Strange Immigration Decision

Forums › Off topic › Strange Immigration Decision

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

5833 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1639

Trusted

Subscriber

#1507919 8-Mar-2016 09:30

surfisup1000:

The thing is, the au pair arrangement was established legally in Australia... families are mobile and take holidays. Requiring work visas for au pairs is small minded in my view as this is hardly displacing new zealand workers.

I think this is more a case of bullying than upholding NZ law.

Thinking more broadly, any such rules would have to apply to any country. If you treat one country differently to another, that raises thorny issues as well.

But even more generally - for example - let's say some tourists start arriving with 19yo 'au pairs' who then spend a week or three working in a brothel while the family is "on holiday". Maybe that's already happening. Maybe that is what is behind this. It could just as easily be a cover story for human trafficking. Customs are on to single young women arriving for this purpose.....and we see on TV how many are sent back (rightly or wrongly).

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

Batman

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1507920 8-Mar-2016 09:31

MikeB4:
I find it intriguing, I could probably pull hundreds of threads where folks are saying media sites lite NZH, Stuff etc etc are rubbish, the reporters are rubbish and the stories are wrong. However if the story is anti officialdom then it is correct, intriguing

Nobody here is anti officialdom.
Unlike some people, most people break laws. All the time.
Because some laws are more like, guidelines. Especially bringing nannies along on holidays. Or bringing a work laptop on holidays.

Linuxluver

5833 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1639

Trusted

Subscriber

#1507922 8-Mar-2016 09:33

joker97:

Nobody here is anti officialdom.

....

Almost nobody. (Not looking at anyone in particular....) ;-)

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

SaltyNZ

8866 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9545

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#1507926 8-Mar-2016 09:40

Linuxluver:

joker97:

Nobody here is anti officialdom.

....

Almost nobody. (Not looking at anyone in particular....) ;-)

As Scott Adams once said, "I'm not anti-management, I'm anti-idiot." Just because something is against the law doesn't mean that it's wrong. Just because something is allowed by the law, doesn't mean that it's right. There are bad laws, and there are good laws. There are bad officials, and there are officials who haven't been officials long enough to become bad officials.

This decision, even if it was technically correct,* was a dumb one. It's not often I agree with the PM!

*The best kind of correct. Especially if you're a narrow-minded bureaucrat.

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

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

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1507929 8-Mar-2016 09:44

SaltyNZ:

Linuxluver:

joker97:

Nobody here is anti officialdom.

....

Almost nobody. (Not looking at anyone in particular....) ;-)

As Scott Adams once said, "I'm not anti-management, I'm anti-idiot." Just because something is against the law doesn't mean that it's wrong. Just because something is allowed by the law, doesn't mean that it's right. There are bad laws, and there are good laws. There are bad officials, and there are officials who haven't been officials long enough to become bad officials.

This decision, even if it was technically correct,* was a dumb one. It's not often I agree with the PM!

*The best kind of correct. Especially if you're a narrow-minded bureaucrat.

So the PM thinks the law is wrong, hmm now who is that has the power to change that? The the poor sod earning his living as an Immigration Officer or the poor sod earning his living or part there of in the Beehive.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

SaltyNZ

8866 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9545

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#1507945 8-Mar-2016 10:06

MikeB4:

So the PM thinks the law is wrong, hmm now who is that has the power to change that? The the poor sod earning his living as an Immigration Officer or the poor sod earning his living or part there of in the Beehive.

We haven't got time to deal with this now, we have to change the flag! :-D

You're right - the fault in this case lies with parliament for setting it up this way. However, clearly, the law is being applied unevenly already. If, technically, it's against the law for me to answer my work phone whilst on holiday in NZ, then the law is clearly wrong because practically everyone who visits here would do so. But we don't turn them away, because we know that's ridiculous. That being the case, the official who made this decision should have applied the same logic this time.

What it comes down to is that they can't hide behind the 'we were just following the rules' defense when it is obvious on the face of it that 99% of visitors don't get turned away when they otherwise 'should' be. Because if they were just following the rules this time, then they're breaking them 99% of the time otherwise.

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

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

Lego

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

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1507952 8-Mar-2016 10:18

MikeB4:

I find it intriguing, I could probably pull hundreds of threads where folks are saying media sites lite NZH, Stuff etc etc are rubbish, the reporters are rubbish and the stories are wrong. However if the story is anti officialdom then it is correct, intriguing

Well, this one had enough truth to elicit a comment from the PM...

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1507959 8-Mar-2016 10:31

Geektastic:

MikeB4:

I find it intriguing, I could probably pull hundreds of threads where folks are saying media sites lite NZH, Stuff etc etc are rubbish, the reporters are rubbish and the stories are wrong. However if the story is anti officialdom then it is correct, intriguing

Well, this one had enough truth to elicit a comment from the PM...

politician and truth in the same sentence? now not withstanding anything to the contrary and having regard to all relevant factors and weighing up carefully the significant pro and cons, one can, in these instances be drawn to the inevitable conclusion that this on the face of it,

is to the best of ones ability to conclude with the evidence at hand an oxymoron.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Dratsab

3964 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1728

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1507961 8-Mar-2016 10:34

MikeB4:
joker97: You'll have to ask dept of immigration.

Dunedin has two inbound international flights a week. But it has a port. Presumably they share the workers.

Queenstown has an average of three inbound international flights a day. I wonder how many people are employed to staff that schedule.

So your figure was plucked from the air

If it's like Wellington there's probably one. Then again, being a small centre there may not be any. Very often what happens in Wellington is the immigration interview is conducted over the phone with an official in Christchurch. If there wasn't an immigration person present at Queenstown airport, the same over the phone process would have happened.

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2159

#1507964 8-Mar-2016 10:38

MikeB4:

So the PM thinks the law is wrong, hmm now who is that has the power to change that? The the poor sod earning his living as an Immigration Officer or the poor sod earning his living or part there of in the Beehive.

You assume the law was applied correctly here, and also that the PM is responsible for every bad law.

In my view it is the immigration department that should know about these types of injustices and recommend changes. If they don't, then who will?

You cannot expect the poorly deported to complain to the immigration minister.

Just my lay view, with respect to the inner workings of law making.

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2159

#1507969 8-Mar-2016 10:45

MikeB4:

I find it intriguing, I could probably pull hundreds of threads where folks are saying media sites lite NZH, Stuff etc etc are rubbish, the reporters are rubbish and the stories are wrong. However if the story is anti officialdom then it is correct, intriguing

Agree that affirmative bias is a real human flaw.

But look, the family gave a privacy waiver to immigration, yet immigration still declines to elaborate.

Nothing to suggest so far that this is being misreported which is not to say it hasn't, but what else can you do other than utilise the most current information?

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1507970 8-Mar-2016 10:49

surfisup1000:

MikeB4:

So the PM thinks the law is wrong, hmm now who is that has the power to change that? The the poor sod earning his living as an Immigration Officer or the poor sod earning his living or part there of in the Beehive.

You assume the law was applied correctly here, and also that the PM is responsible for every bad law.

In my view it is the immigration department that should know about these types of injustices and recommend changes. If they don't, then who will?

You cannot expect the poorly deported to complain to the immigration minister.

Just my lay view, with respect to the inner workings of law making.

There is the Statutory requirements and there is the policy requirements. The former is enacted in Parliament with Royal assent, this is black and white or should be black and white and every decision made by Immigration staff, MSD Staff, etc has to comply with and able to be assigned

the appropriate section etc of the empowering act.

Then there is official policy, this is drafted by the appropriate Department advisers and CEO and approved by the Minister and Cabinet. This must be backed by and related to the empowering act. This is the approved decision making criteria which officers must comply with.

Now some areas have discretion in certain circumstances but again that discretion is authorized under the empowering act.

Working for a statutory body is considerably different to working for say Vodafone or Harvey Normans.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1507973 8-Mar-2016 10:50

surfisup1000:

MikeB4:

I find it intriguing, I could probably pull hundreds of threads where folks are saying media sites lite NZH, Stuff etc etc are rubbish, the reporters are rubbish and the stories are wrong. However if the story is anti officialdom then it is correct, intriguing

Agree that affirmative bias is a real human flaw.

But look, the family gave a privacy waiver to immigration, yet immigration still declines to elaborate.

Nothing to suggest so far that this is being misreported which is not to say it hasn't, but what else can you do other than utilise the most current information?

They can only elaborate if they have the authority and the privacy clearance of ALL concerned not just one party.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#1507977 8-Mar-2016 11:00

surfisup1000:

MikeB4:

So the PM thinks the law is wrong, hmm now who is that has the power to change that? The the poor sod earning his living as an Immigration Officer or the poor sod earning his living or part there of in the Beehive.

You assume the law was applied correctly here, and also that the PM is responsible for every bad law.

In my view it is the immigration department that should know about these types of injustices and recommend changes. If they don't, then who will?

You assume that they haven't.

In the end, the Govt has the power to change the law, and therefore has the responsibility when the law is wrong/bad. The Govt also controls and directs the immigration department, so if the immigration department don't know about these types of injustices and/or don't recommend changes, then that's the Govt's responsibility too.

But, in my view, the whole thing could have been avoided if the au pair applied for the right type of visa. The question that should be asked is why she didn't. Did she and her employers not know the rules? If not, why not? Why wasn't this apparently important information communicated to them? Or did they willfully break the law? If so, why?

Maybe a procedural change should be made, where people coming to NZ for (I dunno) 1 week or less and intending to continue their usual work be allowed to apply for a work visa (which would normally be granted) on arrival.

Dratsab

3964 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1728

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1508011 8-Mar-2016 11:33

MikeB4: There is the Statutory requirements and there is the policy requirements. The former is enacted in Parliament with Royal assent, this is black and white or should be black and white and every decision made by Immigration staff, MSD Staff, etc has to comply with and able to be assigned

the appropriate section etc of the empowering act.

Then there is official policy, this is drafted by the appropriate Department advisers and CEO and approved by the Minister and Cabinet. This must be backed by and related to the empowering act. This is the approved decision making criteria which officers must comply with.

Now some areas have discretion in certain circumstances but again that discretion is authorized under the empowering act.

Working for a statutory body is considerably different to working for say Vodafone or Harvey Normans.

Nothing in law is black and white which is how precedents arise. Whilst I generally agree with your comments re policy, the human element also has to be factored in. Some people will do the least they have to within the policy framework, some will push it (and delight in doing so) to the nth degree.

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