Saving the “unwanted”: Consensus and dissensus in the managment of the “migration crisis” in Malta -- It is often believed that the use of the concept of crisis by decision-makers and state officials serves to foster consensus around a coherent and unified public action. This article, on the other hand, explores how the diagnosis of the crisis can produce various practices and know-how among competing actors who claim their professional expertise on the matter. For the last two decades, the crossings of the Mediterranean Sea by persons in exile reaching the island of Malta at the borders of Europe has been locally interpreted as evidence of a “migration crisis”. Although the “crisis” has consolidated the prominent role of security professionals who consider migration as a national threat, it has also been the opportunity for other state actors to emerge as the experts in the “welfare” of exiles. The diagnosis of crisis, therefore, can give rise to contrasting ethos and professional knowledge among state actors in charge of managing it. However, although the respective actors disagree on the significations of the “crisis” and the required responses, they converge towards a similar understanding of the events as an exceptional matter and an emergency which restricts the scope and ambitions of their critics.