New Zealand First had its conference on the weekend.
The headline was created by new President Lester Gray calling for immigrants and refugees to “respect New Zealand values” which he said were founded on Christianity. Gray was heavily pushed by Clayton Mitchell. I wonder who has been advising them.
Lucy Bennett at the Herald has some of the details:
Migrants and refugees will have to respect New Zealand values or be shipped back to “where they came from” under a bill to be discussed by the New Zealand First caucus.
The Respecting New Zealand Values Bill, drawn up by NZ First’s Clayton Mitchell on behalf of the party’s Tauranga members, was put to the vote by delegates at NZ First’s annual convention in the city this morning.
The idea already has the backing of leader Winston Peters.
He wasn’t at the conference when it was being debated but told reporters later if people coming to New Zealand “didn’t want to salute this country’s law”, they shouldn’t be here.
“If you’re coming to this country as a refugee, surely you respect the country you’ve come to. In the case of some refugees, if you’ve gone past 42 other countries that have your religion for one that does not, why wouldn’t you actually have some respect for the new country you’ve come to and their religions,” Peters said.
Mitchell said that under the bill “immigrants must agree to respect New Zealand’s values and to live a life that demonstrates that they respect New Zealand values.”
His justification for the Bill is apparently in the preamble and was noted by Jo Moir at Television New Zealand:
New Zealand is a tolerant society. Our tolerance means that if an individual wants to immigrate to New Zealand, they must accept, respect and adhere to the tolerance our society expects,” it said.
“Immigrants must agree to respect New Zealand’s values and to live a life that demonstrates that they respect New Zealand values.”
We shall not tolerate intolerance!
The feedback from NZ First members was interesting, “this is our country and these are our rules” and “when in Rome you have to do what the Romans do” were two comments. One poor member was incensed that he had gone into a shop and the shopkeeper had spoken a different language to him. Talk about first world problems.
David Seymour supports the proposal. Alarm bells should be ringing.
So what are these New Zealand values? And where is this evidence of rampant refusal of recent immigrants to respect New Zealand values?
As for the values Jo Moir at Radio New Zealand reported that they include gender equality, all legal sexual preferences, religious rights, and the legality of alcohol.
It is interesting there is no mention of the Treaty of Waitangi. It is our founding constitutional document. And there should be respect for Tangata Whenua. But failure to do so is not something that is exclusively the behaviour of immigrants, at least more recent immigrants.
And surely racial tolerance should also be included in core values. And the underlying requirement to respect “Christian values” underscores a lack of tolerance of religious diversity.
As for sexual preferences and gender equality it is interesting that a party that is essentially conservative should want to be at the forefront of these articles. As asked by Andrew Geddis on Twitter, where does this put the 32 National MPs, all seven NZ First MPs and the four Labour MPs who voted against Louisa Wall’s Same Sex Marriage law?
I presume that one of the targets is child brides. I have not seen any evidence of this being a local problem myself and the laws regarding marriage and also prohibiting sexual contact with young people under the age of 16 would presumably solve this issue. All you need is to require all immigrants, as citizens do, to swear to uphold the laws of New Zealand.
And if it is not illegal why should it be proscribed? For instance why require anyone to agree that alcohol should be legal. Does this mean that the Temperance movement is suddenly a terrorist movement?
The bill will create a discussion and give New Zealand First and especially Clayton Mitchell publicity. But I would prefer that we celebrate the fact that we have a multi cultural society where everyone gets on pretty well and where diversity is celebrated rather than have a debate suggesting that crushing uniformity of culture should be the norm.
According to RNZ, Peters emphasised the exploitation of migrant workers.
https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/367631/the-country-would-be-a-hell-hole-without-nz-values-winston-peters
If New Zealand’s employment laws are such that people can be “ground” by employers, then New Zealand’s employment laws need to be overhauled. And as a corollary, workers need to be properly empowered.
But then, the past 30 odd years would suggest that allowing power to grind people is somewhat of a “kiwi value”…
“If New Zealand’s employment laws are such that people can be “ground” by employers…”
They aren’t. The point Peter’s is making is that some immigrants bring their own values (in this case around the people they employ) to NZ and knowingly break our laws in the process. It isn’t just the exploitation that is wrong, it is also the seemingly flagrant disregard for the laws of their adopted country.
Yeah, except I know what NZ Employment Laws are and how they are crazily tilted to the advantage of employers. I worked in the area for years. They’re shot.
In my opinion they are not perfect, but neither are they ‘shot’. NZ has it’s share of problem employers and employees, and the law has to try to deal with both. When properly enforced, the law generally works well.
So with employment law things are fine if it’s enforced properly? Surely this must suggest requiring people to sign up to what ever the heck it is is unnecessary, then.
This silly idea is likely to end up in the place as Peters’ code of social responsibility. It’ll die a similar death because of how meaningless and stupid it is.
I’m not sure I understand the point you’re trying to make in relation to my comment.
An employment relationship is a contractual one. Most (all?) contractual relationships are subject to one form of legal framework or other. Bill would have us believe that in NZ employment legislation is dramatically oriented in favour of employers. This is of course a myth. It is not the law that is the problem, it is the lack of enforcement.
“Bill would have us believe that in NZ employment legislation is dramatically oriented in favour of employers. This is of course a myth. It is not the law that is the problem, it is the lack of enforcement.”
Not at all.
The law allows McDonalds to pay its staff less than is needed to live decently ($16.50/h – and many of their workers given less than 40h/week) while making $52.8m profit in NZ in 2016. The law also creates the environment that results in those workers having zero bargining power.
Most of the people McDonalds employs at $16.50 per hour are not trying to live independently. They are people like my daughter, paying her way through university. You’ll need to find another example.
The point I was making is that if you’re okay with current employment laws and that the problem is with enforcement, why is Peters’ idea of signing up to what ever the fuck he sees as “kiwi values” necessary? Isn’t the problem you’re talking about solved simply by addressing the enforcement issue?
I then said that this idea, how ever far it ends up going, will still end up in the same place as his code of social responsibility.
Hi Chris. Yes, I see your point. My impression was that Peter’s idea relates to our overall way of life, not just employment law.
Exploiting migrant workers and even citizen workers is obviously a ‘Kiwi value’ as we’ve been doing it for decades with little more than a wringing of hands. National made exploiting workers even easier as well.
No government seems interested in holding these exploiters who are damaging our society to account in any meaningful way.
IMHO Peters is absolutely correct. We have no obligation to accept migrants who have no interest in our culture, our history, and have no intention to integrate. There is a basic set of Western values that is quite alien to some cultures, and yet we naively assume that “everybody is the same” and “all cultures are equally valid”. What childish nonsense. Clearly NZ needs to up its game in this area, that’s why we are increasingly punished by Australia, NZ is a soft touch for scam artists. Also why we see endless stories of migrant worker exploitation and even sex trafficking!
But TS has to indulge in liberal hand wringing and reflexive Peters phobia.
Pathetic
Exploitation of immigrant labour is a major problem. But citizens as well as immigrants are engaging in it.
Having immigrants and refugees pledge to these values will have no effect. There are existing laws. The solution is proper policing of existing laws.
“The solution is proper policing of existing laws.”
Exactly.
Not much enforcement from immigration… government is deliberately turning a blind eye. Unless are already caught, they don’t have the budget to investigate and apprehend even the most blatant violations…
“Investigators joke about having a ‘whip around’ or ‘raffles’ to pay for deporting target after budget blowout, according to Immigration NZ emails.
Immigration New Zealand was forced to stop deporting all but the riskiest illegal immigrants after a budget blowout earlier this year.
No one was to be deported unless they were named on a list created by Immigration management when the funding shortfall was discovered in January.
On the list were 22 inmates due to be released from prison, 48 alleged criminals and 14 individuals whose refugee claims had been rejected.”
“Money was so tight, one investigator who asked for $500 to deport someone who had been living here for 14 years – “this is a case of flagrant disregard of immigration law” – was rejected.
The emails also reveal frustration in management about how the budget cut forced the freeze on deportations.
Alistair Murray, a senior manager in Auckland, queried why the budget was $1.2m when they had spent nearly $1.8m the previous year, and $1.6m the year before that.
His boss, Pete Devoy the assistant general manager, replied: “I can only [hazard] a guess but I would expect that is is viewed as an area where the budget can be cut and not have a visible impact on INZ’s business.”
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12111595
That’s exactly what I’m saying. We need to police the existing laws around employment and immigration.
Yes, but what percentage of ‘citizens’ exploiting people were actually born in NZ?
If I went to China or India or France, Germany and spent a few years there and on paper became a citizen of that country, does it really make you a citizen when you barely understand the language, culture etc… it takes decades to understand a new country (and that is if you speak the same language, clearly longer if you don’t) and it is the next generations who really become the citizens in terms of culture and understanding…
That is why the NZ government need to make it a lot longer before a person is able to call themselves a NZ citizen and show through (not breaking laws for example) they earn the right to call themselves one.
A friend was going through Heathrow and astonished to see an entire family of people with zero English all on NZ passports… it is too easy to become a NZ citizen, people can just do it by scamming, having a job like a beauty therapist, chef, restaurant ‘manager’ or even sex worker used to be on the skills list, being ‘friends’ with government, just spending 11 days here as a famous example or glitches like Handley having not spent enough time in NZ just swept away…
Time to have at least a decade before you get the NZ passport and you earn the right to it over time, not the NZ lazy government free citizenship with every dodgy degree or fake job… or ‘investment’ that seems to cost Kiwi taxpayers and benefit the applicants or big business, not the other way around.
We have no obligation to accept migrants who have no interest in our culture, our history, and have no intention to integrate.
So, in those old Star Trek episodes, you were cheering on The Borg?
The Borg forced assimilation, which is not the same as integration. The question is what does NZF actually mean by “respecting”?
‘yet we naively assume that “everybody is the same”’
No we don’t.
We either have red necks who want everyone to be the same and sign up to a set of values acceptable to Winston’s very small constituency. Or we have everyone else who by and large embraces our multi cultural society.
We have a parliament who creates laws that we must all abide by. We don’t however have a universal set of values, and should not have one imposed on us by someone as unpopular as Winston Peters.
I’ve never been screwed over by a migrant, unless you count 4th, 5th generation Pakeha…
Bitter
I agree with Peters.
We need to define what our welcome mat looks like so refugees and immigrants have the option to go elsewhere WITHOUT wasting years figuring out we are not a match.
LOL, “welcome mat” is a euphemism for filtering
demanding touristsrefugees and making sure they behave themselves and wash their hands after they’ve gone to the toilet. The ones that obviously don’t fit here, and never will, will just have to go somewhere else in theircruise shipsleaky unsafe boats. Let’s just hope other countries have lower entry standards than Aotearoa-New Zealand and are more accepting of ‘undesirables’.Bear in mind we have a very small allocation of refugees just a 1000 or so a year but apparently have 70,000 new citizens a year through migration aka work permits, relatives, marriages, 180,000 work permits given out… etc etc
The volume of people coming to NZ is nothing to do with the refugee quota and everything to do with big business wanting to create NZ into a low wage consumer economy.
We just had our PM at the UN setting out New Zealand’s values to the world. Read it again in light of this NZF view.
Living up to NZs values in that speech was no mere minimum: it was a clear expectation from the government to align every policy, every behaviour, every goal.
Winston is simply making that a real debate. The only question is how to summarise BORA and a few more into the new law.
This immigrant says that Winston and the rest of them can go fuck themselves.
Is that a “Kiwi value”?
This immigrant remembers three distinct instances on two entirely separate occasions when Winston Peters told him to go back where he came from. On one of those occasions he was the Deputy Prime Minister of NZ.
This immigrant doesn’t give a toss whether another person is a German or hails from China or wherever. This immigrant doesn’t give a toss if another person’s religion is Christian or Muslim, or Hindi or whatever.
This immigrant does give a toss about right and wrong (not ‘the law’). And this immigrant does give a toss about bigotry and discrimination and injury being inflicted on others.
Are those “Kiwi values”?
Bit personal I see.
Seems like nzf are saying the values they value are the key. As I noted (link below) i’d scrape that all off and start the conversation from the treaty. All immigrants after that can fit in or not. As an immigrant would you have been okay learning about the treaty and Māori stuff – is hope so.
https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-01-10-2018/#comment-1530528
When I came into NZ, I didn’t pursue citizenship because of the friction involved in unnecessarily appealing to an authority that’s illegitimate (to my mind).
Instead, I pursued a path that involved being granted permission by local iwi – a source of legitimate (though not unproblematic) authority to my way of thinking.
Awesome. It’s a great point re authority.
I’m not sure what permissions Ngāi Tahu gave.
Whānau is not a blood relationship, it is connection, shared values, love imo. Everyone and anyone pretty well can be welcomed into the waka. The greater the welcome, the stronger the mana of the welcomers.
Ah, so you’d be one of the ones that’s not following NZ values at all.
As far as I know they don’t have that authority.
You don’t get to make up the laws of the country as you please or to follow some laws because you like them and ignore others because you don’t.
If everyone did what you did there’d be chaos.
In other words, you’re the problem that NZ1st is going on about.
So, what the value underpinning your first statement? The value that says we are free to embrace that which is being pushed on us?
Your second statement is limiting authority to a legal sense. What about moral authority?
Your third statement is similarly limiting. And I didn’t allude to any right on my part to make up the laws of the country. They are what they are. Some of them are wrong. (eg, and only most obviously – jail time for smoking a plant or being in possession of plant).
Your fourth statement is funny. It’s Winston Peters and his crew who are demanding everyone does as they do and think as they think. I can’t say I’ve read any comments suggesting that chaos will result.
If I’m the problem NZ1st are going on about, then I’ll proudly stand up, embrace the reality of being that problem and face down NZ1st or any other xenophobic prick who fancies their chances 🙂
No, I’m limiting it to the only legitimate option – our democracy.
The government is the only entity that has the moral authority to set the laws.
Yes you did as you said that you involved in unnecessarily appealing to an authority that’s illegitimate and then ignored the only legitimate authority of the country.
I can see the problem with getting permission from an iwi- when a lot of employers will look for the passport stamp from another sort of authority.
I cant even see how even Ngai Tahu have any sort of process for approving people as migrants.
What happens when you need hospital treatment or if you have children and they go to school. That illegitimate authority that runs these things is quite particular about some of these things. Same goes if you leave and wish to return.
I am pretty sure Ngāi Tahu are not doing anything. I think bill is talking moral authority but I’m sure he’ll clarify.
Approaching Maori was in lieu of seeking citizenship because…see above and below.
As a permanent resident, I have all the passport stamps and visas that are required. And being a permanent resident, there’s really nothing to prevent me leaving the country and coming back again. I think I might have to be mindful of how long I was out the country, if it was going to be months stretching to years.
And you shouldn’t have those rights because you’re not a citizen.
And you shouldn’t have those rights because you’re not a citizen
It’s not that you’re thinking you have the authority to set the laws after what you said above about the government being the only legitimate authority on that front Draco, is it?
The rights and responsibilities that accrue to permanent residents are a matter of law.
Yes you did as you said that you involved in unnecessarily appealing to an authority that’s illegitimate and then ignored the only legitimate authority of the country.
Oh Christ, you can’t be that thick given we’ve had this conversation before Draco!
There is residency, and hoops to jump through in order to satisfy the NZ government as represented by NZ Immigration Services. Don’t do that, and you either become an “over stayer” or leave the country.
Citizenship, on the other hand is not a requirement. As such, it’s unnecessary for me (or any other permanent resident) to appeal to the authority of the NZ government for citizenship.
And, for me, I sought to achieve an “augmentation” of my residency through a form of acceptance – an “okay” – from Maori because for me that means something.
I’ve no intention of ever becoming a citizen. If I ever think to be a representative in the NZ Parliament, or to represent NZ overseas in sport or some such (not bloody likely), then of course, that decision would have to be revisited.
“And, for me, I sought to achieve an “augmentation” of my residency through a form of acceptance – an “okay” – from Maori because for me that means something.”
What does that mean?
Are you a Barry Brailsford follower?
I see you’ve been repeating comments.
What don’t you understand? I come from a culture that was obliterated by capitalist colonisation. What meaning could there possibly be for me – to turn to those self same institutions that reproduced themselves here by way of a settler colony – for some form of “permission”?
And I’d not heard of Barry Brailsford before.
You said you received an ‘Okay’ from Māori. I am asking what you mean by that as in what and who and how. You haven’t answered this question.
You said you received an ‘Okay’ from Māori.
Sorry marty. That wasn’t what I said, but I can see how you took that away from my comments. I said I pursued a path, and sought to achieve.
The approach was made and the ball was set rolling, but then death and life got in the way. And, well…time had passed and it somehow didn’t feel right to seek retrospective “permission” (or whatever other term you might want to use).
Thanks for clarifying.
Which is, IMO, a major problem in itself. People who aren’t citizens should not have a say in the running of the country.
Yes you do and until you do you’re not a citizen.
And you could have got that if you’d bothered to become a citizen as well.
If you’re not bothered to become a citizen of this country then WTF are you staying? WTF should I or anyone else take you seriously if you simply can’t be bothered?
People who aren’t citizens should not have a say in the running of the country.
Well, there’s a kind of spectrum on that front, isn’t there? I mean, whereas I can’t be representative member of parliament in NZ unless I take up citizenship, French residents of Scotland can sit as representatives in the Scottish parliament.
Then there’s the whole question of dual citizenship (Australia) or whatever rights (or lack of) accrue to Israeli Palestinians.
And in the US (in some states at least), any citizen with some given level of criminal record is denied the right to vote. And in New Zealand, incarcerated citizens and permanent residents were denied the right to vote too, yes?
And away from the “tick a box every three years” scenario, non-citizen and non-residents of New Zealand with access to institutional power at an international level (bankers and financiers to name two) exercise more sway over the running of this country than even some domestic politicians.
It seems you’ve got some obsessive and pointless hang up about citizenship though.
Well said.
“And, for me, I sought to achieve an “augmentation” of my residency through a form of acceptance – an “okay” – from Maori because for me that means something.”
What does that mean?
Are you a Barry Brailsford follower?
Sounds like someone I know @ Bill – in fact someone I’m related to. That someone, born to a Maori mother and Scottish father who took his 6 month old son to Scotland when the relationship broke up.
2 or 3 decades later, having to appeal to such an ‘illegitimate’ authority in order to return ‘home’ with family and settle. Maybe he didn’t ‘look’ Maori enough, or perhaps it was the broad Scottish accent, I’m not sure.
Morning Report story including interview with a representative of Winston First (3mins): https://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport/audio/2018664821/nz-first-members-vote-for-migrants-to-sign-nz-values-contract
Seems one of the things they don’t like is migrants who are ‘arrogant’. Guess servility is an old-fashioned value ..
Well, isn’t Roger Melville just the epitome of “silly old codger”?
You think “silly old codgerism” could be codified as a value? 🙂
yelling at clouds. 🙂
I love that we live in a multicultural society however as an lgbt+ who campaigned to more than tripple the refugee quota I gotta say any immigrant or refugee who is homophobic,transphobic, sexist,racist,holds theocratic veiws or treats their children like livestock to be traded and bartered is not welcome in nz.
We already have enough bigots in nz without importing more.
And you’ll be hard pressed to find a many average kiwis who’d disagree that if you’re a dick you can’t come here.
I don’t want the NZ left to end up like the Swedish left, so yes we are adamantly pro refugee and pro multiculturalism but no we are not push overs and if you can’t abide by our rules and way of life you are not welcome in nz. We have enough bigots here already that I’d like to ship back to England.
Absolutely with you 100% Cynical Jester (6).
This bill is rubbish IMHO, built on uninformed prejudice.
– Trying to fix a problem that doesn’t exist, except in the minds of the bill’s promoters
– All issues can and should be dealt with by general NZ law and policies (e.g. support for the vulnerable), not by special targeting of immigrants
– Plenty of non-immigrants with dodgy values!
– Did they do this for the first Polynesian and later European immigrants? Not at all – in fact convicts featured rather largely in some cases!
The main issue I have with our selection of immigrants is our preference for rich / wealthy. Assuming such people bring positive things to NZ is a nonsense. Data proves rich people are less empathetic and more anti-social than the average – how do you think they got rich back in their home countries? Often by exploiting those around them.
There is no such data re refugees – more likely the opposite in fact.
I’d suggest the majority of refugees tend to be from the middle class of their respective countries. For one, it takes money to transit to another country where refugee status might then be claimed. And countries like NZ choose from among those deemed as refugees in various refugee camps. I’d guess there’s an unwritten and unspoken ‘rule’ that goat herders need not apply.
That kinda makes it sound like refugees are using their wealth to get better life ,not escaping immediate danger which is what I thought it was all about.
It’s not meant to sound like that.
All I’m pointing to is the fact that if you want to “get out of the way” – out of somewhere, then “wheels of progress” usually need to be greased. And since the grease is money (or some agreed equivalent), there are some sectors of society are generally better positioned, connected and endowed for that than others.
There are lots of different refugees like there are lots of different immigrants. Take a brave or silly person to generalise too much and thus potentially denigrate poor refugees escaping death and imo a lot are doing that as probably you and I would.
Edit. Sorry that was meant to be under your other comment above.
Well why don’t we say what we don’t want and let the immigrant/refugee decide whether they want to apply or change?
Too hard. Oh we might be turning away someone with millions that they might sprinkle here like fairy dust. Or buy up a NZ business catering to their own ethnic background and keeep the money in the family.
Quite likely refugees who make it are not on the bottom rung in their home societies, agreed.
But they are generally not comparable to the “investor” class of immigrant that NZ loves – which requires possession of $millions and little else:
https://www.newzealandnow.govt.nz/investing-in-nz/visas/investor-visa
No such data ?
Not directly when refugees arrived that I can find ( but should have some background info somewhere)
However there is this
Accounting for the business start-up experiences of Afghan refugees in Christchurch, New Zealand
https://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/handle/10092/10336
Oh absolutely this is good the 1 in 100 immigrant that is a crook or wife better will not sign Winstons rag in a fit of honesty and say yeah na I can’t come in soz.
So you know what is in the proposed legislation?
I didnt think so
It’s about Winston getting air time .
Why not say that rather than “will not sign Winstons rag in a fit of honesty”
It’s called humour. You just missed it. I thought it was pretty funny.
Vote mining noise. A lot of ears pricked up. After 25 years it is business as usual for the old fox.
I don’t want immigrants who:
– have an aggressive approach to their economic self-advancement and exploit or disdain those lower in the tree
– treat the environment as merely a resource to be used rather than our great mother
But then I don’t like native NZers who do these things either – and there are plenty.
So my preferences in this matter have nothing to do with protecting something that already exists (as the NZF initiative wants to imply), but in wanting things to be a certain way. I imagine there would be Nat-Act voters who are completely comfortable with the sorts of immigrants I described above, because that’s the sort of society they want.
Once we rid ourselves of the notion that there is a immutable Kiwi culture that needs protecting, it frees us to acknowledge that this is actually political – and that is fine.
The left should be perfectly comfortable in shaping immigration policy to favour people who (as far as we can tell, which we can’t very well) will favour egalitarian and social democratic processes.
Well put AB (10).
Exactly. Unfortunately we don’t have a great set of shared values in NZ currently, for other people to sign up to.
Regarding the legality of alcohol.
I would assume this means NZFirst is beholden to the Alcohol Industry?
Jeremy
Think about it. It is the case that alcohool is forbidden in some countries. I think NZ First promoters of that microcosm of legisation like their tipple and want to make sure that it stays okay.
Anybody know which Kiwi values Peter Thiel has embraced?
ACT values. Bob Jones values. Mike Hosking values.
Values are only for the poor what what tellyho old chap . Nowwhere is that pigs head with a girls ponytail.
“Now where is that pigs head with a girls ponytail”
LOL
Sounds like the menu for a dinner party with David Cameron and John Key in attendance.
It is quite true that many immigrants from other cultures have no clue about New Zealand’s egalitarian way of life and it’s value system (which the neo-liberal form of economic socialism has not driven out of the country) which had been firmly established as the social compact of the society with it’s British heritage. These two factors combined in a way in making the shared New Zealand identity and experience.
For many of them, they will just see the opportunism of the media/political cycles as the license of law of the jungle only, from which they may know from their prior less fortunate cultural contexts, & which can often lead to creating racial & cultural resentments that there was prior no feeling about at all in a society. That said, it is not immigrant’s fault that they are being used for the purposes of economic hegemony by anti capitalist free market feudalism.
While there are many ameliorations to the situation of the media, which is the result of structural neo-lib unbalances, that would all have alot of merit and be worthwhile; the best one i think would ultimately be a constitutional issue, where lobbying is put on the table directly and in full sight, and even better given due automatic representative power via the good shared common sense of local supply and demand.
NZ1st!
“And where is this evidence of rampant refusal of recent immigrants to respect New Zealand values?”
Property speculation by Chinese “investors”, some of whom have become citizens, is rife. They were big on trying to smear Twyford about it so records wouldn’t be kept, but the head of the Auckland Chinese association was boasting that he owned 25 houses, and Canada has good data on it if we haven’t.
Of course that vice isn’t confined to Chinese, there’s a kiwi couple with over a thousand, but it is a trope, and it has substantial negative consequences for the many doomed to intergenerational poverty by the greed of the realtors, slumlords, and banks.
One might also point to Donghwa Liu’s attempts to sabotage of David Cunliffe’s campaign as promoting foreign values – keeping the utterly corrupt Key kleptocracy in power for its resemblance to the corrupt governments of home countries.
I’m all for a broad public debate on values but without the political grandstanding and dog-whistling of one minor monopolising political party.
The way it’s framed suggests that there’s a problem that needs fixing. To be fair, National under John Key had its own fancy project that tried to fix something that wasn’t broken either.
I haven’t seen to original full text of the proposal (link, anybody?) but it seems to confuse values with laws of the land. To add to the confusion there’s mention of religions, plural, not just Christianity – one assumes the Anglican-Protestant ‘school’ of Christianity. How many religions were listed on the Census form? Quite a few for a small secular state; Jedi was one of them …
Maybe we should throw the debate wide open and discuss whether NZ should become a republic and/or whether we need a formal written Constitution. These might align better with “the NZ values” than the current situation?
One more thought: all New Zealanders should respect New Zealand democracy and democratic values, fulfil their civic duties and vote. Oh, and pay their taxes.
My guess is that NZF members remain paranoid about the toxic effect of separatist ethnic immigrant enclaves in Europe being replicated here. Naive expectations that a law could bind immigrants here into assimilation-mode seem to be promoting this solution to a potential problem.
Most commentators here won’t acknowledge the potential social problem until it becomes actual. Imagine a news story featuring an islamic man telling a court why he had to kill his kiwi wife: “She told me her rights were equal to mine. Everyone knows Islam requires women to be subservient to men. She refused!”
If, when he arrived here, this man had been required to sign a statement accepting that men and women had equal rights in this country, would he have subsequently decided that his traditional privilege to subordinate his kiwi wife endowed by his islamic faith had been eliminated by his signing of the entry statement accepting kiwi values? Is our law more powerful than his religion?
In his mind, this balance will be determined by a bunch of cultural and psychological factors. Consider hundreds or thousands of such islamic male immigrants in Aotearoa. Estimate the percentage who are likely to be more sociopathic or psychopathic than reasonable and democratic! When you arrive here with the world’s most powerful entrenched patriarchy in your head, what changes? That patriarchy evaporates?
You replied to my comment @ 15 but I fail to see what you’re actually addressing!?
I find your example weird and unfortunate (and it begs the question why the Kiwi woman married the guy in the first place if she had no intentions to play the part that was expected from her).
Why not use an imaginary example of a white homophobic well-educated middle class man from Luxembourg who bashes his gay neighbour in NZ to death because of perceiving (!) him making a pass at him and justifying it by some non-religious slur.
Signing a piece of paper doesn’t change anybody’s habits or beliefs, obviously. When they break a law, commit a crime, they will be dealt with a most likely deported under current law & regulations. In any case, I think this is a red herring when we’re debating values and whether we can and should enforce them upon immigrants to this country. And what/which values, and whose …
TBH, I cannot see a healthy mature debate resulting from this political stunt by NZF going by the indications so far …
You wrote “The way it’s framed suggests that there’s a problem that needs fixing.” I noticed that you were the only commentator here who intuited that. Since the kiwi conservatives that NZF has catered for since the Nats abandoned them see excessive influx of islamic immigrants as potential toxic culture shock, their motive for fixing that problem is obvious (except to commentators here blinded by their leftist ideological blinkers).
The example I gave is typical of cross-cultural marriages where mutual attraction masks the deep cultural divide at first. When the divide emerges between them, it often destroys their relationship and we have seen victims featuring in headline news stories in consequence. I noticed this pattern in recent decades but maybe you haven’t.
I agree with you that a public debate is unlikely to advance the political prospects of the NZF initiative – whilst giving NZF folk credit for trying to provide an ambulance at the top of the cliff. It saddens me to see the Greens choosing to support the denial stance of the Nat/Lab duopoly. If kiwis have to die to prove the existence of the problem, so be it…
Ok thanks, I now better understand your comment.
Marriages and relationships have been breaking down forever and for all sorts of reasons. Multi-cultural relationships are more common nowadays but I think we have to be careful to avoid a narrow-minded focus on multiculturalism as the main cause – headlines and headline news are a poor gauge for anything IMO. In any case, it takes two parties in a relationship but the blame is shunted onto only one …
As a more general observation, I believe many people enter into serious relationships woefully unprepared if you can say that. I should elaborate but maybe another time.
I would support asking immigrants if they understand and respect the treaty of Waitangi.
The Chinese, Indian and white South African ethic of “no work, no eat” which in practice, means no social welfare, public health, or education whatsoever, is not welcome in this country.
So what are kiwi values.
As a young fella at my school I was subjected to massive bullying due to my mother being part Asian.
I see the this country as my home, my passion and my pride but in school I played 1st 11 cricket and 1st 15 rugby. When I got selected in 5th form to be part of the summer training squad and tour group I never thought my race would be part of it.
Mobutu it was. In the camp I was stripped to my underwear painters yellow and had vivid lines painted on my eyes.
I realised then that NZ has classes. It’s wasnt the white kids it was Maori and Polynesian kids who did this. They saw me as Asian so I was bottom of the pile. I was trying for the team and I was told it was part of the hazing to get in the team. So suck it up.
The white kids in the squad were the ones who washed me down and dealt with me crying and just wanting to go home. The others told me gay and needed to harden up.
I realised then in NZ it didn’t matter that my Asian family had been here since the late 1800s. The fact my mother was Asian was all that counted to bully me.
The worst offender was a Maori chap who I competed with for the same position I worked my arse off to become the starting player.
Then you get the blame game in NZ that asians are bad. They are stealing your jobs and houses.
Some of us have been here longer than you. Get over it.
But waiting for rage and racist attack that only the far left can do.
Bullying is completely unacceptable and that should NOT be part of Kiwi values.
If you were born here, lived here most of your life and so on, you are a Kiwi, it does not matter what your ethnic heritage is.
Bullies will target anyone for any reason… it is all about conformity for most of them.
My big concern about immigration is the political elite/joined in by other scammers exploiting the passport system and government policy to facilitate neoliberalism and a low wage consumer economy, and creating homeless and a growing class of precariat for their own ends, while crying fake tears over the issue and deflecting it onto other areas like values, or what have you.
He was targeted because he was Asian. Fact.
So what are kiwi values.
As a young fella at my school I was subjected to massive bullying due to my mother being part Asian.
I see the this country as my home, my passion and my pride but in school I played 1st 11 cricket and 1st 15 rugby. When I got selected in 5th form to be part of the summer training 1sr 15 squad and tour group I never thought my race would be part of it.
But it was, in the camp I was stripped to my underwear painted yellow and had vivid lines painted on my eyes. To make it look like I had slanted eyes.
I realised then that NZ has classes. It’s wasnt the white kids it was Maori and Polynesian kids who did this. They saw me as Asian so I was bottom of the pile and they could attack me.
I was trying for the team and I was told it was part of the hazing to get in the team. So suck it up.
The white kids in the squad were the ones who washed me down and dealt with me crying and just wanting to go home. The others told me I was gay and needed to harden up.
I realised then in NZ it didn’t matter that my Asian family had been here since the late 1800s. The fact my mother was Asian was all that counted to bully me.
The worst offender was a Maori chap who I competed with for the same position I worked my arse off to become the starting player ahead of him, I turned his bullying into my inspiration. But in the rugby team I was always a second class person due to my perceived race.
Then you get the blame game in NZ that asians are bad. They are stealing your jobs and houses.
Some of us have been here longer than you. Get over it.
But waiting for rage and racist attack that only the far left can do.
As well as ‘values’ there is also a cost to our taxpayers for people that migrate here and that cost is going to be born by people who do not have multiple passports to call on and gain much greater opportunities from that..
instead the people born in NZ…. are tasked with paying for much higher welfare and infrastructure…. this from Grey Power back in 2011…
“Grey Power Warns Of Impact of High Immigration Rates From Asia and Africa On NZ Superannuation Base.
Grey Power is concerned about the impact on the underlying sustainability of NZ Superannuation by the current open immigration policy of the Government with its shift from traditional immigration sources to large numbers of migrants coming from Asian and African countries who do not have reciprocal pension agreements with New Zealand.”
“Mayor Len Brown’s Auckland is predicted to have a majority Asian, largely Chinese, population by 2040, with the existing long standing European ethnic and cultural base becoming a minority. This means that a very large percentage of Auckland’s projected 2.1 million population will have a short working history in this country with low associated tax and Kiwisaver contributions, and a rapidly escalating number of older people moving onto New Zealand Superannuation with no contribution coming from their original home countries.
Current eligibility requirements for New Zealand Superannuation require immigrants to be NZ citizens, or permanent residents, and to have lived in New Zealand for ten years after the age of 20.
“This is a generous threshold” said Mr Reid, “and its affordability may need to be reviewed. Chinese immigrant families have a particularly difficulty as the Chinese Government One Child policy has led to young families having up to four parents and other family members to support in their older age, an important and commendable responsibility in their culture. Consequently many older Chinese people are following their sons and daughters to New Zealand as part of this country’s Family Re-unification programme.”
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1110/S00572/grey-power-warns-of-impact-of-high-immigration-rates.htm
Granny dumping….
“Mr Woodhouse said migrant children who sponsored their parents to come to New Zealand had to have a minimum income of about $90,000 per couple, and had to make a commitment to support them.
“They are not eligible for normal income support for a period of time after they arrive, but nevertheless many of them have gone on to emergency support through the Ministry for Social Development and that suggests to me there is a problem – it’s costing taxpayers tens of millions of dollars a year.”
Mr Woodhouse said another factor in closing the parent category was the strain being put on the health system.
“Information that I’ve been given about the burden … on the health services that are considerably higher than other people of that age who are eligible for New Zealand public health services.”
New Zealand First leader Winston Peters has been a relentless critic of the parent category.
He said after years of denying there was a problem, the government was now finally admitting something was wrong.
“You’ve got 87,000 people now who have arrived in the last 15 years, who are able to access our health service immediately and our superannuation within ten years, which other country in the world allows that?
“Well the answer is none – just New Zealand.”
https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/315435/migrants'-parents-cost-nz-'tens-of-millions‘
These neo-lib globalists are such anarchists ( of the deconstructive kind)!!
The whole area related to this is obviously way overdue for a good methodical system of sound principle to be implemented but given the general current circumstance for the time being, it’s perhaps another one of those plug the gap/bandaid over the cracks for a while issues – which means basically pulling the plug on immigration trends until this can be properly sorted – for the longer the situation drags on, the greater risk it adds to crashing and de-legitimising a major societal construct of New Zealand’s shared sense of responsibility to fellow citizens.
They also have to subscribe to the NZ First values of pillaging fisheries.
Winston’s policy = anti Sharia. Pretty simple.
The NZ First values is worth considering as we do need to replace the old immigration policy period.
My case is my son spent 12 yrs in Germany and has met a german lady he wants to marry here as he is back in NZ.
The immigration say he has to live with her outside NZ or here in NZ for one year before she can get the right to work here.
This has destroyed his life!!!
He is leaving to live with her in Germany now; – and we have lost him as a ‘master electrician’; – (a tradesman on NZ Government shortlist) !!!!!!!
The German lady will not come here if she can’t work.
The NZ immigration system is stupid and foolish.
We are loosing skilled folks here who would contribute to this country.!!!!!
Bizarrely you hear this again and again, migrants who are educated with higher value skills (not sure this is your son’s partner’s situation) and coming from more socialist countries in Europe with super, welfare, free education and healthcare are not wanted here.. We want non democratic, no welfare countries to migrate to NZ and turn NZ into that type of country.
As Grey power predicted back in 2011 the council with the government had an agenda to make Auckland and the rest of NZ a predominantly Asian country and clearly it’s coming to pass. it might be the blue dragons dream to have NZ have 35,000+ people in a few years, luxury with poverty and take out the middle class here and the welfare system along with it, but in a democracy should the people have been allowed to have a say? Governments use to frown on ethnic engineering…
Our system has become encapsulated with lawyers and third parties who are putting in fake applications with fake credentials and financial information and there is plenty of evidence they know this has been going on for years but the government officials have an agenda to change the ethnic mix in NZ.
Even when people are making fake applications various organisations lobby the government to make exceptions and let the fraud applications stand, rather than take the lawyers, employers and third parties to court and sue the crap out of them and make them give the money back to their victims.
(not sure this is your son’s partner’s situation)
Yet you took the opportunity to go on a racist rant anyway. Your assumption would seem to be that because she is German she is white and skilled and left wing and suitable in your bigoted view to come here.
Of course had she been from an Asian country you would have assumed the opposite and gone on a rant about a year being far too short.
What’s the matter Solka, slow day at the office for stalking?
Why don’t you respond to what i said? You really revealed yourself with that one.
No point, fake and confused woke leftie. Have a look at statistics and they show both the ethnic components of our recent immigration, plus the most common jobs to immigrate here and you can look up the welfare and super policies of the countries and find out that Germany has free tertiary education so therefore has a highly educated population as well as there are few welfare polices in the countries NZ is currently favouring for migration of China and India. You are the racist too, because you are assuming she is white being German… not necessarily true, woke leftie.
But maybe you think statistics are some racist (sarcasm) plot, likewise the racist (sarcasm) financials being used to prop up fake applications.
I seem to remember you are both pro any trade agreements as well as support the concubine immigration approach of getting multiple women pregnant concurrently while getting immigration status in NZ if you are an Asian millionaire.
But being a stalker who have zero to contribute, no ideas and just some sort of deranged fake woke leftie ideals and your own confused blinkered racism, while going around calling everyone a racist (you probably volunteers for the Greens to wipe them out with woke leftie discourses and group think) …
So we should automatically let in any German? And the inverse for Asians?
We should keep out the scammers from whatever country they come from.
NZ officials want migration and our officials have decided that if we get lot of people from Asia we can make a quick buck of foreign education plus get cheap labour and they buy property and that keeps developers happy and that will bring us prosperity of their “elite” neoliberal version of prosperity… some people don’t agree… including a small fraction of migrants themselves… but not many because migrants overwhelmingly vote for National from those countries once coming to NZ… and that is the new vision of the far right, aka
“who cares where the grunts come from, the less educated and more used to dictatorship and more consumer orientated, the better…”
Germans don’t tend to fit the above unofficial criteria plus are generally too honest to fake the paperwork.
why do you think we only have 1000 refugees and 200,000+ a year migrant residents and work visas given out favouring many from countries, known for corruption, and we are favouring people with money from those corrupt countries so have found niches to operate within that, …?
I still don’t see why the country of origin is relevant to your other points. That’s probably because it isn’t, and you are just xenophobic.
Have a look at countries that have these hokey value pledges, USA an e.g., same with Australia. Really working isn’t it?