Strange Immigration Decision

Forums › Off topic › Strange Immigration Decision

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ... | 9

30853 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9992

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#1507515 7-Mar-2016 15:13

BigPipeNZ:

joker97:

Wow wish the students at Uni knew that.

Hey you international students, you guys aren't allowed to wash your dishes or else face deportation!

no, they are allowed to wash their own dishes, just not allowed to wash someone else's.

Students in NZ on a work visa are allowed to work up to 20 hours per week.

Kiwifruta

1423 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 336

ID Verified

#1507516 7-Mar-2016 15:15

sbiddle:
BigPipeNZ:

joker97:

Wow wish the students at Uni knew that.

Hey you international students, you guys aren't allowed to wash your dishes or else face deportation!

no, they are allowed to wash their own dishes, just not allowed to wash someone else's.

Students in NZ on a work visa are allowed to work up to 20 hours per week.

Student visa or work visa?

MikeB4

18464 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12124

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1507521 7-Mar-2016 15:20

surfisup1000:

MikeB4:

surfisup1000:

afe66:

Yeah seems a bit over kill.

But if you are running a babysitting/nanny service in queenstown, you might have a different opinion if tourists bring their own staff with them and so dont use your service I suppose.

Can I bring my driver, my cook, cleaners etc

Lets be honest.

Its a case of come on holiday with us, we will pay for everything if you can do some baby sitting...

She's an employee in Australia and could you argue she still is an employee doing similar duties for which she get paid cash in Au but here she's getting a holiday, but thats still being paid in kind.

A.

This was a person trusted to care for their children. You simply cannot get the same level of trust through some unknown child care agency in a foreign country

The family should be allowed to pay their au paire while on holiday. Immigration NZ need to stop destroying their already poor reputation and actually go and catch some real criminals.

Makes NZ look like a back water tin pot little country full of petty bureaucrats who like to gain a sense of self importance by telling others off.

Immigration like ALL Government Departments are required to follow the empowering Act of Parliament and the Cabinet approved official policy. The only discretion they have is discretion prescribed in those acts or parliament. If the act says 'do this' they are legally obliged to do so.

It looks really bad, immigration are not let off the hook by what you say. Immigration must know this is ridiculous scenario so why haven't they recommended a law change to the minister many years ago? I bet many families each year are accompanied by paid au pairs while on holiday so why do they send this one home?

Just as the law says it is illegal to speed but police are still allowed to use discretion..

There was a similar case not so long ago too. Where a person visiting a NZ family said in the interview that they might babysit their friends kids so was sent home for that!!! Because staying with their friends constituted 'payment' for babysitting services.

Absolute nuts!

I was in the US on holiday a while back, had my laptop to fix any work issues should they occur. So , effectively I was working in the US for money and should be sent home???

Same with US visitors here -- we should ban everyone who has a phone or a laptop because their work might call them and they might be actually paid.

Immigration do not make the law, the folks in the Beehive do, yes they will, like all Government Departments, make recommendations to their Minister for change, it is however up to the Minister to table the change for Cabinet or Parliament approval.

Myself and others here are deciding this will out all the facts, my position is based on years of experience but I admit I may be of course depending on the facts. As for the procedures I am correct.

Immigration are not a PR or travel promotion unit for the Government that is Tourism's job.

LennonNZ

2459 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 411

ID Verified

Trusted

#1507531 7-Mar-2016 15:26

"and Ms Pache admitted during an interview she would undertake childminding, although she also maintained she would not be paid"

Work (Paid or not Paid) makes no difference.. Its still work which could be done by a willing NZ Employee. They are trying to protect NZ Workers.

"a) Anyone bringing a laptop to NZ and working on it for a foreign company whilst on holiday here should be denied a visa unless they have a work permit"

Unless someone has a working visa then no you are not allowed to work even for an overseas company.

"b) Someone who arrives for a 2 week holiday and has, say, a PA with them should expect the PA to be denied a visa - and themselves, if they plan on working at all"

Why would someone take a PA along for a Holiday? If they are a PA then they are working (even if the person who is on holiday isn't )

scheduler

264 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 25

#1507543 7-Mar-2016 15:40

It looks to me as though the Lady would have qualified for a working holiday visa, being young and French. It also appears that these visa can't be issued at the airport. Really is a pity that Border Control couldn't have some discretion

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2158

#1507558 7-Mar-2016 16:03

MikeB4:Immigration do not make the law, the folks in the Beehive do, yes they will, like all Government Departments, make recommendations to their Minister for change, it is however up to the Minister to table the change for Cabinet or Parliament approval.

Regardless of how you justify this, it still makes New Zealand look really bad, locking up young girls for babysitting on a short holiday.

Surely immigration are allowed some discretion, just like police who don't always prosecute or issue penalties even if the law has been broken.

This is seems to be to be a case which is outside the intent of the lawmakers. Quite different from a person who comes here to illegally work and self support in construction/hospitality/agriculture and self support.

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2158

#1507560 7-Mar-2016 16:04

LennonNZ:

"and Ms Pache admitted during an interview she would undertake childminding, although she also maintained she would not be paid"

Work (Paid or not Paid) makes no difference.. Its still work which could be done by a willing NZ Employee. They are trying to protect NZ Workers.

This does not protect NZ workers at all.

Lenovo

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

roobarb

653 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 508

Trusted

#1507571 7-Mar-2016 16:13

By locking up an au-paire, does this mean we have a nanny state?

MikeB4

18464 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12124

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1507617 7-Mar-2016 17:01

surfisup1000:

MikeB4:Immigration do not make the law, the folks in the Beehive do, yes they will, like all Government Departments, make recommendations to their Minister for change, it is however up to the Minister to table the change for Cabinet or Parliament approval.

Regardless of how you justify this, it still makes New Zealand look really bad, locking up young girls for babysitting on a short holiday.

Surely immigration are allowed some discretion, just like police who don't always prosecute or issue penalties even if the law has been broken.

This is seems to be to be a case which is outside the intent of the lawmakers. Quite different from a person who comes here to illegally work and self support in construction/hospitality/agriculture and self support.

You can lobby your local MP to push for a change in legislation.

Remember however discretion is a double edged sword, also many think that discretion goes only one way when it can go in many ways.

Geektastic

17960 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8377

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1507635 7-Mar-2016 17:21

Ring ring

Hi, this is Dave Smith. Can I help?

Oh hi Dave - sorry to call you on holiday but the Stephenson deal is going pear-shaped and I need to pick your brain quickly because I was not in that last meeting.

Phil - sorry, I am in New Zealand. I am not allowed to discuss work matters as I will be in breach of my visa. Can this wait until I am home? If not, you'll need to ring a random New Zealander for help. Thanks.

JimmyH

2891 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1541

#1507702 7-Mar-2016 19:06

On the face of it, it seems over-zealous and, frankly, nuts.

However, in past lives I have read a few media stories about stuff I was involved with, and to say they only had a tenuous relationship to the truth is being generous to the lazy NZ media. All they seem able to do is regurgitate press statements and random claims from people, without much in the way of fact checking or analysis.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the facts here turn out substantially different from the Herald write-up.

SaltyNZ

8314 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7980

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#1507731 7-Mar-2016 20:33

Geektastic:

Ring ring

Hi, this is Dave Smith. Can I help?

Oh hi Dave - sorry to call you on holiday but the Stephenson deal is going pear-shaped and I need to pick your brain quickly because I was not in that last meeting.

Phil - sorry, I am in New Zealand. I am not allowed to discuss work matters as I will be in breach of my visa. Can this wait until I am home? If not, you'll need to ring a random New Zealander for help. Thanks.

Oh, I see, Dave. Well, when you get back from holiday just stop by to pick up your box of personal effects and your final paycheck.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

Dratsab

3951 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1694

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1507806 7-Mar-2016 22:46

frankv: Did NZ pay for her return flight? I didn't see that information in the article. I believe that deportees are asked to pay for their deportation flights.

Kiwifruta: Okay, didn't know that about the deportee paying for their own flight out of the country.

kharris: Normally the person would be billed for the cost of deportation. However I imagine that much of this is never recovered. I doubt you are ever allowed back if you don't pay.

This used to be the case but in 2004 an immigration official was charged with a number of offences after fraudulently collecting such monies. He even kept/on-sold a few cars.

Part of the fallout from this has been that Immigration no longer seek costs. So in the case being discussed here, as in in every deportation/border refusal case since 2004, the flights back to France would have been paid for by the NZ tax payer. I say France because New Zealand and Australia share border information and have reciprocal border actions. Once the young lady had been refused entry here, it's highly likely her Australian work visa would have been cancelled. Transport costs arising from such secondary actions are picked up by the primary country.

Disclaimer: Working where I do at the airport, this is a case of deja poo for me.

Geektastic

17960 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8377

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1507812 7-Mar-2016 22:56

Dratsab:

frankv: Did NZ pay for her return flight? I didn't see that information in the article. I believe that deportees are asked to pay for their deportation flights.

Kiwifruta: Okay, didn't know that about the deportee paying for their own flight out of the country.

kharris: Normally the person would be billed for the cost of deportation. However I imagine that much of this is never recovered. I doubt you are ever allowed back if you don't pay.

This used to be the case but in 2004 an immigration official was charged with a number of offences after fraudulently collecting such monies. He even kept/on-sold a few cars.

Part of the fallout from this has been that Immigration no longer seek costs. So in the case being discussed here, as in in every deportation/border refusal case since 2004, the flights back to France would have been paid for by the NZ tax payer. I say France because New Zealand and Australia share border information and have reciprocal border actions. Once the young lady had been refused entry here, it's highly likely her Australian work visa would have been cancelled. Transport costs arising from such secondary actions are picked up by the primary country.

Disclaimer: Working where I do at the airport, this is a case of deja poo for me.

You really do have to wonder (if what you say is correct and I am not saying it isn't or it is) exactly what was actually achieved by this.

We have a young French national who will grow up thinking foreigners are unwelcome in NZ and may thus never bring her family here to spend money
We have created a negative brand ambassador for NZ, who will tell friends, teachers, family, parents, parent's friends etc how poorly she was treated and THOSE people may never come here now, plus all the ones they speak to
We've made ourselves look just a bit silly when this is picked up in the press overseas (as I am sure it will be)
We've landed the taxpayers with a bill they did not need and that served no practical purpose at all
We've destroyed the domestic arrangements of a hard working Australian family who now think NZ is a fairly silly place I am sure and who may not return, will tell lots of people and so on

All in all, not Immigration NZ's finest hour I would suggest.

Even more foolish is the fact that if the young lady had arrived on a different flight from the family she was living with and simply breezed through saying she was on holiday then they probably would not have even noticed her....

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2158

#1507813 7-Mar-2016 22:57

Here is another case which involves overzealous immigration bullies using babysitting as an excuse to boot people out of our country....

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11473088

She came to stay with family in nz for a holiday -- so didn't need much cash. Under calculated interrogation designed to find guilt she said she might babysit for them .

So, immigration made the conclusion that this girl flew all the way from chile with the nefarious objective of trading babysitting services for free board, putting hard working new zealanders out of work.

Incidentally, a couple of months later, immigration admitted they were completely wrong.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ... | 9