what happened to the migrants intercepted? Where any sent back to their point of departure? If so, was any effort made to determine whether they were in need of international protection before they were refused access to EU territory? Were they forced to turn back to a place where they could obtain protection if they needed it?

Listening to the testimonies of asylum seekers in Malta’s detention centres, one cannot but be concerned about the fate of any migrants forced to turn back. They describe a life characterised by fear and insecurity, constantly at risk of imprisonment and deportation. Many were imprisoned for weeks or months in terrible conditions and some were actually deported. It is not only the authorities they fear; many were harassed and at times physically or verbally assaulted by the local population.

It should be stated, in fairness, that countries bordering the southern European nations must deal with huge numbers of migrants both residing in and transiting through their territory. However, most would agree that this cannot be used as an excuse to justify treatment that falls below internationally recognised human rights standards.

The same holds true for the countries within the EU —what is good for the goose is good for the gander. The fact that Europe is receiving with what they perceive as large numbers of migrants, perhaps many more than they want, cannot justify a lowering of previously accepted standards of protection and failure to respect freely assumed legal obligations in terms of international law.

European and international law oblige them to ensure that people are not, directly or indirectly, sent back to a place where they will face persecution or other serious violations of their human rights. They oblige them to ensure that all those within their effective jurisdiction who need protection are able to obtain it. They also oblige them to receive migrants and asylum seekers in a manner which respects their human dignity.

Ultimately, the measure of their commitment to human rights must surely be how they treat those among them who are most vulnerable and powerless; those who have no vote and, often, no voice.
Guardian