NZ 2023 Election Thread

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › NZ 2023 Election Thread

1 | ... | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | ... | 102

4089 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1684

ID Verified

Trusted

#3156765 6-Nov-2023 20:04

SaltyNZ:

The issue is not that they are deporting criminals. That's completely normal. The issue is that they are taking people who have lived in Australia their whole lives and using the loophole that those people never got citizenship to deport them. Whilst technically correct (the best kind of correct) they are exporting their criminals. If you have lived in Australia since you were 2 and have been in a gang for 25 years, you're an Australian criminal, not a New Zealand criminal.

That is (supposedly) no longer the case. A ministerial direction now (allegedly) requires that the length of time a person has been ordinarily resident in Australia be taken into account when the department makes a decision to deport, similar to New Zealand's "Ten Year Test" which basically says if a person has been a resident for 10 years, there has to be a damn good reason to deport.

Handle9:

Yes.

We haven’t structurally removed a pathway to citizenship for a specific group of migrants for 20 years.

Saying any New Zealand migrant could become an Australian citizen wasn’t correct for a long long time. That was a political decision to appeal to the bogan electorate.

That's not strictly speaking correct. New Zealanders were just as eligible to apply for a sponsored or points-tested skilled visa and follow the same process other nations did. The only difference was that New Zealanders could just pop along and start working without having one of those. I don't necessarily agree with the complexity of the system as it stood, or even the version that replaced it prior to this year, but to claim that a New Zealand migrant couldn't become a citizen is a falsehood. We could, it just meant we had to do all the same hoops as any other origin country's migrants.

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3156768 6-Nov-2023 20:25

@kyanar I’d suggest you read what I wrote again before saying it’s false. It’s quite different to what you claimed I said.

Wombat1

586 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 409
Inactive user

#3156773 6-Nov-2023 21:16

Handle9: @kyanar I’d suggest you read what I wrote again before saying it’s false. It’s quite different to what you claimed I said.

@Handle9 you said

Handle9: We haven’t structurally removed a pathway to citizenship for a specific group of migrants for 20 years.

That to me implies that you are implying that Australia removed the citizenship pathway to kiwis for 20 years. That statement is incorrect as @kyanar correctly pointed out.

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3156777 6-Nov-2023 21:19

It’s absolutely correct. There was no pathway for migrants on an SCV. It was removed.

Wombat1

586 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 409
Inactive user

#3156784 6-Nov-2023 21:39

Handle9: It’s absolutely correct. There was no pathway for migrants on an SCV. It was removed.

Thats Rubbish. I suggest you get your facts checked. As was pointed out earlier Kiwis could always apply for residence and then go on to get citizenship. Saying there was no pathway for migrants on an SCV is just incorrect. I know lots of fellow kiwis here that have got their citizenship this way.

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3156791 6-Nov-2023 21:50

Wombat1:

Handle9: It’s absolutely correct. There was no pathway for migrants on an SCV. It was removed.

Thats Rubbish. I suggest you get your facts checked. As was pointed out earlier Kiwis could always apply for residence and then go on to get citizenship. Saying there was no pathway for migrants on an SCV is just incorrect. I know lots of fellow kiwis here that have got their citizenship this way.

Sigh. What was posted earlier was that New Zealanders on visas other than the SCV could apply for residency, not that there was a pathway for a resident on an SCV. Strictly speaking there was the protected SCV category which was eligible but you had to meet some date based criteria (in Australia on 26 February 2001; or in Australia for at least 12 months in the 2 years immediately before this date, or assesed as a protected SCV holder before 26 February 2004.)

This was changed earlier this year.

HP

Shop now for HP laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

Wombat1

586 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 409
Inactive user

#3156795 6-Nov-2023 22:01

The pathway has never been removed as you stated.

Prior to 2023 and after 2001 the pathway was as follows:

SCV -> Permanent Visa - > Apply Citizenship

After 2023 and prior to 2001

SCV -> Apply Citizenship

In both cases citizenship can be denied due to a string of things like previous convictions, failing to meet the character requirements, failing the citizenship test etc ... Gang members will still fall short.

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3156797 6-Nov-2023 22:11

Wombat1:

The pathway has never been removed as you stated.

Prior to 2023 and after 2001 the pathway was as follows:

SCV -> Permanent Visa - > Apply Citizenship

After 2023 and prior to 2001

SCV -> Apply Citizenship

In both cases citizenship can be denied due to a string of things like previous convictions, failing to meet the character requirements, failing the citizenship test etc ... Gang members will still fall short.

There's no such thing as a permanent visa. There is permanent residency.

To get PR you needed to have an eligible visa. The unprotected SCV was not eligible for conversion to PR. Other visas (eg 189 visa) were eligible. You had to be change from a 444 (SCV) to another type of visa to become eligible for PR. This is what Kyanar posted.

If you were on an SCV it was changed a bit in 2017 to apply for a 189 visa if you met the income thresholds and were present for 5 years prior to 2016.

Wombat1

586 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 409
Inactive user

#3156801 6-Nov-2023 22:25

Handle9:

There's no such thing as a permanent visa. There is permanent residency.

You can't have permanent residency without a permanent visa. Not sure what you mean by saying there is no such thing as a permanent visa?

I don't know why you over overcomplicating this. Its very simple actually. 380,000 New Zealanders living in Australia will no longer have to become permanent residents first to become citizens. That's it in a nutshell.

Not going to debate this with you further. Besides its way OT

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#3156802 6-Nov-2023 22:28

Wombat1:

You can't have permanent residency without a permanent visa. Not sure what you mean by saying there is no such thing as a permanent visa?

I don't know why you over overcomplicating this. Its very simple actually. 380,000 New Zealanders living in Australia will no longer have to become permanent residents first to become citizens. That's it in a nutshell.

Not going to debate this with you further. Besides its way OT

No debate necessary. He is right, you are wrong. Get over it.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3156805 6-Nov-2023 22:33

Rikkitic:

Wombat1:

You can't have permanent residency without a permanent visa. Not sure what you mean by saying there is no such thing as a permanent visa?

I don't know why you over overcomplicating this. Its very simple actually. 380,000 New Zealanders living in Australia will no longer have to become permanent residents first to become citizens. That's it in a nutshell.

Not going to debate this with you further. Besides its way OT

No debate necessary. He is right, you are wrong. Get over it.

He is right that there is a visa which shows your PR status but the rest of what I wrote was correct.

Lego

Shop now for Lego sets and other gifts (affiliate link).

Wombat1

586 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 409
Inactive user

#3156806 6-Nov-2023 22:34

Rikkitic:

Wombat1:

You can't have permanent residency without a permanent visa. Not sure what you mean by saying there is no such thing as a permanent visa?

I don't know why you over overcomplicating this. Its very simple actually. 380,000 New Zealanders living in Australia will no longer have to become permanent residents first to become citizens. That's it in a nutshell.

Not going to debate this with you further. Besides its way OT

No debate necessary. He is right, you are wrong. Get over it.

I just pointed out that he is wrong. Go read further back. Believe me, I know the Aussie SCV visa requirements backwards. I live here.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19071 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16319

Lifetime subscriber

#3156807 6-Nov-2023 22:40

I think the two of you were actually talking about different things, but time to move on.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1684

ID Verified

Trusted

#3156811 6-Nov-2023 23:48

Handle9: @kyanar I’d suggest you read what I wrote again before saying it’s false. It’s quite different to what you claimed I said.

Your statement is fundamentally incorrect. Continuing to assert so almost raises to the point of disinformation.

You claimed there was no pathway to citizenship. This is a lie. The same pathway to citizenship as any other migration source was available the whole time. did this recognise the special relationship between Australia and NZ? No. But that wasn't your completely fabricated claim.

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3156813 7-Nov-2023 00:23

Kyanar:

Handle9: @kyanar I’d suggest you read what I wrote again before saying it’s false. It’s quite different to what you claimed I said.

Your statement is fundamentally incorrect. Continuing to assert so almost raises to the point of disinformation.

You claimed there was no pathway to citizenship. This is a lie. The same pathway to citizenship as any other migration source was available the whole time. did this recognise the special relationship between Australia and NZ? No. But that wasn't your completely fabricated claim.

What I wrote was:

We haven’t structurally removed a pathway to citizenship for a specific group of migrants for 20 years.

Saying any New Zealand migrant could become an Australian citizen wasn’t correct for a long long time.

That specific group of migrants was SCV holders who didn't qualify for other visas. How is that disinformation?

If you can show me I am incorrect I would be interested and am happy to admit I am wrong. It'd also be nice to have a discussion without accusations of bad faith rather than being incorrect but that's too much to ask.

1 | ... | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | ... | 102