In 2006, a law change under the Helen Clark Government removed the right to citizenship by birth for children born in New Zealand. The justification was that it stopped people from country shopping by going from country to country, having a baby in the one they liked and therefore being granted citizenship through their child. That's a fight Donald Trump's having right now with the US Supreme Court, the US being one of 33 countries that grants jus soli – the right of the soil, or the right of citizenship to anyone born within a territory.
We did away with jus soli in 2006, and now young people, it's not known how many, because of course they live in the shadows, are leaving the education system and are locked in limbo. The education system will educate anyone here, even if they're here unlawfully, until the age of 18. After that, all services of the state are denied to them, and they are on their own. Stuff has an excellent story highlighting the plight of New Zealand born overstayers this morning. At the moment, it appears there is no pathway for children born to overstayers after 2006. It's even more cruel to think that siblings born to those same overstaying parents before 2006 have New Zealand citizenship but their brothers and sisters born after don't.
At the moment the only option is to go to the Minister of Immigration and plead individual cases, which is time consuming, lengthy, costly, and takes up a lot of bureaucrats' time.
So what do we do with these 18 and 19 year olds? An immigration lawyer quoted in the Stuff story wants a repeal of the 2006 law change, which removed the right the birthright citizenship. Or, he suggests, we do what the Aussies and the Brits do and that is grant citizenship if you're born here and have lived here for 10 years or more. Surely that seems the most humane way of dealing with these young adults. They're here, they've been here all their lives, they likely have siblings who have New Zealand citizenship – those siblings are working or at university. Should the same rights be granted to those kids who, through no fault of their own were born in this country and now find themselves in effect stateless, without a country, without a place to call home, despite the fact that New Zealand is the only home they've known?
I would do what the Aussies and the Brits do. If you have been born here, if you have lived here for 10 years or more, you're a Kiwi.
Kerre McIvor, is a journalist, radio presenter, author and columnist. Currently hosts the Kerre Woodham mornings show on Newstalk ZB - where this article was sourced.
We did away with jus soli in 2006, and now young people, it's not known how many, because of course they live in the shadows, are leaving the education system and are locked in limbo. The education system will educate anyone here, even if they're here unlawfully, until the age of 18. After that, all services of the state are denied to them, and they are on their own. Stuff has an excellent story highlighting the plight of New Zealand born overstayers this morning. At the moment, it appears there is no pathway for children born to overstayers after 2006. It's even more cruel to think that siblings born to those same overstaying parents before 2006 have New Zealand citizenship but their brothers and sisters born after don't.
At the moment the only option is to go to the Minister of Immigration and plead individual cases, which is time consuming, lengthy, costly, and takes up a lot of bureaucrats' time.
So what do we do with these 18 and 19 year olds? An immigration lawyer quoted in the Stuff story wants a repeal of the 2006 law change, which removed the right the birthright citizenship. Or, he suggests, we do what the Aussies and the Brits do and that is grant citizenship if you're born here and have lived here for 10 years or more. Surely that seems the most humane way of dealing with these young adults. They're here, they've been here all their lives, they likely have siblings who have New Zealand citizenship – those siblings are working or at university. Should the same rights be granted to those kids who, through no fault of their own were born in this country and now find themselves in effect stateless, without a country, without a place to call home, despite the fact that New Zealand is the only home they've known?
I would do what the Aussies and the Brits do. If you have been born here, if you have lived here for 10 years or more, you're a Kiwi.
Kerre McIvor, is a journalist, radio presenter, author and columnist. Currently hosts the Kerre Woodham mornings show on Newstalk ZB - where this article was sourced.
4 comments:
Allow them to stay after ten years. However, the parents are to be convicted jailed, then deported and never allowed to return to NZ.
Overstayers are a scourge, and especially those not fully self supporting. A strain on already hard pressed others and the services provided them. And many prey on vunerable local females with a view to marriage and /or children to hopefully ensure permanant resisdency. With false motives often create emotional mayhem and create welfare dependancy among locals.
Immigration is the only area of law where breaking the rules is routinely excused—and even celebrated—by liberal activists and globalist institutions. No other area of law is treated with such leniency, or framed so dishonestly in moral terms.
Let’s be clear: a sovereign nation has the absolute right to decide who may enter and under what conditions. That right belongs to the people and their elected representatives—not unelected UN bureaucrats or leftist lawyers with a globalist agenda.
Anyone who enters a country illegally, overstays a visa, or bypasses lawful channels is not a "victim"—they're a lawbreaker. And when these individuals have children—so-called “anchor babies”—some argue this entitles them to stay. It doesn’t. The law is the law. Deport the lawbreaker and all dependents to country of origin and send it the bil. Sovereignty must mean something.
A nation that can’t—or won’t—control its borders is no nation at all.
You do the legally correct thing by sending them to country they are a citizen of. I'm sure taxpayers will be supporting use of their funds for this purpose.
Post a Comment