I think we should be very, very careful about lifting our refugee quota

The Media party, together with the Opposition, are ramping up pressure for New Zealand to accept more refugees.

Claims there is broad support are based on the presentation of a pathetic petition of 20,000 signatures. Hell’s teeth, more people support Boobs on Bikes than signed a petition for more refugees.

Party leaders from both sides of Parliament have urged the Government to raise New Zealand’s refugee quota in an upcoming review.

A 20,000-signature petition was presented to Parliament today, urging the Cabinet to double the annual quota to 1500 refugees a year.

That level of increase was backed by three parties – Labour, the Greens and United Future. The Act Party supported a higher quota, but stopped short of doubling it.  

The quota has remained at 750 refugees a year since it was introduced in 1976. Immigration Minister Michael Woodhouse said he would be taking a recommendation to the Cabinet soon.

Labour leader Andrew Little today said that a Labour Government would gradually raise the quota to 1500 over three years.

Immigration New Zealand has confirmed that it has capacity for 1500 refugees a year if funding for community services is increased.

Act Party leader David Seymour said New Zealand had capacity to absorb and support more people.

Instead of three-yearly reviews, he said the quota should be linked to New Zealand’s GDP growth.

“Rather than setting and forgetting, it becomes automatic,” he said.

How about get stuffed?

Until there is a proper and robust vetting system in place, and we get to select people who will be compatible with NZ society, we should pull up the drawbridge.

 

– ODT

 


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

Tagged:
  • sheppy

    Dear Labour / Greens / various other hangers on, can we assume that child poverty / killer state houses / all other bad things in society are fixed? After all if YOU want us to import more people, who in the majority, according to statistics will never work, then we must have no other more important things in society to throw money at.

  • Steve

    Totally agree with the comments above. Its about the quality not the quantity and the vetting is the one thing that needs an overhaul before any “refugees’, migrants are invited to enjoy our country, our culture and our values

  • Monty

    I am relaxed about a modest increase, but what the bleeding heart cry babies don’t mention is the wrap around social service and that on top of the 750, is the repatriation of family

    • kereru

      I wish they’d stop referring to 750 refugees when that is only the number of heads of families. What about wives, children, grandparents, aunts, uncles and extended families? What I’d like to know is the exact number allowed in per annum. Add to that the much higher birthrate among Muslims and we will soon find ourselves with a significant percentage of Muslims upping the ante on their demands for special treatment.

      Have the agitators understood that with Muslims comes a great deal of anti-West baggage and a totally alien culture and ideology? Are we doomed to wake to the sound of the muezzin’s incantations calling for prayer in all our suburbs? Build the next mosques in the street of leaders of political parties who are advocating for more Islamic refugees.

  • NeverMindTheBoll

    There’s noting incompatible between increasing the quota and ensuring that deserving cases (for want of a better phrase) are selected.

  • IMHO it would be sensible to survey refugees who have arrived here in the last 10 years to determine how successfully they are settling in. This survey should look at whether they are now self supporting rather than a burden on society, also how many if any now have criminal convictions. Look at how many are happy and comfortable within NZ society and can now be said to be happily contributing citizens. Also how many have become naturalized and now have NZ full citizen status. Only then, when we know our refugee program is successfully integrating refugees and their families into the NZ way of life, should we consider revision of the numbers. I personally suspect that we would be unpleasantly surprised by such a survey.

    • Vlad

      Yes Cavalier, that is exactly what is needed. I can find the Australian data about refugees now in work; refugees still on benefits etc. in that country, but I have no idea what the corresponding situation is in NZ.

      If the data demonstrates a poor outcome it does not necessarily mean that taking refugees is bad policy. It may mean that we have poor systems for integrating refugees, or that we have poor systems for choosing refugees.

      Bill English has introduced a wise data driven process for benefits so that our money is best spent to lift those most in need back into the mainstream. This principle should also apply in the refugee situation.

  • Wasapilot

    Right, that’s it, no donation from me to the ACT party. Everytime I get close to giving to ACT, they come out with something stupid like this position.

    I expect this claptrap from labour and the melons, but not from you David Seymour.

    • Oh Please

      Is there not a single party on the right side of the political divide any more? Other than Craig’s Monster Raving Looney Party? Both ACT and National seem dead set on moving as left of centre as possible.

      • Wasapilot

        When I think back to the David Lange labour government of 1984, with Caygill, Douglas, Prebble et al, I see a party that was further right than the National party of today. Sad.

    • Nige.

      I don’t see how it is justifiable from acts position. It doesn’t make political, social or fiscal sense.

    • MoggieManiac

      I am very keen on vetting anyone wanting to come to this country so I asked David Seymour at a meeting a few weeks ago what his opinion was because I had read he was keen on upping the numbers.

      I can’t remember his exact words but his answer satisfied me that he believed a thorough vetting process should be in place and acceptance of war refugees over asylum seekers.

      I would say, “typical media” to only include half a statement by a politician.

  • Pluto

    No amount of vetting will stop those who become indoctrinated once they’re here.
    If we’re importing Muslims we’re importing risk, it’s not worth that risk.
    If that’s harsh then too bad.
    If we are to have refugees, then why not the Christians being blown up in Pakistan.

  • Sally

    No matter how Double our Quota supporters spin refugees are a drain on resources. They require housing and at the same time there is a waiting list of NZ citizen requiring housing. Sometimes the hard calls have to be made and this is one of these times.

    • Woody

      It is not even a hard call Sally, its a simple call.

      How many of those calling for an increase would accept being told that they personally had to put someone they didn’t know anything about up in their own home? Thought not…….

  • Thatdon

  • veridian

    Our leaders seem completely detached from the concerns of ‘normals’. It must be their international hobnobbing that endows them with a unique global understanding and setting them above mere mortals, (the ones that pay for everything).

    • rexabus

      Even my vote for the nats is hanging by a thread over this issue. I really feel any of the current parties populating our parliament would likely be patsies for whatever the UN etc decide to foist upon us.

      • anniem

        Mine too, and it pains me to say it and even more to do it but I WILL vote for Winston if the present govt increases the quota. I think NZF is the only party we can rely on not to increase the quota. (Maybe they will even decrease it?)JK should be very careful what he does. He will alienate many many supporters. Maybe someone get a no more increase petition going? Probably wouldn’t make any difference, I don’t think they will be swayed by a petition with 20K names on from the left.

  • papagaya

    We already know that 80 per cent of refugees are on welfare five years after arriving. It makes no sense to admit more of them and exacerbate this failed policy. I’m sure any polling by National would reveal a majority opposed to upping the intake.

    The key here is the Muslim refugees, which I’d expect Labour and the mainstream media to strenuously avoid discussion of. Muslim migrants tend to be unskilled, heavily reliant on taxpayer-funded welfare programs, reluctant to integrate into Western society, and are under intense internal pressure to preserve their own mix of religion, culture, and politics. And, in the US at least, they are relatively likely to join jihad groups—56 Muslims were indicted on jihad charges in the first 11 months of 2014.

    If we end up with Syrians, be assured there will be no meaningful vetting of them, no matter what we’re told. We’ll be lucky if the majority of them are even Syrians. False claims of Syrian origin are the hottest ticket in Europe right now, backed up by a thriving black market in forged and stolen identity papers.

    Even if we could at least limit ourselves to refugees who are of guaranteed Syrian origin, the notion of conducting elaborate background checks on them is absurd. They come from a nation in the grip of a savage civil war that has been raging for years. Even before the war began, the Syrian government was not noted for the high quality of its civic institutions. The remaining government infrastructure of the Assad regime has little incentive to cooperate with anybody seeking to validate the credentials of fleeing Syrians.

    Anyway, in the end, one of the strongest arguments against New Zealand upping its quota of refugees is that we essentially already admit a sizable number of “refugees” — from Pacific Island nations. These third world Pacific nations are riven with problems, and the migrants we so generously admit often have no education or skills. We’re already more than doing our bit. The Muslims can be sent elsewhere. Why aren’t ultra-wealthy Muslim nations in their immediate vicinity taking them?

  • willtin

    Realistically the petition must have one signature from United Future and 19,999 from the reds and greens.

  • Usaywot

    We take 750 but I’d love to know how many can be added to that by the family reunification scheme. I would hazard a guess it is many times 750

    • MoggieManiac

      I would like to know; where are their family if they are from a war zone? Wouldn’t they be all together in the refugee camps? Who would leave a war zone and leave family behind?

    • anniem

      A few years ago someone published figures for this and I can remember the “fact” that each refugee had the potential (and no doubt the reality) to have 45 “family members” join them after 4 yrs

  • Intrigued

    “Until there is a proper and robust vetting system in place, and we get to select people who will be compatible with NZ society, we should pull up the drawbridge.”

    Yep – that is exactly the right policy our political parties ought to be espousing.

    And like comments below have highlighted – what about the cost of social services? Heavens – there are oodles of organisations and charities working really hard in the community to help the poor and vulnerable in our society today on the smell of an oily rag, CYF is struggling under the 63,000+ notifications of abuse each year as it is, and can barely cope with the children in care they do support (and those numbers are capped), children are dying needlessly at the hands of their dysfunctional, violent or P-addled parents or step parents, the Police have had their budget frozen for 5 years, arrested offenders are transported to Waitakere or Central in Auckland from the Shore cos the 20+ spanking new cells there were shut down a few years ago because they can’t afford to run them (causing real problems for North Shore Police which is facing a rising crime problem) and our resolution rates for burglaries are so low as to be laughable, our Mental Health services are groaning under the weight of the numbers of mentally unwell children and adults in the community….I could go on and on…My point being that these lunatics in our political parties want to add more problems to our society just to appease the even bigger loons in the UN and international community who are all trying to assuage their misplaced “Western guilt”??

    We can’t afford to pay for them and we sure as heck can’t afford to double the numbers coming in that will add to the existing social costs our society already has to deal with.

  • rexabus

    Okay, bring in more refugees from Sth America, Sth East Asia, Eastern Europe, Central and Sth Africa or wherever but please just make sure it’s NO MORE MUSLIMS!

    • anniem

      seconded

  • powderburns

    I’d suggest 300 ok. Preferably Spartans.

  • Old Kiwi

    If someone had the time to organise a petition to Parliament to “Not increase the number of Refugees” surely the numbers signing would be far greater than 20,000. Unfortunately we’re all too busy earning a living….., but worth a try – anyone?

    • Woody

      I would sign it in half a heartbeat, saw the other one and went – nah.

      • anniem

        me too

        • Diehard

          I’st called the next general election. Only vote for the parties that do not increase our refugee intake. Nats or NZ first?

    • Rick H

      Yes, you are SO so right. almost every “petition” these days is done by the negative-tax payers; rather than us Positive-tax payers.
      And, to think, it is us, not them, who will be paying for it all; no matter how few or many we allow in.

  • Personally I’d be OK with 1500 extra rather than 750. Why oh why though can’t we dictate that we take those genuinely in need – Christians facing genocide, freed Yazidi sex slaves and their families, Jews in Europe fleeing rapidly rising anti-semitism. The UNHCR system of only taking those who’ve been in camps is fine in theory, but reports that Muslims drive Christians and others out of the camps are deeply disturbing and reinforce my view that the UN and their cronies are seriously corrupt and overly influenced by the OIC.

  • McGrath

    Refugees don’t add value to the country and economy as a whole. Spend the money on New Zealanders instead.

  • tjb

    I support multiplying the refugee quota by zero. Wheres my petition that I can sign?

  • Mike Loder

    No more. Except for persecuted Christians who will fit in here.Oh and all the Germans being raped out of their country by muslim hoards.

    • Really?

      Except Merkel herself.
      Although she is probably safe from any attempted rape – even by Muslims facing a sexual emergency.

  • Mikev

    Very Trumpish but we should not admit any Muslims. We are a predominately Christian country, we want people we take to assimilate as easily as possibly not to be offended by our customs & food etc.

  • Cadwallader

    The generic term is “immigrant.” Refugee is an emotive description of a certain immigrant. It is a loosely defined status. I suggest it is OK to increase immigration and one of the many grounds for selection can be whether or not the applicant bears some of the hallmarks of a refugee, ie is the applicant in genuine need to be plucked from an imminent persecution? To simply advocate an increase in the numbers of refugees is emotive and irresponsible.

  • Frank N Further

    I think that some are worthy of entry, e.g. the Afghani guides that assisted NZDF during our deployment to that war. In a previous life I worked for a company that received its IT support from an Australian company. One of their top guns was a Vietnamese who had spent a few years in a refugee camp before being taken in by Australia. So there are those who are either needy and/or can make a useful contribution once settled. Its all about the vetting – don’t know that we should have a target that we need to achieve though. Different times may dictate different numbers.

    • veridian

      If the price to pay for a few months of translation services by indigenous people in an area of operations is that they and there entire families must be returned to NZ and provided with a new life then that price is too high and different methods of communication should be found or else don’t undertake the mission in the first place.

      • Frank N Further

        A few months translation services? NZ was in Afghanistan for over 10 years, our longest involvement in any war in our history. The “indigenous” people you refer to aligned themselves with NZ and other allies in an effort to free their country from the Taliban and similar forces. There is little doubt that their services during the war would have saved many Kiwi lives. If these guides / translators had remained in Afghanistan after NZ and other allies withdrew there is little doubt that they would have been badly treated, probably killed, by those who they had been fighting against.

        • veridian

          The entire region remains a basket case. All their problems have now become ours.

          • Frank N Further

            True. This is the result of not having an end game defined. Essentially the US elected a President who promised to end the war. Once the US had announced their withdrawal it was impractical for the likes of NZ etc to continue. So the withdrawal happened without the enemy being defeated, the same as had happened in Iraq. This left a vacuum that ISIS etc filled.

          • veridian

            Yes our politicians are slaves to the news cycle whereas the enemy (Islam) has all the time in the world to achieve their goal of Planet Islam.

  • Wheninrome

    If the refugees we take at present are pregnant at the time doesn’t that equate to an automatic increase?
    They very quickly up the number once they arrive by breeding. Not the middle class NZ norm of say 2 possibly 3 children.

  • kereru

    I would have preferred a referendum on whether we accept any more Muslim refugees than a flag change. Unfortunately so few people know, or even want to understand, the reality of trying to accommodate Muslims in a Western democracy as long as it doesn’t affect them personally.The lefties would have been in full cry, of course. But how can the ‘silent majority’ ever make their opinions known other than by a vote?

  • Miss Phit

    Sure raise it.

    But we get to pick them not the UN.
    We take people from our local area of responsibility (let the northern hemisphere/african/european refugees be housed there close to their home).
    If the situation in their home land improves then we fund their trip home (saving us millions anyway).
    We get to kick them out if they dont assimilate after 5 years.
    No family reunification.
    No NZ citizenship (they get to remain who they are). Any offspring are not kiwis either.
    No access to super unless working for 20 years +.
    No voting rights (they are visitors)
    No benefits after 5 years. We offer a hand up not a hand out.
    No housing after 5 years.
    The number of immigrants is to be cut by the increased refugee ratio.
    Any crime and they (and their family) are gone.
    Anyone (and their families) found to playing the system is gone.
    Any funds from offshore will offset the families benefit payments (if they can support themselves they will). Anyone hiding “riches” will be gone.
    We will educate. them, feed them and house them but we wont allow them to become welfare dependants like some in NZ are.
    If at any time they want to leave to go elsewhere then they are free to go, but may never return. This includes holidays abroad.

    Basically fit in or go home. Harsh yes, but its charity not a lifestyle choice.

  • benniedawg

    If I were to be critical of the media parties push on this I would see them gleefully welcoming refugees. Surely some in the doubled intake would provide some newsworthy material through instability. Anything the media get behind is only ever done to either illicit revenue for a current situation or safeguard future earnings.

  • Plantagenet

    We should not raise the refugee quota AT ALL, in fact it should be lowered. But, of course, we will do the opposite and significantly increase the Muslim population at a time when members of that religion are causing enormous problems worldwide. Why we insist on importing trouble, when we have plenty of our own, is beyond me. Look back to the 60s and 70s in several European countries, Sweden, Belgium, France to name three, when they had low Muslim populations and look at them now. So why do we want that group? It is just senseless and can only be explained as a kind of collective madness in westernised countries. This is far more important than the flag nonsense ever was but will be given less time and thought by a big margin.

  • Keanne Lawrence

    It should be clear to most that logic, rationality and common sense go out the window when the Looney Left start on another crusade. Now it is the refugee quota and the call from Captain YFront is to double the number over 3 years. Which 3 years will that be we wonder as it might be quite some time before they will be in a position to put such a scheme in place.
    Lets not tie it to the GDP that results in the efforts of hard working taxpayers but instead align it with national unemployment rate. When that reaches 0% then there will be a bit of wiggle room to let a few acceptable genuine refugees in.

  • Mark

    Put it to a referendum. I think we know what most New Zealanders would vote for

  • J Ryan

    Europe opened the gates to these people years ago and look at how they are turning on the host countries. Australia is starting to get a taste of it. There are plenty of genuine refugees in other parts of the world that aren’t brainwashed. No need to join the latest refugee fashion grab and endeavour to show how caring we are. Just because some pressure group points out we should do our bit, someone in power simply needs to say we will do what is best for us, keep your nose out of our business.

48%