Boat People Laws

May 1st, 2012 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

Claire Trevett at NZ Herald reports:

Prime Minister John Key says there is an increasing risk that boat people will make it to New Zealand’s shores and new changes to the law are needed to deter people smugglers and cope with a possible mass arrival of asylum seekers.

And the changes:

  • will apply to illegal immigrants who arrive in a group of 11 or more.
  • will be detained under a group warrant, rather than individual warrants.
  • if accepted as refugees, will not get residency for at least three years after their status is reviewed.
  • will only be able to sponsor immediate family members to NZ, not extended family such as adult siblings or parents.

A key thing to understand is the difference between genuine refugees and what might be called economic refugees.

A genuine refugee is a person who flees a country because they face persecution “on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or because they are a member of a persecuted ‘social group’.” A Jew fleeing Nazi Europe is one example. A political dissident from China could be another.

“Economic refugees” or “Economic migrants” are those who seek to move to another country because it has a higher standard of living. Their motivation is quite understandable – your family are likely to have a much better life in Australia or New Zealand than in say Indonesia.

However NZ and Australia do not have open borders. They have criteria for immigration based on education, skills, wealth, age etc. Allowing anyone who can make the journey over to stay, undermines that. Hence when “boat people” turn up, they are often detained until it is clarified that they are legitimate refugees, or “economic refugees”. It is not particularly nice to do such a thing, but the reality is that if not detained, then it may be very difficult to locate them again if they are meant to be deported.

We have been fortunate not to have had a significant issue to date, but I think it is inevitable we will have a fairly large boat or two arrive at some stage.

Tags: ,

130 Responses to “Boat People Laws”

  1. philu (12,989 comments) says:

    this is just a diversionary beat-up…

    taking the place of the usual one:…’look ..!..over there..!..dpb-parents..!’

    ..a ‘straw-boat’-argument…?

    phillip ure@whoar.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. RRM (10,099 comments) says:

    I’m no sailor but I’ve been around a few naval people and others who know the sea – they are unanimous that the Tasman Sea is a particularly hostile and violent one… it will always be a major deterrant to boat people. A pretty effective line of defense (if you want to call it that) against them too.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Pete George (23,793 comments) says:

    This seems to be a very strange priority – starting to tweak recently tidied up immigration laws in case it happens some time in the future – when there are many much more important actual things happening now that are competing for attention and funding.

    Even if a boat or two eventually did manage to get this far it would still be a fairly minor issue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. gazzmaniac (2,306 comments) says:

    How many refugee boats have arrived in New Zealand in the last 20 years?

    Why on earth is the governmnet addressing this problem?

    Australia has a huge problem, based mainly on the fact that it’s geographically close to a staging post for refugees, and the top end is virtually in Southeast Asia. New Zealand doesn’t have that problem.

    I think the government should be looking at balancing the books then addressing the reasons its citizens leave for browner pastures in Australia before trying to solve an imaginary problem.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. krazykiwi (8,040 comments) says:

    If any reach NZ, get Luc to welcome them, and have them go back to live permanently at his home. I’m sure he’d be delighted to offer food, shelter, to share his wealth etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Jack5 (5,274 comments) says:

    Some of those bleating on Radio Labour etc that this is too severe stand to benefit from illegal refugees by taking them on as clients for their organisations or for themselves.

    I wonder where the Rt Hon Mr Kumbaya, leader of the Opposition, would stand on this, given his history with the United Nations, which is sticking its beak into NZ’s internal affairs and giving us a lecture on these planned changes. Incidentally, the UN’s Afghanistan efforts, which seem to be mainly Toyota Patrol shows around Kabul hotels, have been useless in helping Afghanis beat the boy-loving Taliban terrorists.

    A former Afghan boat refugee speaking on Radio Labour today seemed to think that anyone in the world had the right to move to NZ and settle here. Hellholes like Afghanistan will never get democracy unless those who want it stand and fight for it, rather than flee to social security paradises llke NZ.

    However, most of the boat people seem to be driven by economic dreams, rather than political persecution.

    And good morning philu, see you are still waving the flag for dpb-parents. There will be nothing left in the kitty for them if NZ is swamped by boat people.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. alex Masterley (1,535 comments) says:

    The government is damned if it does and damned if it doesn’t.
    It’s being mocked for making these changes and would be mocked if it does nothing and a boat load of refugees of whatever hue turn up.
    I would rather have policies and law in place to deal with the problem now rather than do nothing and hope the problem doesn’t arise.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. nasska (12,095 comments) says:

    krazykiwi

    Laws forbidding torture & detention under inhumane conditions would scuttle your idea. Fortyeight hours of listening to Luc grovelling & apologising for the existence of the white race & the UN would be forced to intervene.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Jack5 (5,274 comments) says:

    Wouldn’t it be admirable if Luc went out in a tinny with an outboard to save boat people?

    We would all pray for him, wouldn’t we?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Brian Smaller (3,966 comments) says:

    The best bit of this change is limiting the number of family/clan they can bring in. Otherwise you get Uncle Mohammed and all, then they start doing the same thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. kowtow (8,936 comments) says:

    Why eleven?
    There’s been publicity recently about Nigerians and Somalis abusing the system here. They should be deported.
    How many billions want to grab a piece of the wests’ wealth? Wake up.It’s the govts’ duty to protect it’s citizens,not the queue jumpers of the third world.
    Remember these people are illegal immigrants,don’t let the media sucker you with terms like refugee and asylum seeker.
    Our taxes can pay for only so much largesse.And we’re broke anyway!
    Tasman Sea dangerous ? No problem,cross in bigger boats,it’s been done before.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. mikenmild (12,340 comments) says:

    Wow, Jack5 certainly managed to cram an impressive amount of nonsense into one comment, even by Kiwiblog standards.
    If those dealing with refugees want to see more of them, then I guess doctors will be trying to make people ill and the Police will also be encouraging criminals.
    The UN in Afghanistan? Um, they aren’t there to beat terrorists. That was the US’s goal, woefully not achieved.
    Afghans for democracy? Maybe some are, but I’d guess that most of them would just like the foreign military occupation to end.
    Oh, and nice to know you have a special insight into the ‘real’ motives of refugees.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Michael Mckee (1,091 comments) says:

    They already are Brian.

    Idon’t think it goes far enough.

    We should make it plain that we won’t allow anyone to try and jump to the head of the queue and especially ahead of those who have followed protocol with the UN scheme.

    We are part of that scheme and will honour that and expect all others too, as a sovereign country we choose who and how we let people into our country.

    All who do jump the queue will be sent back within a week and should not be allowed to apply for 10 years from that date.

    I agree that refugees should only sponsor immediate children born to them under 18 years or their parents and they cannot sponsor anyone else.

    We must make sure that the UN system is honoured, otherwise we won’t be a country of laws and agreements but a third world banana republic based on whim deals and ultimately corruption. :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. backster (2,195 comments) says:

    Good and very timely legislation, following the interception of a load of refugees who were being encouraged by Aussie to replenish their boat and carry on the NZ. as we were a soft touch. Happily they decided not to take the risk but as we know several young adventurers have rowed across in a rowboat so maybe the risk of crossing in a motorised vessel is overstated.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Chris2 (775 comments) says:

    In a previous life I worked in the Immigration Department and the risk of boat people arriving in NZ aboard some clapped out rusting old fishing boat is not the real risk. As an earlier poster remarked, the Tasman sea is very treacherous for such vessels.

    However, the real boat people risk for NZ, is having them arrive hidden inside containers aboard container ship. It is such a problem for Canada that they now send out border patrol vessels before container ships reach the west coast of Canada and inspect the vessels for stowaways. They stick long probes inside the containers and can measure the carbon dioxide level to determine if humans are inside.

    How NZ handles the first “boat people” will determine whether others will follow. If we release them into the community and hand out welfare we will be utterly swamped will more boat people in no time at all and we will have the same problem that Australia has. A tough approach is essential.

    One of the reasons Singapore does not have such a problem now with illegal migrants is that they commonly give them a few strokes of the cane before being deporting them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. All_on_Red (1,742 comments) says:

    I agree with Chris2, unfortunately the only way to deal with them and deter them is to make it clear that as soon as they arrive they are shipped back- boat and all if necessary.
    Might be expensive but a lot lot cheaper in the long run. Its costing Oz hundreds of millions the way they do it now

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Chris2 (775 comments) says:

    All_on_Red – yes you quite right. Although Australia has a policy of burning the boats (or the military uses them for target practice) as they don’t want the boat being used again for a another attempt to reach Australia.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. berend (1,690 comments) says:

    And the question is: why can’t we welcome anyone with open arms?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. david (2,194 comments) says:

    I’m with Alex Masterly (11:24am) It is prudent and good government to ensure the law is suitable for potential threats. Look at the shit handed out to Labour over the Terrorist list update matters in their last turn at the wheel.

    I hope the law doesn’t need to be invoked but we would look a bit stupid if it was needed and wasn’t a tool available to the Government of the day demanding panic legislation and interminable legal challenges by the never-ending queue of “human rights lawyers” we seem to have produced through our law schools in the past 15 years. Multiply Zaoui by 20 and you will get what I mean.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Rick Rowling (816 comments) says:

    Build some more coal-fired power stations.

    The global-warming-induced increase in storm activity will keep the boat people away. ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. krazykiwi (8,040 comments) says:

    And the question is: why can’t we welcome anyone with open arms?

    Because of our welfare state. Desperation would fleetingly become thankfulness… and thereafter entitlement. Forever.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. slade52 (13 comments) says:

    Seems the simple route around this law change is to arrive in groups of 10 or less.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Nick R (522 comments) says:

    I am very pleased the Government is legislating against the risk of boat people arriving in groups of 12 or more. Only a fool would fail to see the risk of posed by groups of more than 12. Why, they could form rugby teams. A group of 11 would only be able to play football, and wouldn’t have enough for reserves. Much less risk.

    But what I really want to know is, when will the Government address the pterodactyl threat? I want to see immediate legislation prohibiting the importation of pterodactyl eggs.

    Will nobody think of the children?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Chris2 (775 comments) says:

    slade52 – people smugglers that organise these boats want to cram them full of people to maximise their profit.

    They will not make any money if they send them off in boats with just 10 people aboard.

    It is not commonly known that people smuggling is more profitable than drug smuggling, and the penalties are far less, too, quite apart from the risk of being caught is negligible.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    It’s a shame David Farrar found it necessary to poison his post with the reference to “illegal immigrants,” a term that is meaningless in this context and is, in reality, a means of dehumanising an “out-group.”

    There is a concurrent discussion in the US on whether the popular, but entirely inappropriate term, “illegal aliens,” qualifies as hate speech. I tend to think it’s generally ignorance, but for some, generating hate is certainly the intent.

    A refugee has proper legal standing under the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (1951), to which we are a signatory. There can be no such thing as an illegal refugee, neither is an asylum seeker, even an asylum seeker whose application for refugee status has been declined, an “illegal immigrant.”

    After all, those whom one nation may decline to accept as a refugee under the convention, another may welcome as a future citizen.

    Another poisonous term, used in the comments above, is “queue jumper.” This is another term intended to dehumanise people seeking release from their current situation, and is simply untrue. John Key, for example, is well aware of this but uses the term to play to his redneck political base. The two groups are entirely separate and dealt with separately and independently under the law.

    If we sign up to conventions we should abide by them, and be guided by the United Nations on the treatment of asylum seekers. Mass incarceration is not recommended by the UN, to put it in a quietly understated manner.

    As for the nonsense that these brave and desperate people pose some kind of threat to civil society as we know it in New Zealand, words almost fail me. The notion that they risk their lives, and/or the lives of their women and children, and come here to foment some kind of mischief (although it’s OK for some of our citizens to do that ;-) ) is logically improbable – or, if you like, hysterical fear-mongering, often driven by out and out racism.

    I’m interested in finding out just how many refugees New Zealand has accepted since 1951 and how many of those have committed criminal acts after being awarded such status. And I would guarantee that the children of refugees are better students than the local populations – they are simply more highly motivated. I knew of some Tampa students at one school, and they were generally exemplary, even in the face of an unsympathetic principal. Of course, facts do little to sway prejudice, sadly.

    Someone above asked me to take them into my home. My home is not that big, but it does indicate an alternative to mass incarceration, which is simply imprisonment without trial or evidence of wrongdoing, and that is billeting with sympathetic families, possibly those from similar ethnic and religious backgrounds. The government should pay for this service.

    It’s also high time a place was found for some economic refugees, too. In some countries, economic pressure is used as a form of oppression – Syria is one such example.

    As regards mass incarceration, including women and children, it beggars the mind that we would so mistreat people who will, overwhelmingly, be seen as qualified under international law to be accepted as refugees and eventually welcomed as citizens.

    The strategy smacks of the racist “white man’s burden” mentality that still infects the western world.

    I trust this comment serves to provide succour to my fan club, above.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. mikenmild (12,340 comments) says:

    No, no, no Luc, it just won’t do to point out the facts when there’s serious scaremongering to be done at a politically convenient time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Elaycee (4,425 comments) says:

    Luc’s latest pearl: “I trust this comment serves to provide succour to my fan club, above.”

    Don’t flatter yourself.

    Your fan club could meet in a phone box.

    One already occupied….. by milkmilo.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Chris2 (775 comments) says:

    Luc Hansen – the UN Convention on refugees was signed 60 years ago when millions of people in Europe were stateless, and global plane travel was not yet commonplace. The Convention relates to political claimants only, not economic ones looking for a better life – so put that argument about Syria away because there is no provision in the Convention for it.

    Almost every person to claim refugee status in NZ is indeed an illegal immigrant. The same UN convention that you refer to and rely on, also requires that any claimant for refugee status must make their claim at the first country where they safely reach.

    There is no provision for applicants to shop around and pick and choose the country they want to claim refugee status in. The convention requires them to submit a claim at the first country they arrive in.

    Apart from the direct Air NZ- China flight, there is no source country of refugee status applicants that can reach NZ directly, so all other claimants must have passed through other countries first, before reaching NZ. That is where the Convention requires them to apply for refugee status, not here in NZ.

    In the past, the bulk of refugee claimants were not spontaneous (they did not arrive at the border and immediately claim refugee status). Instead most claimants arrived here lawfully on visitor or students visa and waited until the near-expiration of their visa before then making a claim for refugee status. Again this contravenes the Convention you rely on, which requires claimants to apply immediately at the first port of safety.

    Unless you have worked in Immigration like I have, you have no idea the extent of lying and deceit these phony refugee claimants make. It ruins it for the genuine refugee.

    I once had a Somalian claim refugee status, said he had no family (all killed by a warlord). He was granted refugee status and 10 months later applied to bring out 42 members of his family ….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    Jew-hater Luc Hanson opines:

    “with the reference to “illegal immigrants,” a term that is meaningless in this context and is, in reality, a means of dehumanising an “out-group.””

    Not true. It is a technically and morally correct term. A person who enters a country illegaly is breaking the law, just as someone who breaks into another person’s home is. It is not a means of “dehumanising” anyone, anymore than calling a thief a thief is.

    “A refugee has proper legal standing under the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (1951), to which we are a signatory.”

    All the more reason to tell the U.N. to go stuff itself, and tear up any “conventions” that have been signed. New Zealanders alone have the right to create and pass laws in their own country. The U.N. violates the sovereignty of N.Z. and has no democratic legitimacy or accountability.

    “As for the nonsense that these brave and desperate people pose some kind of threat to civil society as we know it in New Zealand, words almost fail me.”

    Many things fail you besides words.

    Mikenmild, Luc’s homoerotic life partner opines:

    “No, no, no Luc, it just won’t do to point out the facts”

    What facts? Luc’s post was just the usual treasonous Marxist garbage.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. alex (304 comments) says:

    A boat person who has put in the effort, time, money and hard work to get to New Zealand is exactly the sort of hard-working go getter we should be welcoming into the country. Refugees are generally notable for their entrepreneurial spirit and ability to withstand hardship in order to make a better life.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. mikenmild (12,340 comments) says:

    Quick, we need philu for Lee to talk to!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. mikenmild (12,340 comments) says:

    Chris2
    Yes, I’m sure the nice folks in Immigration would like it all tidy so that we only have to take a few ‘nice’ refugees selected from UN camps or suchlike. The reality is that refugees do manage to make it here, maybe because other countries ignore their international obligations, and we have to deal with that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    Mikenmild dribbles:

    “The UN in Afghanistan? Um, they aren’t there to beat terrorists. That was the US’s goal, woefully not achieved.”

    Wrong on both counts. The UN is there to fight terrorists, and the campaign has been hugely succesful. Drone attacks and operations by special forces have decimated Al-Qaeda and its leadership.

    “But bin Laden was a weakened leader, presiding over a group that had lost scores of key operatives to U.S. drone strikes while being pursued around the world. Increasingly, bin Laden’s musings about future terrorist strikes took on a fanciful air, given the group’s dwindling resources. Occasionally his talk of bold attacks was met with shrugs and skepticism, said one senior U.S. counterterrorism official familiar with the documents.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/bin-ladens-last-stand-in-final-months-terrorist-leader-worried-about-his-legacy/2012/04/30/gIQAStCjsT_story_1.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    All refugees who pass safe countries on their way to N.Z. should be deported.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. mikenmild (12,340 comments) says:

    Lee – you are woefully misinformed, again. The UN mission in Afghanistan is a humanitarian one. The US, later NATO, have been trying to achieve military success. And if you think the US occupation has been successful, then you’re even dumber than you make out to be.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Jack5 (5,274 comments) says:

    Lefty Luc posted at 1.10

    …There can be no such thing as an illegal refugee, neither is an asylum seeker, even an asylum seeker whose application for refugee status has been declined, an “illegal immigrant.”

    Fuck the United Nations definitions and declarations of illegality! The majority of UN members are dictatorships, or even theocracies like Saudi Arabia.

    If NZ’s Parliament, on our behalf, declares these gatecrashers are illegal, they are illegal.

    Lefty Luc also thinks the Government should pay him for billeting illegal gatecrashers to our country.

    Fat chance, Lefty Luc!

    If Lefty Luc wants armadas of queue jumpers heading across the Tasman, he should top up his outboard motor and get out his tinny. Don’t expect the rest of us to help when they get into trouble at sea.

    Also, Lefty Luc’s wing man milkenmild posted at 11.36:

    …The UN in Afghanistan? Um, they aren’t there to beat terrorists. That was the US’s goal…Afghans for democracy? Maybe some are, but I’d guess that most of them would just like the foreign military occupation to end.

    The Afghans don’t need to rush around the world gatecrashing into other people’s countries then, do they? And who would stop the UN bureaucrats in Kabul from being topped (often in the true sense of the world) if it wasn’t for the young soldiers from America, Europe, and allies such as NZ?

    And while milkenmild smears Kiwiblog posters, he quips:

    …If those dealing with refugees want to see more of them, then I guess doctors will be trying to make people ill and the Police will also be encouraging criminals.

    Our doctors are already overworked and overloaded, so I doubt they want more people ill. They also ethical professionals as shown by their attitude towards euthnasia for dying people who are suffering and want a quick end. Our police, too, are judged by how they reduce crime.

    Who else but bleeding heart activists and West-haters stand to benefit if illegal, gatecrashing “refugees” swamp our welfare state, which is so loved by such Lefties that they would drown it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    Mikenmild dribbles:

    “Lee – you are woefully misinformed, again. The UN mission in Afghanistan is a humanitarian one.”

    The humanitarian mission is part of the overall mission to fight terrorists.

    “And if you think the US occupation has been successful, then you’re even dumber than you make out to be.”

    It has as far as fighting Al-Qaeda is concerned, which is the primary reason for being there in the first place. The campaign against Al-Qaeda has been sucessful, though still incomplete.

    Of course if your the kind of retarded lefty (and you are) who thinks the U.S. should be in Afghanistan to make friends, build hospitals and schools and promote “human rights” then you will believe it has been a failure. But your mental illness is not the topic of discussion.

    Jack:

    “And while milkenmild smears Kiwiblog posters”

    That is all he ever does. He has not once ever made any attempt at an actual argument of any sort on any topic. I assume he is just too stupid to do so.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Chris2 (775 comments) says:

    mikenmild, the only reason so many claimants for refugee status reached NZ in the first place was because the Immigration Service failed to impose fines on airlines that accepted passengers without a visa to travel here in the first place. The fines have been available for over 20 years, but not imposed.

    The worst offender was ironically, Air NZ. The airlines knew there would be no penalty and were only interested in bums of seats (ie. passengers paying airfares).

    Now Immigration are beginning to impose instant fines on airlines if a passengers reach NZ unlawfully, and the airline also carries the cost of returning the passenger to their point of embarkation. This is what has brought halt to the free-flow of unlawful migrants.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. mikenmild (12,340 comments) says:

    Lee and Jack
    Wow – so much hate and so much misinformation.
    Clearly you don’t like NZ belonging to the UN or complying with the provision of international treaties to which it is a party. That’s fine as an opinion, and I suppose it might even be shared by a tiny minority of New Zealanders.
    Back in reality, New Zealand is one of the most difficult countries in the world to reach. There are absolutely no signs that boatloads of refugees are coming here anytime soon. Even if they did, I think most people would expect them to be dealt with according to our longstanding humanitarian commitments.
    As for your views on Afghanistan, I guess if the US campaign there has been successful, then Vietnam was an outstanding victory.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    “Wow – so much hate”

    Coming from you that is amusing.

    “Clearly you don’t like NZ belonging to the UN”

    Duh.

    “That’s fine as an opinion, and I suppose it might even be shared by a tiny minority of New Zealanders.”

    So you only allow yourself to hold opinions that a majority also hold? Sheeple much?

    “There are absolutely no signs that boatloads of refugees are coming here anytime soon.”

    Prove it.

    “Even if they did, I think most people would expect them to be dealt with according to our longstanding humanitarian commitments.”

    Prove it. Show me a poll that has most Kiwis saying they want boatloads of refugess coming here and would welcome them. Otherwise stop confusing your opinion with the majority.

    “As for your views on Afghanistan, I guess if the US campaign there has been successful,”

    As I pointed out, with evidence to back it up, the campaign against Al-Qaeda has been sucessful. You on the other hand have failed to provide any backing for your view. Perhaps if your unable to construct a basic argument to back your pov, your should stop posting here and embarassing yourself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Michael Mckee (1,091 comments) says:

    Why do we have laws?
    Why do we have social mores and rules?
    So that society can operate within a framework that gives people known guidelines and the safety of that.

    We have signed up to a UN framework for 750 refugees a year that we can live with and the government thinks that we the citizens will accept.
    Many refugees go through all the steps and grief that entails to come to NZ.
    Why should we allow others to usurp them?

    What type of people do we want in this country, people who go through all the hoops and rules or people who have decided that our rules don’t apply to them and consequently break the law to enter NZ?

    No send them back in seven days, deny them further application and visitation for 10yrs.
    Make the carrier pay and fine them to boot.
    Lets honour those who play by the rules, instead of trashing their efforts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. kowtow (8,936 comments) says:

    milky

    You want “NZ” to comply etc
    Most people here seem to want the illegal immigrants to comply by international and domestic law . If they did ,there’d be no problem. But they don’t comply and ably assisted by a herd of “human rights” lawyers, a leftist press and dickheads like you and Jew hating Lucy they come gate crahing the border and so the gummint is forced to legislate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Nostalgia-NZ (5,318 comments) says:

    Jk said this law was necessary because there might be terrorists among any body people to arrive here.
    Was he serious or just having a bit of fun?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. mikenmild (12,340 comments) says:

    Michael
    Sure, we have signed up to a UN convention. We arguably already make an adequate contribution to taking refugees. I guess the difference is whether we consider people arriving here to be refugees or not. Interestingly, we have a well-defined process for granting refugee status, and I’m not sure that anyone is pointing to any problems with the way that operates.
    All the talk about ‘queue jumping’ is a bit of a distraction. If someone arrives here, and qualifies for refugee status then that is how they are treated.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    10 Reasons to Abolish the UN.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctCZ1LQO4Lw

    http://frontpagemag.com/upload/pamphlets/UN.pdf

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    “Jk said this law was necessary because there might be terrorists among any body people to arrive here.
    Was he serious or just having a bit of fun?”

    If they come from places like Somalia that concern is justified.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. mikenmild (12,340 comments) says:

    We’re not exactly being inundated by terrorist, or refugees for that matter. But good on the government for making this a distraction, oops, I mean a priority.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Nostalgia-NZ (5,318 comments) says:

    ‘If they come from places like Somalia that concern is justified.’

    So are they escaping or infiltrating?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    “So are they escaping or infiltrating?”

    The point is we do not know for sure. But the experiance of Europe should be a warning to us. Apparently Mikenmild wants the government to wait until we are being inundated by terrorists and refugees before taking any action, otherwise he claims it is just a distraction. Calling such an opinion monumentally retarded and stupid would be an understatement. The time to act with regards to national security is BEFORE things become a problem. Only a fool, or a lefty, would want to do nothing except wait until it is too late to do anything.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Jack5 (5,274 comments) says:

    milkenmild posted at 2.18:

    …As for your views on Afghanistan, I guess if the US campaign there has been successful, then Vietnam was an outstanding victory…

    My views? I didn’t mention anything about the success of the Afghanistan campaign, and I don’t see what Vietnam has to do with any current potential threat of boat people targeting New Zealand.

    But since you raise it, I think Obama did succeed by having Bin Laden killed. Apart from improving the lot of the Afghan people I can’t see any reason for the Western allies staying there.

    The American-Nato-Allies and even the Soviet Union began to improve the dreadful lot of the women and girls of Afghanistan. Surely, only a misogynist can sympathise with the Taleban.

    How would you ease the plight of women and girls in Afghanistan, milkenmild? Sharia law? Hygienic, State hospitals for female circumcision?

    The Left has run out of ideas now that Marxism has proved to be a dangerous, stultifying mirage and now that Social Democrats and Christian Socialists’ views have merged into the Western mainstream.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. mikenmild (12,340 comments) says:

    Not having a refugee or terrorism problem now may perhaps be an indication that there is a low risk of any such problem developing. There has been no indication that our current laws are inadequate for dealing with refugees, or terrorists.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Michael Mckee (1,091 comments) says:

    No Mikenmild they don’t just arrive here, they apply with the UN elsewhere, get processed and are then invited to enter our country.

    If they come here without invitation, they jump the queue and should be sent back with a 10 year stay on further application or entry.

    As you and others have stated clearly this isn’t an easy country to get too.
    By doing the above it will stop the flow and the money/finances from the rest of the family/village and ultimately to the people smugglers somewhere) as the illegals/out of rules have certainty that they will be sent back.

    It is what is fair and just to those who go through all the hoops.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. F E Smith (3,307 comments) says:

    The thing is, of course, that most of these ‘refugees’ are not going to Oz from Afghanistan, Iraq, or other strife torn countries, but are actually leaving from Malaysia and Indonesia. It is to those countries that the refugee application should be made, not Oz.

    Of course, refugee applications are always fun to work with. Like the one guy who applied (and got) refugee status in NZ, but forgot to mention that he had citizenship in a European country and had lived there for several years before heading for NZ…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    “Not having a refugee or terrorism problem now may perhaps be an indication that there is a low risk of any such problem developing. ”

    may perhaps??????

    Oh good. Now I feel much safer.

    Many people said much the same thing about a major terrorist attack on American soil.

    “There has been no indication that our current laws are inadequate for dealing with refugees, or terrorists.”

    There is no indication that they ARE adequate.

    The government, unlike you, has a serious responsibility to the NZ people. It cannot ignore potential problems for no better reason that your “may perhaps” not be a problem, especially when there clearly IS a problem on both counts throughout much of the rest of the Wdestern world.

    Like a typical retarded lefty, you just do not take the safety and security of your own country seriously. To you it is just a “distraction” from the real job of being the UN’s bumboy.

    There is a name for this.

    Traitor.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Jack5 (5,274 comments) says:

    milkenmild posted at 2.54:

    …There has been no indication that our current laws are inadequate for dealing with refugees…

    Ahmed Zaoui?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Lee01 (2,171 comments) says:

    “Not having a refugee or terrorism problem now may perhaps be an indication that there is a low risk of any such problem developing.

    May perhaps????? Nice to see that you take the safety and security of your country seriously.

    Some people said much the same thing about a major terrorist attack on U.S. soil.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. TheContrarian (1,094 comments) says:

    I think the key issue is not the boat people but the method in which they set out. Basically it is people smuggling

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Christopher Thomson (377 comments) says:

    “As for your views on Afghanistan, I guess if the US campaign there has been successful, then Vietnam was an outstanding victory.”

    Yes it was.

    Do you need it explained to you how and why – or would you prefer to remain in your misinformed ignorance?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. philu (12,989 comments) says:

    oh no..!..plse explain..!

    ..’inform’ my ‘ignorance’..eh..?

    topic:..’Vietnam was an outstanding victory…Yes it was”..

    i’m ready..off ya go..!

    phillip ure@whoar.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Christopher Thomson (377 comments) says:

    It will contain big words constructed in sentences and paragraphs.

    Well beyond your capabilities to understand and comprehend.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. mikenmild (12,340 comments) says:

    Go ahead Christopher – I’m all ears.
    And like Jack5, do you think the Us invasion and occupation has improved the lives of thew people of Afghanistan?
    Speaking of Jack5, I’m not sure what point he was making about Zaoui – was it that after our laws were finally applied there was actually no case for declining his application for refugee status on security grounds?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Jack5 (5,274 comments) says:

    milkenmild posted at 3.42

    ….like Jack5, do you think the Us invasion and occupation has improved the lives of thew people of Afghanistan?

    C’mon milkenmild, allowing girls to be educated, allowing wife killers to be arrested, allowing people to listen to music, stopping religious police from beating women with sticks in the streets, stopping the Taleban from killing homosexuals by bulldozing walls on to them, rebuilding damaged infrastructure.

    Does milkenmild sincerely believe Afghans, including women and girls, were better off before under the Taleban?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Griff (8,419 comments) says:

    Chances of a boat getting to NZ with out detection are almost 0 The navy and customs get annoying if you cruise around twenty miles off shore always hailing and questioning you. Not fun to get the noise of a p3k2 Orions 18,400hp at mast hight when you are having a quite snooze
    Send out a chopper when they are twelve miles out and give the navy some live firing practice.
    That way the lawyers and loopy lefties will not be able to spend taxpayer funds on the illegals
    You would only need to do it once That will learn them
    A little collateral damage is ok if its not your side just ask the yanks

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. philu (12,989 comments) says:

    aww..!..c’mon chris t..!..tell us how vietnam was a raging success..

    phillip ure@whoar.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. mikenmild (12,340 comments) says:

    Oh Jack, you faith is quite touching. Firstly, if I recall correctly, the US did not invade Afghanistan to make the Taliban be nice to people. Second, if life is better from some in Afghanistan now (an arguable point), that has been at the cost of tens of thousands of deaths and half a trillion dollars of money.
    When the invasion started, thye US aim was to destroy Al-Qaeda, remove the Taliban from power and create a viable democratic state. Al-Qaeda continues to operate, the Taliban still control large areas of territory and Afghanistan is no closer to being a viable democracy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Cactus Kate (536 comments) says:

    What if they arrive on a cabbage boat?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Christopher Thomson (377 comments) says:

    Up to the American withdrawal in 1973 the North Vietnamese army had been conclusivly defeated in a multitude of pitched battles. Losses are estimated for the North at 1 million with 58 thousand US casualties.

    The US terminated communist aspirations in the asian region. If North Vietnam had been able to succsessfully invade the South the repercussions would have had dire effects for the other nations of the region. The American effort stiffened the resolve of anti-communist governements throughout Asia. The war exhausted the communist proxie and crushed it as a regional power. Vietnam is a political, economic and military backwater.

    The American military left vietnam undefeated on the battlefield and it was two years after, that North Vietnam, refinanced and re-equiped by the communisst bloc was able to invade a South Vietnam that had been left unsupported and rendered virtually defenceless.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Nick R (522 comments) says:

    @ Cactus – I’m pretty sure MAF should have to intercept them for biosecurity reasons. They are eternally vigilent against the cabbage boat menace.

    But perhaps we should form a cabbage boat reserve force, just to be safe.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. mikenmild (12,340 comments) says:

    Ha ha Christopher – that’s not exactly describing a US victory is it. I’m aware that there have been some revisionist claims that the use of airpower in the last stages of US involvement forced the North Vietnamese back to the negotiating table, but that is the limit to claims for American success.
    The US intervention in Vietnam simply delayed the communist takeover of all Vietnam and Laos, and quite possibly was the cause of the Khmer Rouge victory in Cambodia.
    The only sensible conclusion is that the US withdrew from Vietnam when it finally realised that a military victory there was impossible, leaving its puppet regime to collapse.
    It seems a similar scenario will play out in Afghanistan.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Christopher Thomson (377 comments) says:

    Smells like victory to me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. kowtow (8,936 comments) says:

    ……..puppet regime to collapse……..

    So the regime there at the moment is………? Representative,democratic,pluralist? None of the foregoing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. mikenmild (12,340 comments) says:

    If only all our problems could be solved with napalm.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. kowtow (8,936 comments) says:

    milky
    History shows that it tends to be communist totalitarians who solve “problems”with force, aided by no shortage of fellow travellers,eh comrade?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. philu (12,989 comments) says:

    they will have to add a cabbage-boat clause…

    ..to their straw-boat legislation…

    ..(it’s all so vegetative..almost ‘green’ in nature..)

    “..look..!..over there..!..dirty queue-jumping boat-people/refugees..!..”

    it worked for john howard..for awhile..

    phillip ure@whoar.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. mikenmild (12,340 comments) says:

    kowtow
    You and I must read very different history books. How many wars have liberal democracies leaped into in recent decades?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. eszett (2,450 comments) says:

    Cactus Kate (435) Says:
    May 1st, 2012 at 4:14 pm

    What if they arrive on a cabbage boat?

    Then they qualify as an ACT candidate for Epsom.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. All_on_Red (1,742 comments) says:

    Let’s not underestimate the scale of the problem. 1000 people tried to reach Oz in April alone.
    As for John Key saying terrorists could be among them , well that’s been the Oz experience

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. mara (769 comments) says:

    I was a baby on a boat to NZ from Europe in 1951. This was legal and organised under UN conventions. I was among people who were likely to assimilate and we did. Possibly because we did not expect welfare and had no anti-western habits like honour killing, female genital mutilation, stoning of gays, beheading and conquering of Infidels. Etc. Weeny little details like that. You get the drift. Times change.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. mikenmild (12,340 comments) says:

    All_on
    And how many tried to reach NZ in April? How many terrorists have come here?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. kowtow (8,936 comments) says:

    milky
    I don’t doubt we read different history books.
    The ones you favour will have been approved by a committee of comrades. Mine, not so much.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. mikenmild (12,340 comments) says:

    From Amnesty International:
    The New Zealand government’s introduction of changes to the Immigration Act represent a deeply concerning trend that ignores the violent and terrifying situations these people are fleeing says Amnesty International.

    “Such changes show a total disregard for our country’s legal and moral responsibility to offer protection to asylum seekers and are in fact in breach of New Zealand’s obligations under the Refugee Convention,” says Rebecca Emery, Deputy Director at Amnesty International.

    “It is disappointing that the Immigration Minister has used the term “queue jumper”, as in fact the queue is a myth – there is no queue for those who are fleeing persecution.”

    “People have a fundamental legal right in International and New Zealand law to seek asylum.”

    Amnesty International is deeply concerned with the proposals that will provide the Government with the power of mass detention. The organisation understands the need for security, health and identity checks but emphasises that these need to be done on an individual basis.

    “This proposed legislation would introduce the kind of system that has been disastrous for Australia and it is the very system that they are trying to get away from,” says Rebecca Emery.

    “It is using a sledgehammer approach to a non-existent problem, the numbers of asylum seekers New Zealand deals with each year are tiny, on average 300 a year and mostly arriving by plane.”

    “The reason people haven’t been arriving here by boat is because of New Zealand’s geographical location. It has nothing to do with being a ‘soft touch’”.

    As a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention, New Zealand has an international legal obligation to assess the claims of any asylum seekers who arrive in New Zealand, no matter how they arrive. They have committed to providing protection to those who are genuine refugees.

    “Asylum seekers are not breaking the law. Nobody wants to be a refugee, the 10 Chinese Asylum Seekers who arrived in Darwin earlier this month were fleeing from situations of torture that Amnesty had previously voiced concern on,” says Rebecca Emery.

    “While New Zealand accepts an annual quota of 750 refugees through the UN system, this should not be confused with those that claim asylum at the border.”

    “Accepting one boatload of asylum seekers is not going to see our country suddenly overrun by a flood of refugees. In the last five years, an average of 250 asylum seekers have arrived each year in New Zealand.”

    “The New Zealand government must ensure that these changes do not breach its obligations to provide genuine protection to those who need it.”

    “If New Zealand wants to address the issue of people smuggling, in a manner both durable and humane, it would do better to work globally to address the reasons that force asylum seekers onto boats – grave human rights abuses in their countries of origin,” adds Rebecca Emery.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Good one eszett 5.32pm!!

    Addressing a few comments above in response to my earlier effort:

    Lee01 (1,839) Says:

    May 1st, 2012 at 1:37 pm
    Jew-hater Luc Hanson opines:

    Funny thing is, Lee, you dope, I am arguing against the very laws that were once used to send Europe’s Jews into mass incarceration and death. Any law that treats all people from the same group as one and the same is discriminatory and essentially collective punishment – in this case, all for exercising their legal right!

    You then present a contradiction in terms by repeating the fallacy of “illegal immigrants,” yet in the next sentence accepting the legitimacy of their legal status under international law. You may disagree with the law, but it is what it is. By all means, gnash your teeth, if that makes you feel better. And they cannot be “illegal immigrants” because they are not applying to immigrate. They are seeking asylum. This is not a semantic point. The term “illegal immigrants” is designed to whip up an emotional response. It’s sad to see JK descending to that level.

    Someone bought up the point that asylum seekers should make their way to the nearest UN processing centre. Yeah, right. As if the is one of those on every street corner! In fact, these people often have to traverse a number of hostile countries before arriving somewhere where they feel safe enough to apply for asylum.

    And again, there is no queue to jump. We have a quota and the laws are designed to take into account these very circumstances. We are free to expand our quota, as we did the year of the Tampa.

    Guess what, we survived.

    F E Smith – a mischievous offering. So one asylum seeker massaged the facts, ergo, they all do it? Is that what you are getting at? One white man steals off people, including his own mother, ergo, all white men are thieving bastards, right?

    PhilU actually comes as close to making sense as he ever has by mentioning the John Howard connection. Hasn’t anyone here noticed the turmoil and international opprobrium Australia has experienced with it’s mass incarceration policy? Deaths in custody, children sent mad, suicides, hunger strikes, desperate people driven to desperate escape bids…and we want to go down the same road with the inevitably of the same result if, in fact, such mass arrivees do ever make it across our tempestuous moat.

    And I happened to hear Graeme Bell on The Panel – I know, an exercise in masochism! I always cringe when he is permitted his free whine, and today was no exception.

    He wants us to deter asylum seekers. Tell me, Graeme, what do you suggest we deter them with after the horrors most of them are leaving behind? Surely, by definition, the deterrence must be as bad as, or worse than their current cause of distress?

    Griff’s suggestion of machine gun practice, perhaps?

    Quick edit: thanks Mike!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. thor42 (971 comments) says:

    Why does this only apply to “11 or more”?
    Why not “two or more”?
    Having it only apply from 11 people or more is bloody arbitrary. You will have groups of ten comi8ng here and this law will be useless. What a joke!
    Anyway – I **definitely** agree with toughening up the immigration laws. Look at Europe and the UK for an example of what happens when you have really slack immigration laws. I think they’ll be paying for it soon with massive social unrest – all of the Muslims with their hostile ideology flooding in to the West.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. philu (12,989 comments) says:

    and of course..our country is so full..eh..?..so over-populated…

    ..the japanese call nz ‘the empty islands’..

    ..and we are so mean/miserable with the numbers of refugees that we accept anyway..

    ..we should actually be chartering a couple of boats to bring more refugees here..

    ..refugees from all over…we should be trying for a minor u.n-effect….

    …we will also increase the strength of our gene-pool..

    ..and make nz a better place..

    phillip ure@whoar.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. thor42 (971 comments) says:

    Btw, I agree with Jack5. F**k the UN and their whining about “refugees”.
    I believe we should withdraw from the UN. They are *always* trying to stick their oar in where it is not welcome. We are a sovereign nation – stuff them.
    The UN is a corrupt, Islam-dominated farce, and all they want to do is to pump as many Muslim refugees to the West as possible (and 99% of them *are* Muslim). Muslims should ***fix up their own countries*** before coming and bludging off other countries.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. thor42 (971 comments) says:

    Dear philu – how about this –
    For every refugee we take in, we export a bludger like you.
    How does that sound? Sounds good to me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. philu (12,989 comments) says:

    it’s astonishing how the mainstream media commentators are so falling over each other to be even more self-regarding of us as a nation..

    ..prattling on as a ‘given’..how we are ‘respected’ worldwide for our refugee-policies..

    ..such claims of course are utter horse-shit..and fly in the face of the facts..

    ..we are mean/miserly with our ‘quota’..which we rarely fill anyway…

    ..and as for how we treat some refugees..?

    ..wasn’t there that guy called achmed..?..

    ..phillip ure@whoar.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Why don’t you start a movement, then Thor42?

    Register a party, campaign to withdraw from the UN.

    Even better, export your sputter/splutter/bluster to the rest of the world!

    By the way, just how many Muslim nations are on the Security Council?

    And have you ever stopped to wonder why Muslims flee their countries? Do you think it would have anything to do with western invasions and and western supported coups and western support for brutal dictatorships?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Falafulu Fisi (2,141 comments) says:

    Perhaps if boat people can sing, then give them a chance. I See A Boat On The River.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. big bruv (14,217 comments) says:

    “wasn’t there that guy called achmed..?..”

    There was/is, and the bastard should still be put on the first plane out of NZ.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. nasska (12,095 comments) says:

    “wasn’t there that guy called achmed..?..”

    AKA the “Three Million Dollar Muslim”. Any laws we enact now that prevent such shitheads gaming the system should be seen as a good thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Falafulu Fisi (2,141 comments) says:

    Alex …

    A boat person who has put in the effort, time, money and hard work to get to New Zealand is exactly the sort of hard-working go getter we should be welcoming into the country. Refugees are generally notable for their entrepreneurial spirit and ability to withstand hardship in order to make a better life.

    Berend…

    And the question is: why can’t we welcome anyone with open arms?

    Not PC blog said something similar, but he would like to see state welfarism end.

    Refugees: What’s the problem?

    Refugees shouldn’t expect a handout when they arrive here. They must stand on their own 2 feet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. mikenmild (12,340 comments) says:

    I see a couple of reference above to the Zaoui case. A good example of allowing a genuine refugee to stay, despite years of obfuscation about bogus ‘security’ concerns.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. nasska (12,095 comments) says:

    mikenmild

    …”A good example of allowing a genuine refugee to stay, despite years of obfuscation about bogus ‘security’ concerns.”…..

    Or an excellent example of some POS who destroys a fake passport & then uses every means at his disposal to con his way into getting a fake refugee status accepted. Then to really rub salt into the wounds of the day to day NZ taxpayer he uses his residency to bring in his wife & kids who were living illegally in Malaysia.

    Refugee my arse…he proves we’re just a pack of gullible fools to allow ourselves to be taken advantage of by similar liars & law breakers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. philu (12,989 comments) says:

    where did yr ancestors come from nasska…?…

    ..and why..?

    ..we are all boat-people..

    ..what gives us the right to slam the door shut..?

    phillip ure@whoar.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. big bruv (14,217 comments) says:

    “..what gives us the right to slam the door shut..?”

    It does not give YOU the right to do anything given you are a parasite.

    It gives those of us who pay taxes (and your inflated income) the right to tell the convicted terrorist to bugger off back to where he came from.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Jack5 (5,274 comments) says:

    Philu the Dottiest posted at 7.39:

    …we are all boat-people

    We are all mammals,too. So what? Does the fact that our ancestors came to NZ by sea mean everyone who can squeeze into a floating rust bucket has the right to crash into this country our ancestors built?

    Philu, as for your argument that NZ is underpopulated: first, much bigger Mongolia has half the population density of NZ, and Siberia is lightly populated, too. They are a walk away rather than a boat ride. Let the refugees head there.Second, continuing balance of payments deficits and rising national debt show we can’t sustain the present population at its current living standard.

    You are on the welfare life raft, Philu. If it takes aboard another 20,000 welfare-state-attracted boat people it will sink and you will drown economically and emotionally and physically. If you want the cow to give enough to keep you and your son healthy, keep a surge of boat people off the welfare tits.

    And what is milkenmild up to at 6.08 quoting Amnesty International? How many votes do their members have in NZ? 132 or 231, at most I reckon.

    Amnesty’s another outfit that provides livings for smug, do-gooder idealists who a few decades ago would have become missionaries or suburban door knockers for ardent sects. Amnesty probably began as a decent, well-purposed organisation, but will have been eaten away within by ambitious, very idle misfits.They grizzle and snipe about Western democracy but would rot in filthy jails in the Third World they love so much.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. mikenmild (12,340 comments) says:

    nasska
    Do you have any actual reasons why you think Zaoui was not a genuine refugee?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Jack5 (5,274 comments) says:

    Milkenmild posted at 8.11:

    …Do you have any actual reasons why you think Zaoui was not a genuine refugee?

    Didn’t Z rip up his passport and flush it down the toilet before the airliner landed?

    If so, surely not the behaviour of a genuine refugee, who would present himself at the immigration counter and formally ask for asylum.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. nasska (12,095 comments) says:

    ..what gives us the right to slam the door shut..?

    There are two ways to enter a house or a country. One is by invitation issued by the residents. The other is by invasion which is not so socially acceptable.

    If no hopers want to escape their shitholes we already allow 700 of their ilk to enter each year so they can bludge & breed on the NZ taxpayer…..Mr Zaoui could have joined the queue. Instead he decided that his convenience trumped our immigration laws.

    He may have won the battle but he’s still a liar & a law breaker.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. mikenmild (12,340 comments) says:

    Get real, refugees tend to take all sorts of desperate measures to reach a safe country. Luckily for Zaoui, we had an appropriate body to decide whether he was a genuine refugee or not. What then got confusing was the erroneous claim that he was involved in terrorism, which resulted in years of delay before that claim was dropped.e

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Jack5 (5,274 comments) says:

    Milkenmild, wasn’t Zaoui an MP for an Islamicist party that was locked in civil war with Algeria’s military?

    Wasn’t he hounded in Europe by the agents of more than one country’s intelligence services?

    Rightly or wrongly, I seem to recall their interest arose from his alleged acquaintance with some fairly heavy “terrorist”/revolutionary types.

    Didn’t Zaoui have asylum in Malaysia, an Islamic country, but forced his way into NZ from there?

    Wasn’t one of the saboteurs who attacked the Nelson defence-wireless facility a leading member of the group that helped Zaoui gain residence in NZ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. nasska (12,095 comments) says:

    mikenmild

    I don’t have any inside information if that is what you’re asking. There have been plenty of people with far less dubious backgrounds prevented from obtaining residency.

    The media presented him as hard done by & gave him a free PR campaign. In the end only his carefully crafted statements were listened to & the rorting of the taxpayers dime rolled on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. mikenmild (12,340 comments) says:

    nasska
    I’ll think you’ll find that it was alleged that he was a terrorist. For some time the SIS refused to produce their evidence, eventually were obliged to admit that there was no real basis to the ‘security risk certificate’.
    Jack5
    I don’t recall all of the details, but Zaoui was elected an MP in Algeria for an Islamic party. The election results were cancelled by the Army and a civil war ensued. Zaoui was convicted in absentia by the military government of terrorism, and those charges followed him around for some time, but were eventually not accepted here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. big bruv (14,217 comments) says:

    mikenmild

    Is the bludger Zaoui a convicted terrorist or not?

    He is not, nor has he ever been a genuine refugee, he is a cue jumper and a parasite who has cost the tax payer of NZ millions of dollars.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Nostalgia-NZ (5,318 comments) says:

    Zaoui, unless he’s got something else planned, hardly lived up to the billing did he?
    Wasn’t NZ facing the end of the world because of him, shouldn’t there have been an invasion or something by now?
    The trouble seems to be that you can never trust impending disasters these days, they’re unreliable doesn’t matter how het up you can bring yourself to be over them.
    But JK said this new law will stop terrorists, you know the ones – those that have to get to other countries by being sneaky and embarking on a hazardous trip without money to land in a foreign prison, the sophisticated devils, what can we ever do to stop them?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. philu (12,989 comments) says:

    you never told us where yr ancestor boat people came from nasska..

    ..and why they were on that boat in the first place..?

    phillip ure@whoar.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. mikenmild (12,340 comments) says:

    BB
    Yes,I believe Zaoui was convicted of terrorism in absentia by the military dictatorship in Algeria. Does that convince you?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. big bruv (14,217 comments) says:

    I think you may find that Belgium (hardly a military government) convicted the bludger Zaoui of being a terrorist.

    I have always been of the opinion that Zaoui is not here for the climate, the man has lied all the way through this saga (remember the bullshit about him becoming a Christian?)
    Zaoui is here for another reason, that reason may well be why the SIS still keep a close eye on the man.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. big bruv (14,217 comments) says:

    mikenmild

    So, you are telling us that you (and the left in general) are happy to support a convicted terrorist?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. nasska (12,095 comments) says:

    Worthy of note also is the fact that a country’s secret service is by definition unable to quote the sources that have led it to a particular viewpoint. If it did it it would not be the confidante of many. When the courts insisted on hard evidence the SIS were not able to oblige.

    Indeed it is a perfect example of an unprincipled arsehole using a sovereign country’s system of checks & balances against itself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. philu (12,989 comments) says:

    “..Zaoui is here for another reason,..”

    i think he has a dastardly plan to take over the local fast food industry..using kebabs as his weapon of choice…

    ..(and i guess you have been watching homeland..eh.?..)

    phillip ure@whoar.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. nasska (12,095 comments) says:

    philu

    Paternal ancestors from Cornwall about 160 years ago, maternal from Dundee about 110 years back.

    I never met them to ask them why.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. mara (769 comments) says:

    Back to the point. They are illegal ” immigrants.” And they know it. Why don’t we?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. philu (12,989 comments) says:

    probably economic-refugees..eh..?

    ..looking for a better life..?

    ..much like many of those wanting to come here now..

    …are the similarities/commonalities not obvious to you..?

    ..’there but for the grace of whoever..go i’..and all that..?

    phillip ure@whoar.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. big bruv (14,217 comments) says:

    “probably economic-refugees..eh..?”

    More than likely. They are also the same type of people who did not come here looking for a hand out like Zaoui, they are the same type of people who would leave you to rot in the gutter given that you are on the record as saying that you have no intention of ever working.

    Those people knew the value of hard work, they knew that life owed them nothing and they (unlike you and that other bludger Zaoui) were happy to work for everything they got.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. big bruv (14,217 comments) says:

    Phool

    Oh please do catch up, the terrorist Zaoui now works in Auckland, last I heard the bludger was washing dishes in some low rent ethnic food joint.

    The kebab business was a crashing failure I understand, I wonder how much that cost the tax payer as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Nostalgia-NZ (5,318 comments) says:

    You have to be alert to these chaps. Just like my great, great, grandfather who achieved a discharge from the British Army on Medical grounds thus losing his pension after 21 years service from Tasmania to Calcutta. He was invalided so much that he sailed right out to NZ on a leaky ship with my dear, removed a few times gran, and 6 kids and lived for forty or so more years and some new kids to boot.

    He was hardly here for 5 minutes, probably raiding and pillaging the place from his fencible base in Onehunga with his mates, all ex soldiers, before by some miracle he was afforded another pension, some land upon which, or near by, his son, the next granddad in line, got a gold mining licence and that could be where the trouble started.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. philu (12,989 comments) says:

    so..what in yr twisted/fevered imagination..is the ‘another reason’ he is here..?

    to take over the dishwashing in ‘low-rent ethnic food joint’ industry..?

    ..is that his fiendish plan..?

    ..how is ‘homeland’..?..i haven’t been watching it..

    ..but i am sure it is feeding yr fears/prejudices..eh..?

    phillip ure@whoar.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. F E Smith (3,307 comments) says:

    Luc,

    Re your 6.19 comment: like most lefties you cannot respond to anyone on the right without intentionally misrepresenting what they say by creating your own, completely false, take on what was said. First, the main point of my comment was that the boat people are not refugees when they set out from Malaysia or Indonesia, and that there applications should be to those countries rather than Oz.

    Secondly, I then relay a completely separate anecdote from my experience. I did not say that was a typical or common occurrence, I merely told a story. You, however, take my story and add your completely false and thoroughly wrong spin on it, and then present that as if it was what I was saying, which it wasn’t.

    Typical left wing tactics. Lie, misrepresent and then falsely accuse. You are a sick joke, and your mendacity, together with your anti-semitism, turn your comments into obscenities. Of course, that doesn’t stop you oozing self-righteousness, does it? Ah well, I detest what you say and how you say it, but, and unlike so many left wing sites, I am happy for you to say it; the more you do, the more you are shown up as just a nasty piece of work.

    Am I upset by what you said? Actually, no. Most people here don’t take you seriously at all. I just like to point out what a disseminating bigot you are, that’s all.

    Have a nice night.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. kowtow (8,936 comments) says:

    A lot of these folk take jet planes to some jump off point and then take to the lifeboats.
    Canada knows all about these scams and are sick of it.
    Too many examples to bore you with,I think they all got let in in the end anyway.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. mara (769 comments) says:

    The naivety of New Zealanders is worrying.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. F E Smith (3,307 comments) says:

    Hmmm, perhaps I meant “dissembling”…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. questions (209 comments) says:

    “big bruv (10,124) Says:

    Is the bludger Zaoui a convicted terrorist or not?

    He is not, nor has he ever been a genuine refugee, he is a cue jumper and a parasite who has cost the tax payer of NZ millions of dollars.”

    And you are a complete and utter fuck wit, a liar, a bullshitter and blissfully, intentionally misleading yourself, what a pathetic piece of shit you are.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. big bruv (14,217 comments) says:

    “And you are a complete and utter fuck wit, a liar, a bullshitter and blissfully, intentionally misleading yourself, what a pathetic piece of shit you are.”

    Zaoui facts.

    1. Convicted terrorist.
    2. Cue Jumper.
    3. Parasite who cost this country a fortune.
    4. Somebody who was NOT in danger had he been forced to return to his homeland.

    No lies there, no bullshitting in that lot. Zaoui remains a danger to the people of NZ as long as he is allowed to stay in NZ, were that not the case he would not still be under the eye of the intelligence services.

    Now, what part of the truth are you having problems with?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. philu (12,989 comments) says:

    the comedians’ nightmare:..’the cue jumper’…

    phillip ure@whoar.co.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. mikenmild (12,340 comments) says:

    Oh dear BB, your ‘facts’ are a bit amiss
    1. ‘Convicted terrorist’ – as mentioned before, a conviction in absentia by Algeria’s military government should be taken with a grain (or two) of salt. Is there any actual evidence that Zaoui is a terrorist?
    2. ‘Cue (sic) Jumper’ – see the AI statement above – “there is no queue for those who are fleeing persecution. People have a fundamental legal right in International and New Zealand law to seek asylum.”
    3. ‘Parasite’ – the costly actions were those taken by the SIS, Immigration and government ministers. Zaoui was granted refugee status in 2003, and the government spent a further four years trying to deport him using the bogus security risk certificate.
    4. ‘not in danger’ – you should refer to the decision of Refugee Status Appeal Authority: https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/IPT/Documents/RefugeeProtection/pdf/ref_20030801_74540.pdf

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. Elaycee (4,425 comments) says:

    @F E Smith (May 1st, 2012 at 9:32 pm)

    Well said!

    +1

    Now to wipe up the coffee…. :D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Michael Mckee (1,091 comments) says:

    Zaoui was convicted by the French, Belgian and Swiss courts if my recollection is correct.

    After he travelled through Europe where he committed the acts he was convicted of, he lived with his family in Malaysia before flying here and ripping up his documents and then ringing the Auckland number he had to ring as far as I recall.
    Did he ever post documents as a refugee with the UN?
    I don’t think so, I do know he cost NZ taxpayers $1 million dollars that could have been used for NZ Citizens.
    My position is that he should have been put on the next flight back to Malaysia a fellow Muslim country to his country of origin Algeria, where he was a leader in GIS a Islamic organisation branded terrorists.
    Which probably explains why some of the 200 odd people SIS employs are tasked with keeping an eye on him at our expense.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. mikenmild (12,340 comments) says:

    Yes Michael, and those convictions were discussed in the RSAA decision I linked to above.
    As I also mentioned, the costs were incurred by the government persisting in its efforts to deport him as a ‘terrorist': those efforts ended with the government withdrawing its security objections.
    If the SIS is still ‘keeping an eye’ on him, I would suggest that is a very good sign that we don’t have any serious security threats to worry about.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote