Source: Radio New Zealand
Immigration Minister Erica Stanford. RNZ / Mark Papalii
Immigration Minister Erica Stanford says she was shocked to find out a murderer and sex offenders convicted in New Zealand are among current asylum claimants.
Removing appeal rights against deportation for migrants and cracking down on asylum claims are among controversial proposals announced by the government, three months after the last immigration legislation came into force.
“If you’re said to be a refugee, it allows you a number of benefits that you will be aware of on the taxpayer’s dime that you will get as a refugee,” said Stanford. “It was very clear that we are a huge soft touch in this country compared to everybody else. And I’m just trying to bring us in line.”
Proposed changes would allow decision-makers to rule out refugee status – which brings with it access to residence visas – for those with criminal records, but still approve protection claims if people were at risk if they returned home.
“INZ has on hand 14 refugee claims from people who’ve been convicted of serious offences since arriving in New Zealand, including one person convicted of murder, five for serious drug offences, three for sexual offences, four for family violence, one for arson, and one for burglary with a weapon. And we still have to consider their refugee status.
The government is introducing the Immigration (Enhanced Risk Management) Amendment Bill to Parliament on Wednesday. It would also stop asylum seekers who withdraw their claims from later applying for other visas.
lenor/123RF
Deportation appeals
Another major change would be to deportation rules for migrants.
Immigration lawyers say children will be separated from parents, and partners of New Zealanders if migrants with visitor visa lose the right to appeal their deportations on humanitarian grounds.
Pooja Sundar said visitor visas are not only for tourists, but also partners, parents and children, such as Parent Boost and partner visitor visas.
“We do a lot of appeals. Ask anyone representing cases in representing people before the tribunal and they will absolutely tell you how high a threshold that really is and how the circumstances have to be truly exceptional.
“We are not a soft touch, we just used to give a crap about about our international conventions. Clearly we don’t anymore.”
Other changes
Previously announced changes in the bill include extending the period during which a residence visa holder may become liable for deportation following criminal offending from 10 years to 20 years.
“New Zealand has one of the most lenient criminal deportation liability regimes,” said Stanford. “Australia, the UK, Canada, Ireland all make residents liable for deportation indefinitely, including for relatively minor convictions.
“As proposed in the bill, deportation liability would continue to be scaled according to the seriousness of the offending and the length of a time the person has held residence. But longer-term residents who commit very serious offences will no longer be able to avoid deportation liability. “
Migrant exploitation jail terms would increase from a maximum of seven years to 10 years under the new legislation.
Asylum claimants may not be granted refugee status if they breach ‘good faith’ rules which include not creating grounds for a refugee claim by their social media activity in New Zealand.
“So I’m aware of cases where people take action deliberately to engage in proactive political activity when they’re arriving in New Zealand, such as seeking social media or media attention in a cynical attempt to create or increase their grounds for recognition as a refugee,” Stanford told the Immigration Law Symposium in Auckland.
“These bad faith proposals will ensure that both Immigration New Zealand and the IPT (Immigration and Protection Tribunal) will have the ability to deal with these cases made in bad faith as swiftly as possible and that the benefits associated with refugee status are reserved for those who genuinely deserve them.”
Stanford said with more than 4000 asylum claims on hand, they needed to take another look at the rules.
“While there are genuine claims, there are many claims, the vast majority of claims, that are not meritorious.
“And in some instances, people lodge an asylum claim in the final days of another visa, not because they face persecution in their home country, but simply because they want to remain in New Zealand on that visa that everybody wants, the open work visa.”
She said not turning up for a a biometrics appointment without good reason was a technique asylum claimants used to spin out the time their claim takes, while continuing on asylum seeker work visas.
But immigration lawyer Stewart Dalley said until recently, claimants’ biometrics were taken at the time of their interview.
“They’ve now changed the policy to make people come to do the biometrics a couple of days after they’ve filed their claim form. So they’ve actually created a problem that didn’t actually exist. And they’re creating this deliberately, in my mind, to actually try and see if they can decline people’s claims. Because they’ve set it out to say, you’re legally required to come and do your biometrics a couple of days after you’ve lodged your claim.
“If the person doesn’t go because they don’t read English, they haven’t got an interpreter there, they don’t know how to get to the place – claim declined, you’re out of here. They’re deliberately setting people up to fail.”
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand
