Real need to take a close look at immigration

By RAYMOND JIANQIANG HUO*

As an Asian migrant-turned New Zealander, I have no problem with Winston Peters' anti-immigration policy. I do, however, have problems with his muddying-the-waters strategy and continuous exploitation of it.

His three-finger campaign on immigration, crime and the Treaty of Waitangi made headway during the election, although only crime ranked highly with voters.

Thus emboldened, he last week unleashed a fresh and frenzied attack on the Government's immigration policy. He termed that policy "treason".

Mr Peters criticised the Government for allowing 10 more refugees from the Tampa into New Zealand. Half of refugees had Aids and many would not work, he said. Labour had not told taxpayers it would demand thousands of dollars from them to treat people who would never work here for the rest of their lives.

It all sounded like the New Zealand First leader was addressing an issue on refugees until he added that Maori in the north were living on dirty floors and had no running water or power. Labour, he said, could not help them, but was rushing to take in 53,000 people a year.

Quite illogically, Mr Peters seemed to be suggesting that the different issues of asylum-seekers and immigration were the same thing.

I don't know much about refugees, so I will leave the issue for those who know to respond to Mr Peters. What I know is that this country accepts 750 refugees each year under its international treaty obligations, independent of its annual immigration quota of 53,000, which Mr Peters has vowed to slash.

According to Mr Peters, immigrants bring many problems. He talks of concern about social cohesion, higher house prices, inflation, jobs being stolen and traffic gridlock in Auckland. He says the immigration system "has more holes than a fishing net".

But, ironically, the selection criteria under today's immigration policy are more stringent than when NZ First was in coalition with National in 1997-98. As the Minister of Immigration has pointed out, there would be a net loss of people if the number of approvals were restricted to 10,000, the number Mr Peters wants to accept.

Also, a significant component of people of Asian ethnicity, whom Mr Peters notes have doubled in a decade, are not migrants. They are fee-paying students in this country's burgeoning international education industry.

If you listen carefully to his attacks on immigration, you have to wonder how seriously his arguments can be taken. What he has been talking about seems to be illegal immigration, not immigration itself.

He seems to stretch the word "migrants" to cover not only legitimate immigrants but also visitors, fee-paying international students and overstayers and asylum-seekers.

Overstayers are a law and order issue. And for refugees, the High Court ruling that the Government's policy of detaining almost all asylum-seekers at the border is unlawful and fundamentally defective requires Mr Peters to do more than simply unleash new attacks.

But the refugee problem is a different matter from immigration. Asylum-seekers and applicants for immigration are assessed under different policies, applying different procedures and restricted by different quotas. To muddle them creates only confusion and misunderstanding.

Take the health problem, for example. Mr Peters asked: "Why are we failing to check for Aids and other infectious diseases brought by migrants?"

Again, the word "migrants" is distorted so as to present a false picture of immigration policy.

Pursuant to the policy, a pre-arrival health screening, including blood and X-ray tests and vaccination check-up, is strictly required. Without a medical certificate, an application for immigration will be declined in the first place.

Is Mr Peters, therefore, suggesting a procedural defect in the enforcement of the policy? If so, why doesn't he identify the responsible department or individual?

Mr Peters may not appreciate that many Asian migrants share his concerns about immigration.

No legitimate migrants are willing to see New Zealand become a dumping ground. Any illegal bad apples who slip through loopholes into this country tarnish the image of immigrants as a whole.

But it is not justified for Mr Peters to use some procedural defects to seek to shut down the whole system. Equally, however, these defects cannot be tolerated. The Immigration Service has many quirks. To address the issue will open a can of worms, but the service needs to become more transparent and efficient.

And private immigration consultants must be regulated. As NZ First party policy stipulates, a registration of immigration consultants is required. "Such registration [is] to ensure consultants are people of repute who operate to a defined standard." It would be stupid for the Government to ignore the advice.

Without the proper monitoring, there is no way of ensuring that only the right people are selected and allowed to come to New Zealand.

* Raymond Jianqiang Huo is an Auckland-based journalist.

Feature: Immigration