Labour ramps up the rhetoric on migrants

May 27th, 2014 at 9:00 am by David Farrar

Yesterday the UKIP wins the UK European elections, and maybe it is no coincidence that is on TV that night saying that migrants are responsible for our increasing .

3 News reports:

Labour leader David Cunliffe has taken his hardest line yet against immigrants, blaming them for rising house prices.

It follows a 3 News-Reid Research poll which shows almost two-thirds of voters say should be restricted.

“It would take 80 percent of our housing supply just to accommodate this year’s migrants – and National is doing nothing,” says Mr Cunliffe.

This is the politics of blame and xenophobia. The facts do not back up what Cunliffe is trying to get people to accept.

I blogged the data for the last 10 years here. I repeat the key point:

So net migration is 24,000 higher than five years ago. But look at what makes up that 24,000. 15,300 are fewer people leaving. 5,700 are Kiwis returning or Aussies migrating. Only 3,400 are other migrants.

Migration does have an impact on house prices. But the level of migrants coming here has not changed greatly in recent years. In fact residency visas are down on 2008.

Will Labour just dog whistle on this one, or will they come out with a specific policy they propose? Do they propose to scrap work visas for that has been the area of most growth. For if they do, well then it means houses in Christchurch will not get built as quickly – because hey it is those damn migrant workers helping build them.

And now mistruths in this Radio NZ report:

Mr Cunliffe told Morning Report the party has always backed the skills and diversity migrants bring with them, but it must be sustainable.

He said a gross inward flow of about 70,000 migrants is forecast over the coming year, while a figure of about 15,000 has been a rule of thumb in the past.

That’s totally wrong. The current figure (PLT arrivals of non NZ citizens) for the year to April 2014 is 71,070. Here’s what it was when Labour was in.

  • 2008 – 64,320
  • 2007 – 59,670
  • 2006 – 58,640
  • 2005 – 54,710
  • 2004 – 54,670
  • 2003 – 64,310
  • 2002 – 71,040
  • 2001 – 58,170

15,000 has never been close to the rule of thumb. David Cunliffe was Immigration Minister for two of those years.

UPDATE: Radio NZ has altered their story so it now reads:

Mr Cunliffe cites predictions of net immigration of 40,000 people over the coming year, whereas he says a figure of 15,000 has been the rough rule of thumb in the past.

Why has the story changed. Did David Cunliffe say what the original story quotes him as saying, or did Radio NZ get it wrong. If the latter, then once again we have media altering stories with no transparency. If the former, then why did the web story change?

UPDATE2: Have now listened to Morning Report and the error is Radio NZ, but also Cunliffe tried to fudge figures.

Cunliffe did say gross migration was around 72,000. He said it should be lower and Espiner challenged him to name a figure he thought was acceptable. Cunliffe in response said that 15,000 is the normal level of net migration. So Cunliffe did not say gross migration is normally 15,000.  But he was being tricky by talking about gross migration in slating the Government, and then talking net migration for the level under Labour.

I can understand how a Radio NZ reporter got confused and conflated them. Doesn’t change the fact though that their original story was wrong and they should note at the bottom of a story when they have changed it from a previous story.

Tags: , ,

162 Responses to “Labour ramps up the rhetoric on migrants”

  1. Redbaiter (10,470 comments) says:

    Keep calling it xenophobia and you’ll keep making people very angry.

    That is the kind of baseless but easily applied smear that encouraged many in the UK to vote for Nigel Farage.

    You’re just playing into Cunliffe’s hands by using that word all the time.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. louie (96 comments) says:

    Labour are disgusting on this issue. Why don’t they get Kyle Chapman up on the stage with Cunliffe because they have 100% in common on immigration.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. martinh (1,272 comments) says:

    DPF
    It seems RadioNZ got it wrong
    http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/cunliffe-slash-immigrant-numbers-40000-year-low-5000-ck-156334

    Id like to know where Cunliffe gets his 15000 from too..
    Sounds like the last gasp….

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. igm (1,413 comments) says:

    Are they going to apply the ban to PIs, Muslims, and all the other UN-favoured foreigners?

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. EAD (1,454 comments) says:

    blah blah blah blah – “xenophobia”, “blame”, “dog whistle politics”

    Whilst I have no time for David Cunliffe, these tactics of abuse to stifle legitimate debate are no longer having an effect as they have been over-used to the point of exhaustion as UKIP showed when despite being subjected to the most sustained attack in history by all British history by all so called “left” and “right” trying to paint them as being……………..you guessed it “racist”, they still won the European elections as people saw straight through the propaganda.

    All these accusations of racism were used to distract from the real issues of who governs Britain and why the wages of low-skilled British people has be- en destroyed by unlimited immigration.

    “When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser” – Socrates

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Redbaiter (10,470 comments) says:

    Hey Louie, why don’t you apply for a job at Fairfax?

    You’ve got exactly the rhetoric and mindset they love.

    Or if Fairfax can’t use you try the Guardian.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. rouppe (984 comments) says:

    I don’t get the association between UKIP (very right wing) and Labour (left wing).

    Why the “… maybe it is no coincidence…” remark?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. burt (7,436 comments) says:

    It’s obvious why the MSM keep altering stories to stop Cunliffe looking so stupid. National didn’t give them tax cuts and as Dr Cullen said the journalists just want tax cuts…. Maybe the journalists were the secret donors who helped Cunliffe become leader in exchange for a tax cut ?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. burt (7,436 comments) says:

    rouppe

    The association is that Labour want to spend tax payers money to get a photo op. No more no less.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. martinh (1,272 comments) says:

    Actually its gross inflow compared to net in the update, maybe both RNZ articles are right………….
    with Cunliffes numbers being the only one wrong- with his rule of thumb wacko statement

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Redbaiter (10,470 comments) says:

    “I don’t get the association between UKIP (very right wing) and Labour (left wing). ”

    UKIP’s success in the UK has scared the excrement out of the left. (National and Labour)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. EAD (1,454 comments) says:

    One more thought.

    If “Diversity” is so wonderful and enriching which our media and politicians feel the need to keep telling us……..… why is it responsible for more civil wars, genocides, and new countries than all the “isms” combined?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Nick R (522 comments) says:

    I think part of the motivation for this could be to dog whistle on National’s donations from Asian migrants. If they can force the Government into defending recent migration levels, there will be plenty of scope to argue that National is just sticking up for its wealthy benefactors etc. Haven’t seen any comments like that yet but it can only be a matter of time.

    Meanwhile, it will also play to Aucklanders worried about house prices.

    But this is dangerous territory for Labour. How do they think this is going to sound to the Pasifika electorate they are courting?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. mjw (401 comments) says:

    dpf – if you extend those figures back you will find they were much lower in the past. We have substantially increased migration since the era of reform in the 1980s. Of course if you have assets, migration increases your wealth; if you don’t have assets, it shuts you out.

    But more to the point, what is the correct level of migrants? Is it anyone who wants to come?

    Is National the party of open borders? What is their immigration policy?

    [DPF: The immigration policy is little changed from the past 15 years. To migrate here you must have skills, education, job prospects, investment prospects which are above a threshold that would make you a net economic gain to NZ. The threshold is set on net gain, not on an arbitrary number.]

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Rich Prick (1,750 comments) says:

    I wonder how South Auckland’s Pacific Island and Indian communities feel about Labour’s new-found dislike of immigrants? Or is that dislike reserved for Asians only?

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Redbaiter (10,470 comments) says:

    Just what the hell was ever wrong with our culture that a band of prog politicians and their elitist academic and media buddies decided they needed to dilute it with other cultures?

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. tom hunter (5,134 comments) says:

    1, 2, 3, 4, We don’t want your racist ….

    Oh wait! There’s an election to be won.

    As you were.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Psycho Milt (2,429 comments) says:

    So, at a time when Auckland house prices are already rising rapidly, we get a massive influx of Aussie-downturn refugees coming back home and we also have more non-Aus immigrants than we had five years ago. Labour says maybe we should do something to address that by putting stricter criteria on non-Aus immigration (because we can’t do anything about the Aus traffic); National says ooh that’s racism that is, we couldn’t possibly put stricter criteria on immigration because Xenophobia.

    Obviously, one of these parties is composed of idiots and it doesn’t appear to be Labour.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ louie (82 comments) says:
    May 27th, 2014 at 9:05 am

    Labour are not being disgusting on this issue. They, along with other parties, are mirroring the concerns of many in the community, which I would have thought was the role of government to listen to all, not just one group ?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. martinh (1,272 comments) says:

    I like migrants on the whole so long as they are rich (after they have bought a house here, not just a million bucks in property) and crime and disease free, i just dont like foreign speculators

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Psycho Milt (2,104 comments) says:
    May 27th, 2014 at 9:25 am

    The Government’s PR team have done well on this one. They know that most people don’t like the term racist and that most people don’t actually understand the definition of the term either. Working on that premise they have come up with an accusation of Labour’s so called racism, that makes most people feign horror at being perceived as racist and so immediately support those making the accusation of racism.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. burt (7,436 comments) says:

    Judith

    So sweet, they are not self serving popularists – they just want to help the working man own a $1.5m house in a top suburb and help them have a combined family income in excess of $500K.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ tom hunter (4,135 comments) says:
    May 27th, 2014 at 9:24 am

    Please explain how supporting the banning of foreign speculators fits within the definition of racism?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Fisiani (1,052 comments) says:

    Most of these immigrants get a job and pay tax. We need lots of young people having babies and paying tax to make sure there is enough to pay pensions. New Zealand is a country composed entirely of immigrants or descendents of immigrants.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. kowtow (8,945 comments) says:

    If polls show the electorate are concerned about immigration and think it should be restricted ,then politicians must respond to that concern.

    In a democracy we must be able to freely debate issues and arrive at a consensus.

    Referenda are the best way to decide these important matters,binding not the cynical political elites’ false democracy with CIRs that are not binding.

    We constantly boast that we are an advanced democracy with much to teach the rest of the world and yes we have referenda on important matters that our ‘representatives’ listen to, like on child discipline……..oh wait……..

    Then they, the elites, wonder why so many voters don’t bother!

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. tom hunter (5,134 comments) says:

    They’re still immigrants Judith and I have been told by left-wingers for decades now that opposition to immigrants is just closeted racism – especially when coded terms like “foreign speculators” are used. Besides, weren’t you complaining the other day about the disgusting state of NZ politics? You think this will improve it?

    Or are there two standards here?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. burt (7,436 comments) says:

    Fisiani

    Rubbish – we need people on benefits voting for more benefits.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ burt (7,246 comments) says:
    May 27th, 2014 at 9:34 am

    I do not know what Labour want. I don’t have a psyche degree, or a crystal ball, and have the opinion that not even they quite know what they want either.

    But I would hope that ALL political parties in New Zealand would want to encourage NEW ZEALANDERS to do the best they can – that is to reach their full potential (accepting that some people’s ‘full potential’ will be different to others). I would like to think that they all think the interests of all NEW ZEALANDERS supersedes those of foreigners and that they recognise that the people of New Zealand are who they are employed by, and not the president of the USA, the leader of the People’s republic of China, or the President of the USSR or any other person on the planet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Lance (2,719 comments) says:

    OK back to basics
    Build more houses, price drops. Supply and demand.

    Any arguments around that logic?

    So therefore Labour and the Greens want to strangle development and then blame foreigners for high house prices.

    Therefore if the country gets procreating in a big way and the increasing population drives up house prices, do they want compulsory sterilisation, one child families, forced abortion?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Tarquin North (404 comments) says:

    Why don’t they just blame John Key like they normally do? It’s much easier than dreaming up scary figures that have nothing to do with reallity.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Psycho Milt (2,429 comments) says:

    …I have told by left-wingers for decades now that opposition to immigrants is just closeted racism…

    1. Only by the particularly moronic ones, I imagine.
    2. When did you start listening to what left-wingers say?
    3. Managing immigration numbers isn’t ‘opposing’ immigration, any more than National refusing to tighten the criteria equals ‘open borders.’

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. dime (10,222 comments) says:

    “we get a massive influx of Aussie-downturn refugees coming back home” – coming home makes you a refugee?

    maybe only people labour like should be allowed to come home.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. EAD (1,454 comments) says:

    Fisani –

    The whole “we need immigrants to pay for pensions” argument is bunk. Do these immigrants not get old and require pensions themselves one day? What do we do then – import even more taxi drivers, takeaway shop workers and retail assistants to pay for their pensions? And what about their pensions?

    Sounds awfully like a ponzi scheme to me…….

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ tom hunter (4,136 comments) says:
    May 27th, 2014 at 9:41 am

    These claims of ‘racism’ are just another example of the disgusting level that NZ Politics have fallen to.

    The term is being employed here by one group as scare tactics to prevent people opposing any supervision of foreign investment in housing in NZ.

    Where is the politics of honesty – openess – and transparency? Where are the political parties opening the books are stating exactly why they support a certain policy or not? Instead they are using propagranda and pathetic PR campaigns to influence the vote – that is dishonest – that is like borrowing on the house mortgage to put the cheque account in credit and then making out you have plenty of money.

    You need to realise that ‘the left’ just like ‘the right’ are not represented by one group who all think exactly the same. Whilst each individual may have similar values, they do not all follow one particular set of standards. Those days in politics are long gone.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. tom hunter (5,134 comments) says:

    Winston’s really going to have his work cut out for him in this election. Perhaps he needs to rename his party. I suggest Winston’s Golden Dawn.

    I’m sure that won’t make him any less toxic to Labour-Greens.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Cunningham (846 comments) says:

    Winston keeps banging on about 24 of the top 25 top agents at Barfoot and Thompson are asian. Why does this wanker need to single out a single group? Nothing wrong with debating but he is blatantly trying to stir up anti asian sentiment. The sooner he pisses off from politics the better. The guy is a disgrace to this country. And Labour are happy to jump in and support him in his campaign.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Redbaiter (10,470 comments) says:

    Tom, the reason for the confusion over which party shold be saying what is that we basically have two far left parties, National and Labour, vying for electoral popularity.

    So everything is just a hotch potch of back to front upside down inside out rhetoric and ideas with no really clear definition between the parties.

    We’ve basically just got National and Labour both saying the same thing-

    “We can do far left govt better than those other guys”

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. All_on_Red (1,751 comments) says:

    Aucklands house prices have always been rising. Statistically they have doubled in price every seven years and have done so for the last one hundred years. ( the exception is inner city apartments where supply can be increased very easily)
    There has always been a shortage of stock for people wanting to live here and it’s always been the Councils fault for restricting supply and for Nimbys who protest any infill development.

    One effect Cunliffe forgets is that the voters who already own houses are quite happy with the way they rise , thank you, so they won’t be voting for him.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. s.russell (1,650 comments) says:

    There is also a very confused story on Stuff in which Cunliffe seems to be saying he is both for and against limits on immigration. Not sure if the source of confusion is Cunliffe, or reporter. Though it could be both.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. dime (10,222 comments) says:

    so 70,000 immigrants a year.. that raises our population by 1.5%? less whoever is leaving?

    course, if 60,000 of em are staying in auckland, thats a 4% population gain. that is gonna start to have an impact.

    is the issue immigration? or the fact that they are mainly coming to auckland.

    i dont know what the laws are on telling em where they can live, but encouraging people to move to wellington etc might be a good thing.

    do we know what value 70,000 immigrants add to our economy?

    personally, id like to see this breakdown:

    how many go on some sort of welfare
    how many start businesses
    how many of those businesses are legitimate
    how many people they employ
    how much tax they pay
    how many homes they actually buy
    how much cost do they add to our health system
    how much it costs to educate their kids

    what is the actual net benefit?

    the only real issue Dime has is immigrants taking over suburbs. especially our islamic friends. then not integrating into society. do we really need those people here? im not saying its their fault – if i moved to shanghai i wouldnt learn mandarin and id be hanging out with ex-pats. just not sure WHY we need em?

    at a personal level – bigger population = more people to buy my shit :)

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Redbaiter (6,658 comments) says:
    May 27th, 2014 at 9:51 am

    You are starting to make a lot of sense to me – which is extremely worrying.
    The difference between the two is very blurred, hence voter confusion and the reliance on personalities and PR, rather than out and out policy. Could ‘confuse and conquer’ be the new catch phrase?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Redbaiter (10,470 comments) says:

    “Not sure if the source of confusion is Cunliffe, or reporter. Though it could be both.”

    Most likely both. UKIP success has sent the left wing media even further around the bend.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    i dont know what the laws are on telling em where they can live,

    It’s our country, if we don’t have a law that tells them where they can stay, we can make one!
    But whatever happens, someone has to do something – the negative effects of immigration to the Auckland area is blatantly obvious – it should have been dealt with and legislated for ten years ago.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Cunningham (789 comments) says:
    May 27th, 2014 at 9:50 am

    Is it stirring anything if it is the truth? Is it not the role of our politicians to use facts – especially when demonstrating a possible imbalance that is having a negative effect on New Zealanders? Is it not New Zealanders to whom the government and MP’s are responsible to, first and foremost?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Kimble (3,955 comments) says:

    Can any resident lefty point to a case of National blaming migrants for social ills?

    I am serious.

    Racist xenophobia is the domain of the NZ left and neo-nazis.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. jp_1983 (237 comments) says:

    I thought Helen when she becomes the UNSEC General she will force New Zealand to accept all migrants irrelevant of their needs.

    As for the ‘housing crisis’ lets get the state to aquire all land and they can give the houses out according to need and where the ‘jobs’ are.

    Camp 14 (Stewart Island) any one??

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Lance (2,719 comments) says:

    @Judith
    A New Zealand that told people where they had to live by law would be a shit hole version of New Zealand.
    Totalitarianism sucks… just incase you didn’t know.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Kimble (3,955 comments) says:

    personally, id like to see this breakdown:

    Each and every immigrant could be on welfare for several years before getting a job and we would still come out ahead of the costs of growing one locally, so to speak.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. RightNow (7,015 comments) says:

    Quite simply Labour don’t want immigrants who can afford to buy houses. They’re not usually Labour voters, and they compete against Labour MP’s to buy houses. Now if the immigrants are going to be entrenched on low incomes/ welfare then they’re good Labour voters and won’t be competing in the housing market against Labour MP’s.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Odakyu-sen (871 comments) says:

    Is it a good idea to bring in (without popular mandate) large numbers of individuals who on average are wealthier, smarter and more competitive than the local population, and who will tend to aggregate together in one major city?

    What are the advantages to the local people? The disadvantages?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. unaha-closp (1,067 comments) says:

    Will Labour just dog whistle on this one, or will they come out with a specific policy they propose?

    If we vote in a Lab/Grn/W1st/.com/allianc3 government no one will want to move here and everyone will want to leave.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Cunningham (846 comments) says:

    Judith (6,226 comments) says:

    “Is it stirring anything if it is the truth?” Come on Judith, asian RE agents could be doing well for a number of reasons. They are generally very hard working and even if they were selling to people of asian descent who says they aren’t permanent residents who have been here for a while? Yet this fuckwit quotes this as some sort of concrete evidence that we should block all asians from coming here (let’s face it, he would do this if he could). It makes me sick to think in this tolerant country we have a politician like Peters spewing fourth this hateful rhetoric designed to make all kiwis anti asian.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Kimble (3,955 comments) says:

    So net immigration has a little bit of a jump and Labours response is “HANG THE BLACKS!”?

    To everyone whining about the term ‘racism’and ‘xenophobia’, fuck off.

    If National had said one tenth what Cunliffe has, they would be labelled even worse than that, for fucking years to boot.

    Remember what happened when someone suggested every New Zealander be treated the same? We had years of “EQUAL TREATMENT IS RACIST!”

    So fuck Labour, fuck Cunliffe, and fuck all you lefty dickheads trying to paint Labours policy as a serious policy proposal. Enjoy your racism. I am sure you will call it something else eventually, to make it feel less racist than you are being.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. mikenmild (12,446 comments) says:

    Is it racist, per se, to advocate lower levels of immigration?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. tvb (4,560 comments) says:

    Cunliffe on RNZ this morning kept saying immigration must come down but refused to name a figure. The net figure is up because factors such as returning kiwis Aussies and people staying home have pushed the net figure up. Cunliffe is engaging in pure dog whistle politics. The discretionary figure has remained stable. Cunliffe would have to screw that right down including students visas and areas where there are skill shortages and temporary work visas. This could cause problems in an expanding economy and stall our growth. What is Cunliffe’s answer to that.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Kimble (3,955 comments) says:

    Is it a good idea to bring in (without popular mandate) large numbers of individuals who on average are wealthier, smarter and more competitive than the local population, and who will tend to aggregate together in one major city?

    Large numbers? No they are small numbers.

    Without popular mandate? Where do you get that idea? Of course there is a popular mandate.

    How about you be honest for a second? Your objection to wealthy, intelligent, employable migrants is a lie, as you would also object to poor, stupid, unemployable migrants.

    Your question is as dishonest as it is stupid. Double WHAMMY!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Kimble (3,955 comments) says:

    Is it racist, per se, to advocate lower levels of immigration?

    Why don’t you ask the Greens, Labour, Mana etc?

    Oh, but first be sure to tell them that it was Bill English who was advocating the policy.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. kowtow (8,945 comments) says:

    “unaha-closp (1,066 comments) says:
    May 27th, 2014 at 10:12 am
    Will Labour just dog whistle on this one, or will they come out with a specific policy they propose?

    If we vote in a Lab/Grn/W1st/.com/allianc3 government no one will want to move here and everyone will want to leave.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0″

    Wrong.

    Lots of people will want to move here.The wrong type of people.The ones who after only 12 months residency will get the vote and will vote to continue stealing my wealth (through taxation).The ones who will eventually go to Syria to massacre the minorities there.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2639413/British-jihadists-bloodthirsty-Syria-says-rebel-commander-blamed-beheadings-crucifixions.html

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. mikenmild (12,446 comments) says:

    Kimble
    You are the one making the claims about racism. Without evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. thor42 (971 comments) says:

    @EAD – “Whilst I have no time for David Cunliffe, these tactics of abuse to stifle legitimate debate are no longer having an effect as they have been over-used to the point of exhaustion as UKIP showed when despite being subjected to the most sustained attack in history by all British history by all so called “left” and “right” trying to paint them as being……………..you guessed it “racist”, they still won the European elections as people saw straight through the propaganda.”

    Agreed.

    The only immigrants that I don’t want here are Muslims. Why? Because I value New Zealand’s culture, values and *freedom*.
    Muslims will undermine ALL of those (as they have in every other country that they have gone to).

    So, I am anti-Islam and pro-Western-culture and that is *not* “racist”. Islam is a cultish ideology and political system, not a race.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. burt (7,436 comments) says:

    I think the public have worked out that by giving more and more negative responses to Labour in the polling phone calls that Labour will continue to offer bigger and bigger handouts as we get closer to the election. The game is on … Keep saying you’ll vote for national if called in a poll – soon we will all be living under a Labour government where we get given free houses, free electric cars, get paid to send our kids to school and get paid what we use to be paid working if we promise to stay on welfare.

    Only extreme right wing nut jobs will be saying we can’t afford such a government – ignore them – they are the nasty party.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Cunningham (790 comments) says:
    May 27th, 2014 at 10:13 am

    I would block anybody from coming here who proved to be detrimental to the majority of existing New Zealanders and their values. If NZers cannot look after their own interests, who is going to do it for us?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Kimble (3,955 comments) says:

    You are the one making the claims about racism. Without evidence.

    Who needs evidence?

    Seriously, tell the Greens that John Key said what Cunliffe just said, and then see who is screaming ‘RACIST!’

    Turnaround is fair play.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. mikenmild (12,446 comments) says:

    Yes, who needs evidence when you just know Labour is bad…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ mikenmild (9,545 comments) says:
    May 27th, 2014 at 10:16 am

    Is it racist, per se, to advocate lower levels of immigration?

    No it is definitely not racist – people claiming racism simply do not understand the definition of the word if they think it applies to this issue. The term racism has been applied simply as scare tactics to make people shrink back from the issue of immigration being detrimental to certain aspects of New Zealand society.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. mikenmild (12,446 comments) says:

    I actually think New Zealand needs a long-term population policy. How many people should live here and over what timeframe should we get to that target? Where should new people live, etc, etc. These sort of fundamental questions don’t usually figure in political debate.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. burt (7,436 comments) says:

    Judith

    I would block anybody from coming here who proved to be detrimental to the majority of existing New Zealanders and their values. If NZers cannot look after their own interests, who is going to do it for us?

    Yes we should send Russell Norman home !

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Kimble (3,955 comments) says:

    Yes, who needs evidence when you just know Labour is bad…

    Funny, I don’t see you saying the same thing when it is a National politician being labelled a xenophobe or racist.

    And by people who actually mean it, rather than engaging in parody like I am.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. burt (7,436 comments) says:

    mikenmild

    Classic Labour supporter – when Labour are in office the business of government is whatever government define it to be. When National are in office we need a long term policy. What a tosser…. It’s different when the red team do it …

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. rouppe (984 comments) says:

    dime

    so 70,000 immigrants a year.. that raises our population by 1.5%? less whoever is leaving?

    course, if 60,000 of em are staying in auckland, thats a 4% population gain. that is gonna start to have an impact.

    Industry isn’t helping either. There has been a steady drift of head offices from Wellington to Auckland, which brings with it their staff as well the staff’s families. Maybe not in numbers like 50,000 a year, but it is happening

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. tom hunter (5,134 comments) says:

    …I have told by left-wingers for decades now that opposition to immigrants is just closeted racism…
    1. Only by the particularly moronic ones, I imagine.

    Well I always thought they were morons too but the trouble was that in all the debating forums I’ve been in, including blogsites, I never saw any of the smart Lefties stand up and call them out – until now it would seem.

    Even then it appeared that the real objection was to the crudeness of such calls. The really smart lefties merely imply that one is a racist.

    2. When did you start listening to what left-wingers say?

    There’s no need for projection.

    3. Managing immigration numbers isn’t ‘opposing’ immigration, any more than National refusing to tighten the criteria equals ‘open borders.’

    Excellent. I shall remember with pleasure your civility in this debate and I look forward to your restoration of classical scholar, Enoch Powell.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Kimble (3,955 comments) says:

    These sort of fundamental questions don’t usually figure in political debate.

    That is just your authoritarian, central-control instinct kicking in.

    Housing policy is housing policy. There is no ‘immigrant’ flavour of housing policy.

    As for a long-term policy on population size? Well, if you were looking for something to ensure inhumane policies, then you’ve found it.

    One child policy anyone? Forced sterilisations? How about forced repatriation of recent migrants? All in the name of ensuring the ‘right’ population size, of course.

    What was that that Milt just said about National not tightening immigration being the equivalent of an open borders policy? Perhaps you two should have a chat.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. rouppe (984 comments) says:

    I would block anybody from coming here who proved to be detrimental to the majority of existing New Zealanders and their values.

    By definition, “proved to be” means they are already here, so you can no longer block them.

    Therefore you have to stop them coming before they “prove they are detrimental”. Unless you make a judgement about whether they are going to be detrimental before they get here.

    Lets discuss whether immigration my Muslims is likely to “prove detrimental”. Maybe we can look at the European experience for guidance

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. mikenmild (12,446 comments) says:

    Nice one Kimble. Jump right to the implication that I was advocating for a reduced total population and would like to see that imposed by totalitarian means. You really have nothing serious to say, have you?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ rouppe (870 comments) says:
    May 27th, 2014 at 10:50 am

    Maybe we should just stop anyone from coming here that have any obsessive traits. That would cover most of the people that I believe are detrimental to NZ.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Kimble (3,955 comments) says:

    mikenmild, this is where you lefties always go wrong. You can only imagine good outcomes of your ideas. Like a child.

    You want to set a ‘long-term’ policy, but also want to ignore what mandate that would give politicians in the future.

    Again, it is the authoritarian coming out. Obviously you think those bad things wont happen because you will be the one coming up with ALL the rules.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. I Say Look Here (57 comments) says:

    Look for God’s sake, can we all stop bitching about this? If we’re not careful any minute now we’ll have Dave Dobbyn writing another song about it.

    In 1973, my parents bought us a nice big house in Epsom to live in for $42,500. Twenty years later they sold it for $440,000. Of course I believe rising property values in Auckland are a whole new phenomenon, Mr Cunliffe.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. mikenmild (12,446 comments) says:

    So what level of net migration should NZ aspire to? Should we be concerned if the population was to reach 10 million within 20 years? These are serious policy questions for any country.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Kimble (4,160 comments) says:
    May 27th, 2014 at 10:58 am

    this is where you lefties always go wrong…

    Again, it is the authoritarian coming out. ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. NoCash (262 comments) says:

    @Judith

    I would block anybody from coming here who proved to be detrimental to the majority of existing New Zealanders and their values. If NZers cannot look after their own interests, who is going to do it for us?

    How do you define a New Zealander? Someone who’s born and raised here regardless of his/her ancestry? An immigrant regardless of his/her origin who has lived in NZ for a period of time (if so, how long)? Or something else entirely different?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ mikenmild (9,549 comments) says:
    May 27th, 2014 at 11:00 am

    I do not believe it is a numbers game, but rather a quality one. We should only be allowing immigration into the areas (both geographical and employment) in which there is a short fall. In other words they must live and work in areas where there is a need that can’t be met by kiwis.

    I also believe that all immigrants should be required to pay a bond, which is returned to them after five years of law-abiding residency. Any breach of our laws and that money should be used to ship them back from whence they came.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. tom hunter (5,134 comments) says:

    So what level of net migration should NZ aspire to? Should we be concerned if the population was to reach 10 million within 20 years? These are serious policy questions for any country.

    Chuckle ….

    As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding. Like the Roman, I seem to see ‘the River Tiber foaming with much blood’. That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the 20th century. Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Kimble (3,955 comments) says:

    These are serious policy questions for any country.

    One blip in the data and, according to you, all of a sudden we have a population explosion the likes of which NZ hasnt seen in a hundred years.

    20 years at 70,000 would be 1.4m people. If we are going to get to 10 million in 20 years, then immigration is the least of our problems. So that brings us to other methods of population control to prevent ‘organic’ growth.

    And THAT is how your ill thought out, feel good policy leads to abhorrent outcomes.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ NoCash (249 comments) says:
    May 27th, 2014 at 11:01 am

    A New Zealand Citizen. If you’ve lived here for a long time and paid lots of taxes but never bothered to apply for citizenship, then you are not a New Zealander. Joint Citizenship is acceptable.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. mikenmild (12,446 comments) says:

    Nice one tom. Not quite the same sentiments as Powell (who was generally misunderstood BTW).

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    If we are going to get to 10 million in 20 years

    Who says we have to? Who says that is what ALL NZers want? Personally I believe living in NZ is a lifestyle choice – living here is a privilege, but an expensive choice – expensive in that you have to forego either money or other things to live in this environment. If they want in NZ what the rest of the world has – then perhaps the ‘rest of the world’ is where they should be living.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. mikenmild (12,446 comments) says:

    We may well have about the right level of net migration now. But that shouldn’t stop us having a conversation about the sort of New Zealand we want to see in the future.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Odakyu-sen (871 comments) says:

    You are a New Zealander if you would be happy for your daughter to marry an upright and self-supporting New Zealander of a different ethnic/religious background…

    …who really likes Watties tomato sauce on their chups.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Kimble (3,955 comments) says:

    We may well have about the right level of net migration now.

    So the onus is on people who disagree to make their case.

    “Dirty foreigners are buying too many houses” is not a case.

    “Dey bort er perpertah! And turk er juuuuuuuuuuurbs!” – Cunliffe, Labour leader 2013-2014

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Sir Cullen's Sidekick (901 comments) says:

    I think Labour is onto a winner here…..

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. tom hunter (5,134 comments) says:

    It is very sad when a commentator you’ve had enough respect for to engage in debate turns out to be a closeted racist.

    Why do you hate people with yellow skin mikenmild? Is it the solid family units? The capitalist impulses? The indifference to the Treaty of Waitangi, the …

    … oh fuck it. Contra Kimble’s comments above, I just can’t parody this any longer, as tempting as it is to hoist Left-wingers with their own petard.

    Not quite the same sentiments as Powell (who was generally misunderstood BTW).

    BTW? BTW?

    You’re trying to tell a right-winger that? No shit he was misunderstood Sherlock. What a breakthrough day this has been.

    But that shouldn’t stop us having a conversation about the sort of New Zealand we want to see in the future.

    No it should not and yet ….

    … this was an illuminating post for me, as it shows how far the Kiwiblog flock are outside the mainstream of reasoned opinion. Even DPF doesn’t dog whistle on this topic, yet the curs come running nevertheless, salivating in a most unattractive manner

    Perhaps the “curs” in this case will come running all the way to the voting booths for Labour-Greens come September 20th this year. Whether they will be salivating in a most unattractive manner (sniff!) will probably depend on Cunliffe’s desperation.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. mikenmild (12,446 comments) says:

    So you’re standing by your claim that advocating a lower level of immigration is a dog whistle for racists? It isn’t. It’s a serious policy question.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. tom hunter (5,134 comments) says:

    I’m standing by my claim that outrageously outraged people who try to insist on double standards should be parodied.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Southern Raider (1,777 comments) says:

    Hong Kong has recently implemented a stamp duty on foreign buyers of property. This is targeted at Mainland Chinese.

    If Hong Kong can implement this why can’t we? Simple solution, raises some extra tax, can’t be called racist and has cooled the HK property market

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. mikenmild (12,446 comments) says:

    Where’s my double standard?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ tom hunter (4,140 comments) says:
    May 27th, 2014 at 11:33 am

    What a load of utter rubbish Tom. Wanting to see levels of immigration and property purchase controlled to ensure those already living in this country do not suffer any detrimental effects, is not ‘hating yellow skin’ or any of the other highly emotive garbage you claim.

    It is simply protecting what this country has for the benefit of its citizens, over and above the needs/desires of others. When NZ citizens are negatively affected they have the right to speak out without being called racist or receive stupid and childish claims such as you make You have bought into the PR role with great gusto – but you are wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. mikenmild (12,446 comments) says:

    tom was just joking about hating yellow skin, Judith.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ mikenmild (9,556 comments) says:
    May 27th, 2014 at 11:45 am

    Whew – thank goodness for that, because the alternative made my blood boil! :-)
    I am old enough to remember what it was like being a post war baby – I know what ‘hating yellow skin’ looks like, and this is nothing like it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Unity (643 comments) says:

    Having lived in the UK for a number of years and seen what virtually unlimited immigration of people from any country has done to the fabric of their society in a extremely detrimental way, I firmly believe that we should be very careful who we allow into our country. If they don’t fit in with our way of life then this country is not for them. We shouldn’t have to change to accommodate them like they have done in Britain for many years.

    Multiculturism has been proven not to work so we don’t have to adapt to accommodate the more extreme religious cults. Of course Helen might change that when she gets into a position in the UN to do so!!?? We should also limit immigration to people with skills that we need and who won’t be a drain on the State.

    We should also be careful about immigrants or people from overseas buying up properties other than what they would need for their own requirements. We should encourage desirable people who want to start up a new business rather than buying an existing one and that would create more jobs.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Kimble (3,955 comments) says:

    Where’s my double standard?

    It is right there displayed on your sleeve and imprinted on the sole of your jack boots.

    I bet if I was to say, “sure, lets reduce immigration, but only of white English speakers” you would object to that!

    But if the reduction could possibly include non-White English speakers, you would be all for it, right?

    Oh, you might frame it as treating all races “equally”, but we hear what you REALLY MEAN. Loud. And. Clear.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. mikenmild (12,446 comments) says:

    Where have I said that we should reduce immigration? I think we should increase it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. tom hunter (5,134 comments) says:

    tom was just joking about … … explaining things to little children

    Today’s lessons were brought to Judith by the words parody and irony

    Anyway, it’s good to see Unity having a conversation about the sort of New Zealand we want to see in the future.

    :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Kimble (3,955 comments) says:

    Where have I said that we should reduce immigration? I think we should increase it.

    Oh sure you do. *wink*

    We just need to have a “discussion” about the current level *wink wink* because it MIGHT be too low *wink wink wink*.

    Some of your friends are immigrants, right? *wink wink wink wink*

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. mikenmild (12,446 comments) says:

    What do you think about immigration Kimble? If you have an opinion, that is. Has the government just happened to hit the Goldilocks zone by chance?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Kimble (3,955 comments) says:

    Whoa there mikenmild, Im not the one on trial here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. mikenmild (12,446 comments) says:

    So, no opinion then. Just others’ opinions happen to be wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Kimble (3,955 comments) says:

    I will stand up and denounce racism every time I see it, mikenmild, and I am NOT going to apologise for that.

    YES racism is wrong.

    YES xenophobia is wrong.

    DEAL WITH IT!

    You might dismiss that as “just Kimble’s opinion” or even go further and dismiss it as “not even an opinion at all”. But social justice warriors will not be cowed by such abuse!

    If you want to bring your new brand of apartheid to NZ you will have a fight on your hands, make no mistake about that!!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. mikenmild (12,446 comments) says:

    And have you seen any examples of racism to denounce recently?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. kowtow (8,945 comments) says:

    Here’s an example of racism I denounce.

    ‘Look at all those rich white bitches” the bastard said. A life sentence isn’t enough for this racist scum.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/us/man-gets-90-years-for-attack-on-irish-student-in-chicago-1.1805912

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Kimble (3,955 comments) says:

    And have you seen any examples of racism to denounce recently?

    There Are None So Blind As Those Who Will Not See

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. mikenmild (12,446 comments) says:

    That would be a no, then.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. tom hunter (5,134 comments) says:

    And have you seen any examples of racism to denounce recently?

    Labour ramps up the rhetoric on migrants.

    Perhaps you missed that thread? There’s tons of Xenophobia too.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Kimble (4,167 comments) says:
    May 27th, 2014 at 12:22 pm

    You still haven’t explained how the suggested policy is racist?

    Just how is limiting the purchase of NZ property to non-nz citizens, racist?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ tom hunter (4,143 comments) says:
    May 27th, 2014 at 12:40 pm

    So how is limiting immigration, racist?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. mikenmild (12,446 comments) says:

    tom
    You would have to explain how that is an example of racism. Feel free to talk slowly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Kimble (3,955 comments) says:

    I am sure you didn’t mean to suggest the policy is to restrict the purchase of property to ONLY non-NZ citizens.

    But in any case, the racism is obvious.

    The policy is to discriminate against people who aren’t NZ citizens. And lots of those non-NZ citizens, in fact most of them, are not English speaking white people. Therefore the policy is racist.

    But it is more than that. It isn’t what people are SAYING it is what we know they are MEANING when they say it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Psycho Milt (2,429 comments) says:

    You still haven’t explained how the suggested policy is racist?

    Exactly. The reason being of course, that that’s not how propaganda works.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Psycho Milt (2,429 comments) says:

    I will stand up and denounce racism every time I see it, mikenmild, and I am NOT going to apologise for that.

    I’m sorry, I must have missed your furious denunciations of National’s racism in applying residence criteria to control immigration. Could you point me to them? Or is it only when Labour applies residence criteria that it’s racism?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Kimble (3,955 comments) says:

    And now Milt jumps on the racism apologist train.

    Its a frustrating ride, isn’t it? Welcome to 2004.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Kimble (4,168 comments) says:
    May 27th, 2014 at 12:47 pm

    Racism is the belief that ALL members of a race race posses characteristics that are inferior or superior.

    Now, again, please explain how this applies to the proposed policy?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. Kimble (3,955 comments) says:

    Judith, why else would Cunliffe want to exclude them if he didnt think they were inferior?

    “Oh house prices are high? Lets just get rid of the darkies. They dont matter anyway.” is what he might as well have said.

    At least then he would have been HONEST about his true feelings.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. Psycho Milt (2,429 comments) says:

    I don’t find applying controls on immigration to be racist, so no apologetics are necessary. There is an explanation incumbent on you, however: if you find immigration controls racist, why are you hassling the Opposition about it, rather the government that is actually in charge of them?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. Kimble (3,955 comments) says:

    I don’t find applying controls on immigration to be racist,

    How convenient.

    But not at all surprising.

    Its nice when you can redefine the word “racist” to suit your own preferences. Or should I say PREJUDICES!

    why are you hassling the Opposition about it

    Because they are the ones blowing the dog whistle.

    They are the ones saying that the “dirty foreigners” aren’t worthy of owning property which is a BASIC human right!

    And they are the ones being defended by all of the little closet racists.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Kimble (4,170 comments) says:
    May 27th, 2014 at 1:01 pm

    Cunliffe does not want to exclude a particular race – therefore you claims of racism are not supported. Should he be stating the proposed changes are to stop Chinese from purchasing property in New Zealand, and that only white skinned New Zealanders can purchase those houses, then you might have an argument. However, as there are many Chinese in NZ who are NZ citizens that will still be able to purchase properties, your arguments regarding race are not supported.

    Cunliffe is merely doing his job as an MP and trying to provide a policy that will enable New Zealand citizens (which include many races) to afford housing from which they are currently excluded due to the actions of non-New Zealanders (which include many races).

    In short, his policy is non-race specific.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Psycho Milt (2,429 comments) says:

    They are the ones saying that the “dirty foreigners” aren’t worthy of owning property which is a BASIC human right!

    Perhaps you could point out where they said this?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. kowtow (8,945 comments) says:

    Cunners is an idiot.

    Stop immigrants but keep sick ones here to clog up our health system and soak our tax dollars,piss off dick head.

    I don’t want my taxes being spent on people who don’t belong here.

    http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/decision-deport-ill-fijian-man-wasn-t-right-cunliffe-5982752

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. All_on_Red (1,751 comments) says:

    Hahahaha, I’d forgotten about this and so it seems has Cunliffe

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11262561
    “Labour leader David Cunliffe has defended helping a Chicago-based friend buy a house in Omaha, despite saying overseas investors were hurting the housing market.”

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. Psycho Milt (2,429 comments) says:

    I think you’ll find nobody has any objections to NZ citizens buying houses in NZ, Cunliffe included…

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. All_on_Red (1,751 comments) says:

    Err, immigrants are also NZ citizens .

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Kimble (3,955 comments) says:

    Cunliffe does not want to exclude a particular race

    Have you heard him say he doesnt want to exclude particular races?

    Until he comes out and says “Im not racist.” then why listen to anything he says?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Kimble (3,955 comments) says:

    “They are the ones saying that the “dirty foreigners” aren’t worthy of owning property which is a BASIC human right!”

    Perhaps you could point out where they said this?

    I will as soon as you point out where Brash said that Maori should have fewer rights than other New Zealanders.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. mikenmild (12,446 comments) says:

    Trying to change the subject now, Kimble? You seem to think that something that Cunliffe said was racist, but haven’t explained what exactly he said was racist or why it was racist. I think you are getting a bit confused.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Kimble (3,955 comments) says:

    The onus is on you to prove that he ISNT a racist and DIDNT make racist comments.

    After all, you are the one saying he isnt a racist.

    If Don Brash can be a racist for calling for everyone to be treated equally and to have equal rights, then how can Cunliffe NOT be a racist when he is wanting to treat foreigners differently, stripping them of the basic human right to own a home?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. mikenmild (12,446 comments) says:

    Um, I can’t find any statement from Cunliffe that I consider racist. You, however, appear to suggest that restricting homeownership rights to NZ residents is somehow racist. If that’s your position, could you please explain how that is a racist policy?
    BTW, I don’t agree with any such restriction, but not because I think it is a racist policy.
    Also, I think you may be confusing the ability to own a home with a more basic human right to shelter.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. Bob R (1,422 comments) says:

    @ mikenmild,

    The centre-right and likes of David Farrar now appear to be borrowing the time proven techniques of the Left. If you know that your position is unsustainable you just shut down opponents by accusing them of racism.

    Of course house prices are linked to population gains. Immigration is a factor in this. Accordingly, if people want to address house prices then it’s logical to consider reducing the level of immigration.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ All_on_Red (1,141 comments) says:
    May 27th, 2014 at 1:38 pm
    ” Err, immigrants are also NZ citizens “.

    Only if they apply for citizenship.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Kimble (4,174 comments) says:
    May 27th, 2014 at 1:42 pm

    Have you heard him say he doesnt want to exclude particular races?

    Have you heard him say he DOES want to exclude particular races – despite constantly arguing from the point that he ‘has’.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Kimble (4,174 comments) says:
    May 27th, 2014 at 2:27 pm

    The onus is on you to prove that he ISNT a racist and DIDNT make racist comments.

    After all, you are the one saying he isnt a racist.

    You were the one that called the policy racist – its up to you to back up your statement by proving it. So far you have failed to provide anything that fits the definition of racism. So far you argue from the point of what he ‘didn’t’ say, as being proof.

    SO far it appears you believe that all people, from anywhere in the world, despite their race, religion, wealth, etc, should be allowed into New Zealand because to reject them, would be racist.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. mikenmild (12,446 comments) says:

    I’m actually not sure if Kimble knows what he believes.

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

    “5,700 are Kiwis returning or Aussies migrating. Only 3,400 are other migrants.”

    That figure of 5,700 New Zealanders coming back (or Aussies coming here) is great! What I mean by that is that that figure greatly outnumbers the number of *Muslims* coming here (who will be counted in the 3,400 figure).

    I have a “preference list” as far as immigrants are concerned. Top-equal are New Zealanders returning or Aussies coming here. Second are other nationalities who are non-Muslim. Last (by a long way) are Muslims.

    Anyway, I’ll be doing what I can in the next few months and years to undermine Islam here. I’ll be getting information out to Muslims showing that the Koran is filled with scientific and mathematical errors. Given that hundreds of thousands of Muslims have left Islam in Iran alone (which has the death penalty for apostasy) it should not be at all difficult to get *thousands* of Muslims *here* to leave Islam (given how much safer and easier it would be).

    Many Muslims actually know *very little* about Islam – they simply “parrot” verses given to them by the imams and do not explore the meaning of them further.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. Kimble (3,955 comments) says:

    Kimble knows exactly what Kimble believes.

    But it is obvious you don’t.

    Have you heard him say he DOES want to exclude particular races – despite constantly arguing from the point that he ‘has’.

    You have to start from the position that someone IS racist. That rule applies for EVERYBODY, not just conservatives.

    Now, it is obvious that I’m not racist given how much I have said I hate racism and how good I am at seeing the racist intentions of others. The rest of you? Well, the jury is out. But as long as you support racists like Cunliffe you are doing your case no favours.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. thor42 (971 comments) says:

    I think there may be a good common-sense middle ground to be found in the discussion about immigration.

    I have two main concerns when it comes to immigration.
    They are –

    1) I want the culture, legal system, values and *freedom* of New Zealand to remain “Western”. That definition allows some change in “cultural nature” over time (as others come in) but the Western-ness aspect is non-negotiable as far as I’m concerned.

    2) Given what Muslim immigrants have done to Western countries elsewhere, I am against Islam so I want no concessions to be made for Muslims. This is the “when in Rome, do as the Romans do” rule. Granting concessions undermines our Western culture.

    I think those two things are very reasonable (and I wouldn’t be surprised if at least 80% of New Zealanders agreed with them).

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. mikenmild (12,446 comments) says:

    But Kimble, you haven’t come remotely close to showing the Cunliffe is a racist. In fact all you have done is claim that others must prove that Cunliffe is NOT a racist.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. mikenmild (12,446 comments) says:

    thor42
    I’d be very surprised if anything like 80% of New Zealanders thought that it was okay to ban immigrants on the basis of religious beliefs. In fact, I’m not even sure that 80% of Kiwibloggers would go that far.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. Bob R (1,422 comments) says:

    ***The rest of you? Well, the jury is out. But as long as you support racists like Cunliffe you are doing your case no favours.***

    @ Kimble,

    Do you support unlimited immigration? If not, then what’s the problem with debating what is a reasonable level? There’s never going to be a right or wrong answer, but there is a relationship with demand for house prices. Which keeps coming up as an issue.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. Kimble (3,955 comments) says:

    Do you support unlimited immigration?

    No, don’t be ridiculous.

    If not, then what’s the problem with debating what is a reasonable level?

    Because its RACIST.

    There’s never going to be a right or wrong answer, but there is a relationship with demand for house prices. Which keeps coming up as an issue.

    To be serious for a minute… the issue with houses is that we don’t build enough of them. Part of the economic benefit of population growth through immigration is that building houses to house them all is good for the economy. As well as all the other things they will need. Not to mention everything they bring with them; money, skills, daughters (ok, not THAT serious).

    Labour is treating the supply of houses as if it is fixed, and that that is a good thing. It isn’t, in either case.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. mikenmild (12,446 comments) says:

    No one is claiming that there is a fixed supply of houses. What is at issue is the extent to which current levels of immigration may contribute to the present housing problems.

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

    @mikenmild – “I’d be very surprised if anything like 80% of New Zealanders thought that it was okay to ban immigrants on the basis of religious beliefs.”

    Leaving aside the fact that there is considerable evidence to show that Islam is more of a cultish ideology and political system than a religion, I’m not saying “ban all Muslims from coming here.”

    I am saying “no concessions” to them.

    By that, I mean no separate swimming pools or swimming times for Muslims. No prayer rooms in public buildings or sports facilities. No halal food at schools and workplaces (Muslims *are* allowed to eat ordinary non-halal food if halal is not available).

    We have (unwisely enough) already made the concessions of allowing the building of mosques and Islamic schools. That is more than enough.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. Kimble (3,955 comments) says:

    No one is claiming that there is a fixed supply of houses. What is at issue is the extent to which current levels of immigration may contribute to the present housing problems.

    And the answer is fuck all.

    Unless you are racist.

    I said Labour was TREATING housing as if it was in fixed supply. The only reason the present slight uptick in numbers is an issue is because of a persistent shortage of housing.

    Of course Labour doesnt WANT to reduce house prices. So wont do anything to actually increase supply.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. nasska (12,111 comments) says:

    ….”No one is claiming that there is a fixed supply of houses”….

    Let’s make absolutely sure of that by insisting that immigrants front up with sufficient funds to acquire a house & then as a condition of entry make them have one built from new. Then there’s no possibility that they reducing our housing stock.

    Could be a bit tough on boat people & refugees but if South Auckland & the Hutt Valley are anything to go by we’re not missing out on much.

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

    @ BobR – “If not, then what’s the problem with debating what is a reasonable level?”

    @ Kimble – “Because its RACIST.”

    I beg to differ. I don’t see anything “racist” at all in discussing how many people should be allowed to settle in a country each year.

    If someone can point out to me how trying to reach an agreement on a *number* is “racist” then that would be much appreciated!

    As an aside, I should point out that I don’t buy the Labour line that it is immigrants causing the housing problem.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. mikenmild (12,446 comments) says:

    thor42
    Any other minorites that shouldn’t be allowed to build schools or places of worship?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. Yoza (1,927 comments) says:

    thor42 (841 comments) says:
    May 27th, 2014 at 6:38 pm

    Leaving aside the fact that there is considerable evidence to show that Islam is more of a cultish ideology and political system than a religion…”

    What’s the difference between a cultish ideology/political system and a religion?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. tom hunter (5,134 comments) says:

    Its a frustrating ride, isn’t it? Welcome to 2004.

    My favourite line of the day. Actually did any left-winger ever “prove” that Brash was a racist?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Kimble (4,177 comments) says:
    May 27th, 2014 at 5:32 pm

    Can you please explain on what premise you argue that the default value is racist? Have you noticed young children, unable to yet talk, act in a racist manner and treat babies from a different race, with contempt?

    Racism is not our ‘default’ setting. It is a learned behaviour – and so far, you have failed to identify one single piece of evidence that supports your assertion that a policy to restrict immigration is racist.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. nasska (12,111 comments) says:

    ….”Racism is not our ‘default’ setting. It is a learned behaviour “…..

    It is also a defence mechanism.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. Kimble (3,955 comments) says:

    Well of course you WOULD say that, wouldn’t you Judith?

    I wouldn’t expect anything better from a Cunliffe fan.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. Reid (16,740 comments) says:

    Is the truth wacist, or is it merely the truth?

    That’s the real question.

    I’m surprised some conservatives who normally make that distinction in debate don’t make it at all when it conflicts with their beloved free-market fanatic philosophy or more accurately, their delusion that the fwee market is the answer to this problem, which some of them disingenuously pretend doesn’t even exist.

    Sadly Liarbore didn’t think to explain the rational perspective which is: welcome, just not to Akld. Feel absolutely and utterly free to live anywhere you like, sadly, Akld is full right now, so explore the country, and settle elsewhere, for at least the next decade. After that, you’re free to decide.

    BTW, we wouldn’t dream of making you do that, but we do have a points system already in place that we can use to “encourage” you to make that choice, as you explore our lovely country, south of Akld.

    Thanks very much, this is our country, not yours, so we don’t have a problem making rules which you need to comply with. That’s not wacist, so don’t pretend it is, if you don’t want to live in say, Queenstown, then we’re not very interested in having you here. See ya.

    Next.

    What’s wacist about that?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. Kimble (3,955 comments) says:

    What’s wacist about that?

    Nothing.

    Aucklander isn’t a RACE.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. SPC (5,678 comments) says:

    I’ll correct his statement it is lack of supply to meet rising demand for houses that places upward pressure on house values.

    And then explain that some of the increase in demand comes from an increase in population resident here, but not all of this is from immigration some is from returning expats. And the other increase in demand is from those speculating for CG profit in the rental market. Some of this speculation comes from offshore and can be reduced without reference to immigration – by requiring residence for local property ownership.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. SPC (5,678 comments) says:

    As for this term dog whistle.

    Dog is a disparaging term for the public when popular opinion is seen as wrong. As in the government in the capital should somehow operate to a higher calling than popular opinion of the common folk and to operate otherwise is to immorally covet the favour of the masses – such as a government acting in the peoples interest rather than corporate interest etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. SPC (5,678 comments) says:

    Reid, as to areas of immigration.

    1. Refugees being permanently settled outside Auckland and Christchurch.
    2. Skilled worker immigrants being required to live outside Auckland AND not seek jobs available there – unless they remain unfilled because there is no capable New Zealander.
    3. Investor migrants being required to finance new homes they live in rather than bid up existing property values.

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