Hard-hearted immigration policy does NZ reputation damage

I’m glad New Zealand Immigration has cancelled its edict that a Lithuanian visitor, Jurga Skiauteris, must hop on a plane, despite medical advice that she should stay put in new Zealand  because of complications with her pregnancy.

 

What a heartless policy New Zealand Immigration has towards pregnant women here on temporary visas.

 

It is actually a discriminatory policy. Recently a Korean horticulture student, Sun Won Kim, was denied a new student visa after she became pregnant.  Yet her male partner, here on a work visa, was allowed to stay.

 

Surely all women in New Zealand have the same rights to sexual activity and to bear children, without suffering any penalty.

 

Being just and fair has no big downside. Are we such a mean country that we can’t afford to provide maternity services for a few women on temporary work or study visas? 

 

What is especially mean is that the women in the above cases seemed happy to pay the cost of their own maternity care – they just didn’t want to be separated from their partner in one case and in the other were acting on medical advice. 

 

Kicking out pregnant women also violates the international treaties protecting the rights of women and children.

 

This sort of attitude can’t be much help to New Zealand’s reputation as a good destination to study in. It is hardly likely to attract tourism either.

 

The Government may argue that a clause in our Human Rights Act excludes immigration matters from its purview, but clearly such a clause contravenes our international commitments. I say it must go.

27 Comments Posted

  1. Yes but the above cases were not refugees they were paying students and tourists.

    jh. I really like your ‘even if’ there is no doubt about it there is a small international group of mega rich and an alarmingly growing rate of dirt poor and I don’t think that the Hayek model of economics is the answer

    Helping students like Sun to get their qualifications is tha answer.

  2. “This is just nationalist and jingoistic bulls*&# !!!”

    Not withstanding these cases if NZ is seen as a soft-touch the pressures at the border will increase 100 fold?

  3. Even if you have a minority of mega rich and a majority dirt poor it doesn’t necessarily follow that redistributing the wealth will have much of an impact?
    I’m assuming that population divides the natural resources available give or take good economic management.

  4. What Kieth pointed out in the above blog was that those women were willing to meet the medical costs of their pregnancies; So where is the problem?

    In Jurga’s case, it was a case of danger of medical problems of a complicated pregnancy surely to goodness NZ Immigration could have come to some amicable arrangement? This is just nationalist and jingoistic bulls*&# !!!

    As for Sun Kim that seems to be a case of double standards in the way that was handled by NZ Immigration. I takes two to tango and she seems to be taking the rap for the partner. In a civilised society an arrangement could be made where professional part time daycare (they were willing to pay) could be provided an Sun could carry on with her studies.

    jh: Globalisation of the property market, the slashing of national tarriff protection without equitable labour rates in both trading partners causes a radical imbalance in the price of labour in both countries.
    Eg. Our free trade to China killed our clothing industry (except those who went off shore) OK we get cheap clothing, but on one side of the equation we get unemployment in NZ, and on the other side we get virtual slave labour in China. Somone wins and somone loses and when millions of workers in a country like China or India wish to to chase better wages (as the capitalist elite chase low wages) this creates the emmigration/immigration imbalance. Eg. Mexico and USA.

    THIS IS NOT FREE TRADE IT IS SLAVE TRADE, the tarrif horse has already bolted so it is in everyones interest to support workers in China in their struggle for higher wages.
    All parties on the left should have one goal to achieve that end and that is to put labour representation (ILO) on to the World Trade Organisation.

  5. I missed that however i wonder if that wasn’t the case if Keiths post would have been any different?

    A1kmm Says:
    Immigration law is inherently discriminatory – it is a way to keep the rich rich and the poor poor; I certainly hope the world moves towards having open borders.

    I don’t see how having open borders in NZ would improve wages and conditions for NZ workers. If populations were relatively even throughout the world then we would compete but conditions are horrendous in countries such as the Philippines and many people will do anything to get out. People who want open borders are either hoping they will benefit from the political power (adored by the masses) or benefit economically (Bob Jones) types.

  6. jh

    As Fastbike pointed out above, that stopped being true 3 years ago.

    It isn’t relevant anymore.

    BJ

  7. Mark “- maybe we actually need migrants?”
    Doesn’t the world have too many people already? Aren’t ‘we’ buggering up the place enough with the current population? New Zealand may well be able to cope sustainably with 6m. Does this mean we should aim for that asap? I reckon one of the best things about NZ is the low population density.

    Wat said “People have the right to live where they darn well please.”
    No Wat, you can’t live at my place.. but you can come for a coffee. NZers have the right to live in NZ.

    One day we will ‘get the balls’ or be forced to talk about population. Doesn’t the Green charter reconize that infinite growth is not possible in a finite world?

    Asian youth, as samiam puts it, will be the easiest issue to talk about.

  8. Immigration law is supposed to be disciminatory; thats the whole idea. And thats globally, not just in NZ. “Nationality” is in many cases extraordinarily close to “race”.

    The exciting development in policy will be when Australians start moving here in numbers as Oz becomes less habitable and we end up having to dump automatic rights of Ozzies…

  9. A1kmm

    June 10th, 2009 at 7:45 pm

    Immigration law is inherently discriminatory . . . . . . . . . . I certainly hope the world moves towards having open borders.

    . . . . . . . . .

    Perhaps mandatory asset testing combined and lump sum payments . . . . . would be the solution.

    ARE YOU FOR REAL? ? ? ? ? ? ?
    two TOTALLY contradictory statements in the space of four sentences! I think that’s a record on any blog I read.

    Now. Open or conditional entry?

    USA 1930s or Winston’s Aotearoa?

    A survival sized market or an export vs poverty economy?

    What exactly is it you are expounding?

  10. # wat dabney Says:
    June 10th, 2009 at 7:23 pm

    Unless the Greens are arguing for an end to all immigration restricions (and they certainly should), then this special pleading for one or two examples who made the headlines is nothing but political bandstanding.

    People have the right to live where they darn well please.
    ——————-

    Anyone who can afford a ticket or can borrow from a connection, that way we can all enjoy 3rd world living standards(except for the people in gated subdivisions)? Let’s take tourism: an Indian told me he is buying 12 more Volvo B12’s. His drivers don’t get paid there are 50 people lining up in the morning and he says “I’ll take you, you and you”.. they work for tips. Workers in an African Airport earned about a dollar a day (as seen on TV). Ofcourse the wealth will flow through to everyone because of our Super-Dupers” which will out compete “Super-Dupers” from China, france etc (due to our No8 wire mentality) Blah, blah, blah…

  11. There are a lot of serious issues underlying the migration debate but the way the Greens are dominated but people from pre-existing political spheres of a different designated colour precludes it. The issues are sustainability, quality of life, comparative advantage in the world economy and do we really need a large population (described as an “achievement” by many contemporary economists).

  12. Surely all women *in New Zealand *have the same rights to sexual activity and to bear children, without suffering *any*penalty.
    ——————
    but does this mean they can choose which country in the world to have those children (in this case NZ) and does it mean that it is the duty of the rest of the citizenry to support them?

    Does the party that calls it self the Green party have a biological model of the human population and have they looked at the Sierra Club site which tells us that at the turn of last century we had 1.6 B people and that now we are well over 6.1……(Actually the “greens” squeeze out of this question by doodling with issues of “carrying capacity” and we might be near but not yet and we don’t know but our social justice issues are more important).

    “..When you’re really down a big black political hole and no one’s listening – there’s only one thing for it. Pull the race card…..”

    Labour’s Third World Solution
    migration – 13 November 2002 – 2228 views

    To the extent these trends are maintained it could take as few as 60 years before the population is effectively totally renewed. To the extent the sources of the greatest number of arrivals are now in Asia, Mr Peters is quite justified to point out that New Zealand is looking at a social and demographic revolution. .
    http://nbr.infometrics.co.nz/column.php?id=409

    I heard a migrant on radionz pointing out how he came from a place with 50% unemployment….. this is the sad reality.

    The Greens oppose globalisation of the property market but are for globalisation of the labour market.

  13. Well I got this info from an MP (not Military Policeman). However you want to couch the phraseology – NZ born population is shrinking. ie dying out.

  14. Immigration law is inherently discriminatory – it is a way to keep the rich rich and the poor poor; I certainly hope the world moves towards having open borders.

    The downside is that selfish people will shop around for a country which does the least for others when it doesn’t benefit them, and then move to the country which does the most for others when they need help. The challenge is to set policy which opens the borders, isn’t heartless, but which also doesn’t encourage this type of shopping around.

    Perhaps mandatory asset testing combined and lump sum payments for people who have money, and have historically been undertaxed by NZ standards, and want to receive services from the government here, would be the solution.

  15. Unless the Greens are arguing for an end to all immigration restricions (and they certainly should), then this special pleading for one or two examples who made the headlines is nothing but political bandstanding.

    People have the right to live where they darn well please.

  16. Sapient

    That loophole was closed in 2006

    Children born in New Zealand on or after 1 January 2006 will acquire New Zealand citizenship by birth only if at least one parent is a New Zealand citizen or permanent resident (including Australian citizens). Children born to a parent who is a permanent resident of the Cook Islands, Tokelau or Niue also qualify.

  17. I would of thought that the biggest problem here was not that she would use services but that the child would be NZ citizen even though its mother was just a tourist.
    We should just revoke the right to NZ citizenship due to local of birth and instead make it conditional on the parent being a NZ citizen or otherwise registering. Where a parent with a dependant child born in NZ becomes a citizen with that child under three years of age we grant the child citizenship with the mother. We could pay for the medical services from the budget and charge the foreign parent for those services, if they are not able to pay we can treat it as a mortgage-level interest loan. Where the country to which they are a citizen would normally pay a portion of the costs related to that pregnancy we may attempt to seek funds from that countrys healthcare provision relative to the portion.

    Problems solved.

    Mark, stephen,
    I beleive the growth rate is still positive, though approaching negative. So while what mark said isint strictly true since migration does not imply dirrection, if he ment that we need immegration to maintain numbers he would be correct as we have high emmigration which exceeds the level of new births minus new deaths 😛

  18. >>all of this because of a sexist attitude to teenage/youth sexual activity

    I think you’ll find this is a cultural issue. Some cultures, PI especially, are very backward about sexuality.

    Also, we can’t be a clearinghouse for people with medical conditions. A pregnancy is, in economic terms, a medical condition. Else we’ll be getting waves of “medical tourism”. Who is going to pay?

    Fine if you, Katie, personally, cover the bill, of course. I have no problem with that.

  19. We do not want to be the dumping ground for every low life Zaoui like creature that wants an easy ride on the back of the NZ tax payer.

    Yet another very old lie, paratanui, another -3 points. You’re sliding blow, only on +1 now. The old lies are the best though, eh?

  20. genuine Kiwi Population has been on the decline for a while

    That would be ‘the rate of growth has been on the decline for a while’ 😉

  21. Yerp; – funny thing is only migrants are sustaining NZ’s population level; the genuine Kiwi Population has been on the decline for a while – maybe we actually need migrants?
    Certainly they were the Making of Australia in terms of providing a vigorous domestic Market for industry.
    I reckin we take alla them Guantanamo Refugees – lodge them at Paratanui’s Place.

  22. The way authorities treat pregnant international students here is heinous – there have been suicide attempts, botched abortions, and one student last year who had her baby in a hostel toilet & discarded the newborn in a rubbish bin – all of this because of a sexist attitude to teenage/youth sexual activity, which puts all the penalty on the young woman, and no responsibility or penalty on the father; whether a regualar sexual partner, a one-night-stand, or rape that traumatised the young woman so badly that she went through the pregnancy in denial …

    Ok, ‘rant paragraph in one sentence’, but this one is one I’ve heard repeatedly for ten years on and off campus, and it still makes my blood boil.

    We have punitive student contracts for young people coming here to study, both charging enormous fees and offering insufficient support.
    Many international students don’t know they can get free contraceptives, free tests and free counselling through the student health services, due to language limitations, especially asian students, who are often taught in their own language in BCA/ BCom courses marketed at Education Fairs overseas.

    For many asian ethnic groups, discussing healthy reproductive function is too embarassing, let alone discussing anything going ‘wrong’.
    They suffer in silence, then they get evicted by their hostel, have their course access terminated, and popped on the next flight home. From our compassionate, liberal, ‘first-world’, clean green country.
    They must wonder how it happened, and vow never to leave home again without a stash of whatever over-the-counter abortion pills are available in their home country.

    BB, your comment was so devoid of any actual intelligent understanding of Frog’s post that I draw my breath and exhale, without the will to respond. That is all.

  23. What international commitments?

    We do not want to be the dumping ground for every low life Zaoui like creature that wants an easy ride on the back of the NZ tax payer.

Comments are closed.