Because, as much as I think I want to, I just can’t bring myself to support this idea of an amnesty for overstayers who have been here more than 10 years.
It’s a policy that Labour’s announced, saying it’s all about New Zealand making good for the dawn raids back in the day when cops would turn up first thing in the morning, drag people out of their beds and throw them in the paddy wagon.
The irony, by the way, is that the dawn raids were first introduced in 1973 by Norman Kirk's Labour government. A year later, they pulled the plug. But Rob Muldoon brought them back again down the track.
And they were shockingly racist. Racist, state-sanctioned home invasions. That’s what they were. Because, back in the 1970s and 1980s, even though Pacific people made up just a third of all overstayers, they made up 86 percent of prosecutions.
People from the United States and Britain, by the way, who also made up about a third of all overstayers, only accounted for about five percent of prosecutions.
So fast-forward to July this year and the revelation that, even though the Labour government had done the big apology for the raids back in August 2021, the immigration raids on overstayers had continued.
And the government, quite rightly, got a caning for the hypocrisy of it all.
So it’s licked its wounds and has come out with this policy of an amnesty for overstayers who have been here longer than 10 years, saying that this is all about making good for the dawn raids.
Except it’s not. Because this amnesty would not be limited to overstayers from Pacific countries.
Here’s exactly what Labour says in its media release. It says it’s come up with the amnesty idea to "make good on the dawn raids apology by providing a one-off regularisation programme for Pacific and other migrants who have been in New Zealand more than 10 years”.
And the key words there are “Pacific and other migrants”. So not just Pasifika people. Claiming that it’s all about the dawn raids is absolute nonsense.
Which is one of the reasons why I can’t support it. Because it’s not actually about the dawn raids at all. It seems it’s about anyone who decides that they’re bigger than our immigration laws. From anywhere.
And according to Labour, we’re talking about as many as 20, 000 people who would be let-off coming here illegally and allowed to stay. Between 14,000 and 20,000, that’s what Labour itself is saying.
The other reason why I think it stinks, is that nowhere else in the world would you find a country willing to turn such a blind eye to illegal immigrants.
Years ago, when we moved overseas for a while, it never entered my mind to go somewhere and just stick around until the authorities caught up with me. That’s because I knew pretty much every country in the world didn’t tolerate that sort of thing.
But here in New Zealand? Absolute pushovers.
I probably wouldn’t feel so strongly about it if the amnesty was just for overstayers from Pacific countries. Because the relationship New Zealand has with these countries is quite unique. Places such as Tokelau, Niue and the Cook Islands even use the New Zealand currency, don’t they?
But to go all open-slather on it and say that this amnesty would be for all illegal migrants who have been here longer than 10 years - well, that’s going too far for me.
And that’s why I think Labour’s policy of turning a blind eye to as many as 20,000 illegal immigrants is further proof that we are well-and-truly the People’s Republic of Pushovers.
It appears the Immigration Minister, Andrew Little, feels the same way and is another Labour minister being pushed aside by Chris Hipkins.
Because here’s what Andrew Little said in Parliament just last month: “We have to think about the signal that we’re giving to people if they think ‘oh gee, this is a government that just routinely gives amnesties. If we stick around long enough, we’ll be OK.”
That’s what Labour’s Andrew Little said just last month. And I’m with him.
John MacDonald is the Canterbury Mornings host on Newstalk ZB Christchurch. This article was first published HERE
The irony, by the way, is that the dawn raids were first introduced in 1973 by Norman Kirk's Labour government. A year later, they pulled the plug. But Rob Muldoon brought them back again down the track.
And they were shockingly racist. Racist, state-sanctioned home invasions. That’s what they were. Because, back in the 1970s and 1980s, even though Pacific people made up just a third of all overstayers, they made up 86 percent of prosecutions.
People from the United States and Britain, by the way, who also made up about a third of all overstayers, only accounted for about five percent of prosecutions.
So fast-forward to July this year and the revelation that, even though the Labour government had done the big apology for the raids back in August 2021, the immigration raids on overstayers had continued.
And the government, quite rightly, got a caning for the hypocrisy of it all.
So it’s licked its wounds and has come out with this policy of an amnesty for overstayers who have been here longer than 10 years, saying that this is all about making good for the dawn raids.
Except it’s not. Because this amnesty would not be limited to overstayers from Pacific countries.
Here’s exactly what Labour says in its media release. It says it’s come up with the amnesty idea to "make good on the dawn raids apology by providing a one-off regularisation programme for Pacific and other migrants who have been in New Zealand more than 10 years”.
And the key words there are “Pacific and other migrants”. So not just Pasifika people. Claiming that it’s all about the dawn raids is absolute nonsense.
Which is one of the reasons why I can’t support it. Because it’s not actually about the dawn raids at all. It seems it’s about anyone who decides that they’re bigger than our immigration laws. From anywhere.
And according to Labour, we’re talking about as many as 20, 000 people who would be let-off coming here illegally and allowed to stay. Between 14,000 and 20,000, that’s what Labour itself is saying.
The other reason why I think it stinks, is that nowhere else in the world would you find a country willing to turn such a blind eye to illegal immigrants.
Years ago, when we moved overseas for a while, it never entered my mind to go somewhere and just stick around until the authorities caught up with me. That’s because I knew pretty much every country in the world didn’t tolerate that sort of thing.
But here in New Zealand? Absolute pushovers.
I probably wouldn’t feel so strongly about it if the amnesty was just for overstayers from Pacific countries. Because the relationship New Zealand has with these countries is quite unique. Places such as Tokelau, Niue and the Cook Islands even use the New Zealand currency, don’t they?
But to go all open-slather on it and say that this amnesty would be for all illegal migrants who have been here longer than 10 years - well, that’s going too far for me.
And that’s why I think Labour’s policy of turning a blind eye to as many as 20,000 illegal immigrants is further proof that we are well-and-truly the People’s Republic of Pushovers.
It appears the Immigration Minister, Andrew Little, feels the same way and is another Labour minister being pushed aside by Chris Hipkins.
Because here’s what Andrew Little said in Parliament just last month: “We have to think about the signal that we’re giving to people if they think ‘oh gee, this is a government that just routinely gives amnesties. If we stick around long enough, we’ll be OK.”
That’s what Labour’s Andrew Little said just last month. And I’m with him.
John MacDonald is the Canterbury Mornings host on Newstalk ZB Christchurch. This article was first published HERE
3 comments:
So when will the labour cult bring in amnesties for those who have eluded the police for the last ten years for crimes such as assault, rape, murder and the like. Or has it already started with their emptying of prisons.
Maybe this is going to be justification of the crimes the politicians committed in the name of covid.
In the 1970s many of the non pacifica overstayers would have had private means and many would have had an understanding of the language and behavioural conventions, been contributing considerable work skills. And not burdening relatives in already crowded houses.
The whole topic warrants investigative reporting. There is constant bleating about the financial woes of many pacifica and the non ability to afford food (despite weight) but how many are supporting illegals? Are employers required to check? How do illegals fare for medical care? Do they get licences and drive? How are births recorded? Are children accepted at state funded play centres schools etc?. The practice of periodic amnesties has simply encouraged overstaying. The honest able have to leave but the contriving schemers and their offspring get to stay, mostly not net tax contributors. Govts ahve been crazy to repeatedly apologise. And i gather the recent stage show glorifying illegals received govt funding.
During the last 30 or so years I’ve travelled to Tonga (Tongatapu and the northern Vava’u islands) a few times by yacht. Each time I visited the town of Nuku’alofa it always struck me how many children I saw. I also wondered why the Tongan population didn’t appear to be growing significantly given the evident size of families. So I asked a local and got told that young Tongans looking for a better life get onto a freight ship travelling to NZ and then jump ship when it docks in Auckland. I asked don’t they get caught. The response was the Tongan stowaways slip into the care of a Tongan family already living in Auckland and they know that the Immigration officials are lazy about investigating. I asked if they also target Australia as a destination. The answer; no because the Australian immigration department is very strict.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.