Comments on: New Zealand is better than this

By: Paddy

Paddy — Thu, 09 Aug 2012 08:27:57 +0000

We welcome Sri Lankans. NZ Cricket needs them badly.

By: The Al1en

The Al1en — Tue, 07 Aug 2012 22:51:42 +0000

“With some of the numbnuts posting on here, I think all the mps do really well to keep it civil.”

“What I find most objectionable about her stance is the self-righteousness. The old ‘oh you poor love, come and let me give you a big cuddle’ approach to refugees.”

“I don’t cuddle anyone if I don’t think they have rights. There’s nothing self righteous about saying something is wrong and I will always do so.”

Point proven

By: Paul B

Paul B — Tue, 07 Aug 2012 22:21:37 +0000

@ Jennifer; @ One Track,
Jennifer, Besides the clear fact that we are extremely difficult to ‘get to’ and are unlikely to be inundated(the refugees would likely be!), the existing laws are adequate with respect to illegal immigrants and refugees. My great problem is that I believe that the Key govt has introduced the legislation not from desperate fear of large numbers of refugees but as an attempt to put in place legislation that might stir a ‘dirty’ debate. BUT I have to admit to being very cynical about Key and co and believe that they would like nothing better than to have some ‘boat people’ arrive just prior to the election. They are probably still in awe of John Howards sleazy act which once won an election across the Tasman, by playing on the ‘boat people’ issue.
AND WHY doesn`t the legislation deal more severely to the promoters – I would suggest to you, that, as that would require perhaps problematic dealing with the administrations of countries such as Indonesia, that our noble govt wants none of that. So the stiff measures are for the hapless, weak and probably very wet refugees… Easy meat…
pathetic
I believe Key, Joyce, and co, want a debate on this issue (not just yet ,mind you), when they will unleash scare propaganda similar to Howard`s behavior in Aus.
We must give notice that such devious behavior is noted and not allow them to lead us into a scurrilous debate

@ One Track
You are being ridiculous… pass your nonsense to The Nats – they might hold it for propaganda purposes when ie suits them. There are adequate processes at present, which can be easily enough tweaked if necessary.
The bill – as was the ‘Great Barrier Play’ – is a political device placed for use in an emergency – THAT ‘EMERGENCY’, IS WHEN THE NATS MAY BE IN TROUBLE AT THE BALLOT BOX

By: Darien Fenton

Darien Fenton — Tue, 07 Aug 2012 22:10:31 +0000

@Jennifer and One Track : perhaps you didn’t read this. http://blog.labour.org.nz/2012/07/27/something-amiss/

By: Darien Fenton

Darien Fenton — Tue, 07 Aug 2012 21:53:50 +0000

@OneTrack – the reason I hoped Jennifer would read the submission is so she can get some facts, instead of repeating misinformation. Here’s answers to your comments : We accept 750 refugees a year ; around 300 a year seek asylum as quota refugees, and around 70% are not accepted because they don’t meet the criteria and that is under the current law. Flushing passports down the toilet on the plane doesn’t happen anymore, because airlines are held legally accountable for verifying passports of their passengers; and anyway, someone who arrived at the border in this way could still be detained, not just in a group. We accept tens of thousands of migrants each year and we have around 20,000 overstayers at the moment – almost none of whom will have been asylum seekers. Proving you are a genuine quota refugee is not straightforward or simple, nor is it a way to get ahead of other migrants seeking to come here – it’s a long hard path and anyone who thinks it isn’t will be in for a shock. You have missed the point about the bill. IU object to people being treated in a group, no matter what the size. They have rights under international law, and determining they don’t because they arrive as part of a group and sending them off to Waiouru to be locked up behind barbed wire is unjust and contrary to NZ and international laws.
@Jennifer : I don’t cuddle anyone if I don’t think they have rights. There’s nothing self righteous about saying something is wrong and I will always do so. The problem with this bill is it removes rights because an asylum seeker happens to arrive in a group and gives the State the power to lock them up behind barbed wire for six months. It won’t deter people smugglers. They don’t live in New Zealand and there is plenty of evidence to show that picking on the victims of people smugglers is not a deterrent. And even if people do get through the border and seek asylum, it’s not straightforward from there and I absolutely support robust processes to ensure that genuine refugees can be accepted and those who try it on are sent home. This whole bill is about what might happen, one day, perhaps, maybe, in the unlikely event a group of asylum seekers made it to New Zealand on a boat, which has never happened. We have been told by Australians that their approach of mass detention has failed. We should listen. And by the way, it is the bill itself that is propaganda, not the objections to it.

By: jennifer

jennifer — Tue, 07 Aug 2012 20:43:10 +0000

@ Paul B, the Bill is a reasonable approach, not propaganda. It sends a strong signal that we are not a soft touch. Darien is, it would seem. What I find most objectionable about her stance is the self-righteousness. The old ‘oh you poor love, come and let me give you a big cuddle’ approach to refugees. A little more rigour would be nice. For example, she calls for tough sanctions on the people smugglers, in NZ law. Great. Let’s have a one billion dollar fine. That will stop them in their tracks, right? Problem solved.

By: OneTrack

OneTrack — Tue, 07 Aug 2012 08:30:31 +0000

Darien, it would be nice if you would at least try and answer Jennifer @ 9:25 instead of brush her off with a “read the submissions”

The question is, how many asylum seekers, queue jumpers, etc., do YOU think should be let in. Obviously you think it should be more than ten at any one time ie a flight. So, one flight a day * 10 = 3650 non-legal immigrants per annum and you would be completely comfortable with that and don’t think that any preparations put in place (ie such as an exercise) to ensure procedures and processes are robust.

Why would anybody even bother going through the proper process with that approach. “nah, don’t go to the embassy, just get on the plane and flush your passport down the toilet. You’ll be sweet when you land at auckland”

By: The Al1en

The Al1en — Tue, 07 Aug 2012 02:43:46 +0000

“Darien, you are too polite with regard some of the ignorant people commenting on here.”

With some of the numbnuts posting on here, I think all the mps do really well to keep it civil.
I’d hate to be so restricted, but I guess it comes with the job – Avoiding tabloid headlines etc…
Funny how fully taking part in the democratic process gives less freedom to actually say what’s what.
So please, no votes for me.

As for refugees. 750 is a pitifully small amount.
Lucky I’m a legal Al1en, with no extradition treaties to my home world.

By: Sofie Bribiesca

Sofie Bribiesca — Tue, 07 Aug 2012 02:34:13 +0000

Darien, you are too polite with regard some of the ignorant people commenting on here. You are right however by commenting on how disgraceful one commenter (often) is. One wonders if they are paid to be so cruel.

By: Paul B

Paul B — Mon, 06 Aug 2012 23:13:23 +0000

Jennifer,
At present, and without the Key government scaremongering legislation, there are perfectly adeqate regulations to control the type of refuge immigration that NZ might see.
Keys type of legislation was in existance, post WW2, when more than 70,000 Jewish refugees in more tan 100 boats landed illegally in the British Mandated PALESTINE. The US at that time rather assisted the refugees, just like Indonesia is doing now in relation to Australia`s problem. Would Key have supported that illegal invasion of a protectorate state by a group which had been politically absent for more than 2000 yrs?? Of course, The Holocaust was the immediate and tragic background – BUT did that justify the removal of the then rightful inhabitants of PALESTINE – Israel had been “lost” by the Jews in battles before the birth of Christ!
Sorry, a bit of a diversion, but a very remote NZ is not going to be subjected to such an onslaught .. the point is of course that a British warship blockade failed to stop the determined refugees landing in Palestine, and neither would Keys bill!!! – IT IS COMPOSED ENTIRELY FOR PROPAGANDA PURPOSES TO MISLEAD NEW ZEALANDERS AND CREATE AN IGNORANT HATRED OF REFUGEES ENTIRELY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE KEY GOVERNMENT`s ELECTION PROSPECTS . As such it is akin to John Howards disgusting behavior over the ‘Tampa’refugee incident
As for the charade of “Exercise Barrier” mentioned by Darien – That was a cynical, comical, and practically pointless, contrived (actors were employed?!) stunt. It was a propaganda waste of time and money by this government which refuses to fund educated debate of ethical issues such as by way of TVNZ7
Having said all this – it is likely the devious incumbents(Natioal&Dunne Banks) have such an advantage in this deliberately set up, semi-racist debate, that we may be better to just disaprove and refuse to engage in their dirty, dirty, little ‘Howardy’ game.
So Jennifer, it might be better to discuss the issues of immigration and refugees when we have a decent fair administration. Wait a couple of years! There will not be an Israeli, or any invasion, before then?