Should New Zealand citizenship be for sale?

Forums › Off topic › Should New Zealand citizenship be for sale?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

Networkn
32363 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1714457 2-Feb-2017 13:37

Rikkitic:

networkn:

Now that people have shown you the regulations and there is no evidence to support he breached them, are you now prepared to change your position?

I never suggested he breached any regulations so I'm not sure what you are asking.

"different rules for the rich" implies he was afforded some courtesy not available (regulations) to others.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18667 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1714459 2-Feb-2017 13:42

MikeB4:

Your statement infers that the officials did not follows the policy and this is because money was thrown around, that is an accusation. So again can you show evidence of this.

You are putting words in my mouth. My statement infers that he got special treatment because he made a philanthropic donation and invested in a New Zealand company, both of which are confirmed in the DIA statement. I phrased that sardonically as 'throwing money around' but did not state anything that was untrue. He spent some money and received citizenship, as confirmed by the DIA.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18667 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1714461 2-Feb-2017 13:47

networkn:

"different rules for the rich" implies he was afforded some courtesy not available (regulations) to others.

I would argue that the courtesy he was afforded would not be made available to someone without his money. I think that is beyond dispute.

This is starting to feel more like trolling than debate. Go chew on someone else's throat. I have had enough. I will respond to any serious comments having to do with this thread, but I am tired of playing this game.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Tinshed

278 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1714462 2-Feb-2017 13:50

I get that Thiel's lack of living here bothers some However there are some 1 million New Zealand citizens in a similar position, i.e live overseas. As the Statistics New Zealand observes, "Around 45,000 citizens a year leave on a permanent or long-term (PLT) basis. Many of these PLT travellers will eventually return, some bringing their overseas-born spouses and children with them. Others will stay overseas, with various degrees of attachment to New Zealand. Of our newer migrants, some will stay and gain New Zealand citizenship, while others will leave." No one seriously suggests they should be stripped of their citizenship because "they don't live anymore". As I say, I abhor Thiel's politics, but the notion that you must live here to be a citizen doesn't hold water.

[Edit:spelling]

Tinshed
Wellington, New Zealand

mattwnz

20175 posts

Uber Geek

#1714464 2-Feb-2017 13:54

Tinshed:

I get that Thiel's lack of living here bothers some However there are some 1 million New Zealand citizens in a similar position, i.e live overseas. As the Statistics New Zealand observes, "Around 45,000 citizens a year leave on a permanent or long-term (PLT) basis. Many of these PLT travellers will eventually return, some bringing their overseas-born spouses and children with them. Others will stay overseas, with various degrees of attachment to New Zealand. Of our newer migrants, some will stay and gain New Zealand citizenship, while others will leave." No one seriously suggests they should be stripped of their citizenship because "they don't live anymore". As I say, I abhor Thiel's politics, but the notion that you must live here to be a citizen doesn't hold water.

[Edit:spelling]

Most of those living overseas though will have initially lived in NZ, eg born here, or moved here. So it is a totally different thing. I would think it would be unusual to get NZ citizenship but never actually reside here for a significant period of time.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1714473 2-Feb-2017 14:06

Rikkitic:

MikeB4:

Your statement infers that the officials did not follows the policy and this is because money was thrown around, that is an accusation. So again can you show evidence of this.

You are putting words in my mouth. My statement infers that he got special treatment because he made a philanthropic donation and invested in a New Zealand company, both of which are confirmed in the DIA statement. I phrased that sardonically as 'throwing money around' but did not state anything that was untrue. He spent some money and received citizenship, as confirmed by the DIA.

I get that, one has to be careful as it can easily sound like corruption has been at play. I don't believe that there has been anything like that. NZ needs people both rich and poor. The more rich that come the more poor that can come.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18667 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1714475 2-Feb-2017 14:13

MikeB4:

I get that, one has to be careful as it can easily sound like corruption has been at play. I don't believe that there has been anything like that. NZ needs people both rich and poor. The more rich that come the more poor that can come.

In all honesty, corruption never occurred to me and that is not what I was suggesting, certainly not in the sense of someone receiving money under the table for bending the rules. I was just questioning whether potential immigrants should be exempted from procedures normally applied to others solely because they do have wealth. I think that is worth discussing.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

networkn

Networkn
32363 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1714476 2-Feb-2017 14:14

Rikkitic:

MikeB4:

I get that, one has to be careful as it can easily sound like corruption has been at play. I don't believe that there has been anything like that. NZ needs people both rich and poor. The more rich that come the more poor that can come.

In all honesty, corruption never occurred to me and that is not what I was suggesting, certainly not in the sense of someone receiving money under the table for bending the rules. I was just questioning whether potential immigrants should be exempted from procedures normally applied to others solely because they do have wealth. I think that is worth discussing.

But for the last time, that hasn't happened here.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1714481 2-Feb-2017 14:16

Rikkitic:

MikeB4:

I get that, one has to be careful as it can easily sound like corruption has been at play. I don't believe that there has been anything like that. NZ needs people both rich and poor. The more rich that come the more poor that can come.

In all honesty, corruption never occurred to me and that is not what I was suggesting, certainly not in the sense of someone receiving money under the table for bending the rules. I was just questioning whether potential immigrants should be exempted from procedures normally applied to others solely because they do have wealth. I think that is worth discussing.

There doesn't need to be an exemption as there are sufficient categories that can legally be applied.

networkn

Networkn
32363 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1714482 2-Feb-2017 14:18

Rikkitic:

networkn:

"different rules for the rich" implies he was afforded some courtesy not available (regulations) to others.

I would argue that the courtesy he was afforded would not be made available to someone without his money. I think that is beyond dispute.

This is starting to feel more like trolling than debate. Go chew on someone else's throat. I have had enough. I will respond to any serious comments having to do with this thread, but I am tired of playing this game.

Tired of being asked to justify your comments? Yes, I can understand that might prove to be annoying to some.

It is categorically NOT beyond dispute. Show us proof he was afforded courtesies not available to someone without money? Are you saying that no-one else would be allowed to not attend their ceremony? If that was the case why are there regulations that allow it?

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18667 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1714489 2-Feb-2017 14:36

Some useful follow-up comments below. The implication (no, I don't have proof) seems to be that Thiel was granted citizenship solely because he wanted it (and was rich, which dazzled the authorities), not because there was any good justification for it. This seems to be the point the critics of it are making. Is New Zealand citizenship something precious and valuable to be bestowed on those who want to live here and be part of the country, or is it a frivolous plaything to be passed around to the wealthy who want it on a whim?

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/323645/'we-need-to-attract-talent'-sam-morgan

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Geektastic

17944 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1714495 2-Feb-2017 14:53

Fred99:

The folks who argue that stateless refugees be offered no charity seem to be the same people arguing that they have "no issue" with citizenship for sale.

One you get a benefit from, the other not so much. Seems perfectly logical to me.

Geektastic

17944 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1714496 2-Feb-2017 14:59

Rikkitic:

networkn:

"different rules for the rich" implies he was afforded some courtesy not available (regulations) to others.

I would argue that the courtesy he was afforded would not be made available to someone without his money. I think that is beyond dispute.

This is starting to feel more like trolling than debate. Go chew on someone else's throat. I have had enough. I will respond to any serious comments having to do with this thread, but I am tired of playing this game.

Not sure about that. People get citizenship for a variety of special cases, such as sportspeople needed to represent a country who are prevented from doing so by not being citizens. They get the same courtesy but no money is involved.

No one 'bought' citizenship here. Thiel was already a Permanent Resident of NZ. He made a case to get citizenship due to his fairly unique experience and position. He was not (as a result of the business activities that give him his unique experience and position) able to satisfy the usual requirements. He applied under existing rules for a grant of citizenship despite that. He was granted it by the Minister on the advice of the relevant officials.

Thiel did not turn up, write a cheque and collect citizenship.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18667 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1714497 2-Feb-2017 15:00

Geektastic:

One you get a benefit from, the other not so much. Seems perfectly logical to me.

It depends on how you value things. Money can be used in different ways, some good, some not so good. Immigrants tend to work hard and build things up. I would not be too quick to dismiss their contribution.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18667 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1714508 2-Feb-2017 15:06

Geektastic:

Thiel did not turn up, write a cheque and collect citizenship.

Why did he need citizenship, since he already had the benefits of residency? Why did the authorities feel it was justified, since he was already an investor? What was gained by it since he had no intention of living here? To me it feels like someone collecting baubles, and being allowed to because he was wealthy. I don't understand what the justification was.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7