Saturday, October 27, 2007

Immigration policy: NZ v USA




An interesting 'compare and contrast' can be considered with these two cases concerning immigration policy.
On the left we have the infamous Algerian terror suspect Ahmed Zauoi who, after a multi-million dollar immigration case, funded by legal aid, now has his family in New Zealand.
The NZ Herald has the heartwarming reunion story and photos .Immigration Minister David Cunliffe says he is pleased the family are finally reunited. However, as NZ First note, there was never ever anything stopping Zaoui from heading back to Malaysia to be with his family.
And this week we saw Dear Leader try to save the life of a Saudi criminal, but the Saudis took no notice anyway and the beheading still occurred.
All this has happened while Kiwi blogger Rick Giles, pictured right, has been languishing in a US jail for a month for overstaying in the USA by accident for a few days.
Rick was actually trying to leave the US for Canada but had to make the crossing by bus as pedestrian border crossings are not allowed. Thus, he asked a policeman for direction to the bus station, and that led to his arrest. As if a known overstayer would approach a policeman!
So there we have it. New Zealand welcomes and funds terror suspects and their families. The prime minister 'personally intervenes' to try and save the lives of foreign criminals.
Meanwhile, her own countrymen languish in jail in friendly countries.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade may be doing all they can behind the scenes, but Rick still remains in prison. And, yes, the USA will bang you away for a month, should you stay in their country a few days too long. I wonder how they might have handled Ahmed Zaoui?

12 comments:

Psycho Milt said...

"I wonder how they might have handled Ahmed Zaoui?"

Perhaps they might have detained him without trial and left him in solitary confinement for a year? Oh, wait, hang on a minute - that was us, wasn't it. Are you really sure you'd like Rick Giles to get similarly "soft" treatment?

KG said...

"I wonder how they might have handled Ahmed Zaoui?"
Perhaps they'd have applied a swift boot to his ass and sent him back to Malaysia.
And PM, he could have ended his imprisonment any time he chose, by leaving.
Instead, more dollars have been ripped from working Kiwis to pay for his anti-American lawyer (you know, the one who was "overjoyed" at the sight of 3000 people being murdered)and the NZ media have done their best to paint him as just another kind, loving family man.
Why the hell should we have to foot the bill for the lot of 'em?

mawm said...

You don't mess with the American immigration. They will mess you over twice as bad.


So having paid for Zaoui's cort battles, I suppose we will now pay to 'resettle' his family - which will of course require the help of a tax-payer funded lawyer.

Psycho Milt said...

"...he could have ended his imprisonment any time he chose, by leaving."

This is true of any refugee. Perhaps the UK and US should have stuck all those German Jews in solitary til they decided to go home - could have saved the taxpayer big bucks...

"Instead, more dollars have been ripped from working Kiwis to pay for his anti-American lawyer..."

Yes, when the govt tries to weasel out of its treaty obligations it can get expensive for the taxpayer. I suppose the solution of Not Trying To Weasel Out Of Our Obligations didn't occur to anyone?

On a different but perhaps related topic, why does his lawyer rate the adjective "anti-American?" Would it be worth mentioning an anti-Arab lawyer? An anti-Communist lawyer? (No shortage of those!) What about an oddly-dressed lawyer? A jovial lawyer? An ill-tempered lawyer? Are we supposed to decide who gets legal aid funding based on personality quirks?

KG said...

"Perhaps the UK and US should have stuck all those German Jews in solitary til they decided to go home - could have saved the taxpayer big bucks..."
Is a dishonest comparison.
There was never any suggestion that the German Jews given refuge may have wanted to destroy their host country.
"Yes, when the govt tries to weasel out of its treaty obligations it can get expensive for the taxpayer."
Were New Zealanders asked if they wanted to sign up to the various U.N. treaties?
I don't have any obligation to fund queue-jumpers disguised as refugees.
His lawyer rates the "anti American" description because it's accurate and has some bearing on this case. Bleeding-heart lefty lawyers and anti-American lawyers (redundancy alert) will fall over themselves to take "refugee' cases because as well as leeching off the public tit it has the added bonus of striking a blow against the efforts to contain islamic terrorism.
You feel a nice warm inner glow when a queue-jumper scams his way to aslylum and brings in the family?
Then you bloody pay for it and leave my hard-earned money alone.

dad4justice said...

PM "Are we supposed to decide who gets legal aid funding based on personality quirks?"

The Justice system is so politically controlled and driven you might as well get a Lairbour MP to represent you in Court. I mean to say , Clark and her incoherent criminal colleagues continually break the law without any accountability or consequences.

I wonder how long we will have to wait before this Ahmad Zawee chap is facing the Courts on bomb making charges ? Bang , bang DebrOH Man, legal aid bush pig licky lacka parasitic communist !

Psycho Milt said...

Given the constantly aggressive, embittered and delusional nature of your posts Dad4justice, my money would be on you appearing before the courts on bomb-making charges way ahead of Ahmed Zaoui.

Not a dishonest comparison, KG - the US and UK had good reason to expect those Jewish refugees included commos, criminals and German spies. We took them in despite that because their lives were in danger back home. Are you seeing a parallel yet?

I'm sure it would be very nice if the govt was able to ask everyone's permission before it signed anything, but even if it had asked in this particular case: what kind of mean-assed, bitter and twisted motherfucker would have refused to sign the UN Convention on Refugees? Couldn't we deport them to Malaysia?

This "Lefty = anti-American = Likes-Terrorists" equivalence fantasy is such a free shot I'd be embarrassed to take it. I'll let that one go.

KG said...

"This "Lefty = anti-American = Likes-Terrorists" equivalence fantasy is such a free shot I'd be embarrassed to take it. I'll let that one go."
You'd be well advised to, since there's a huge amount of evidence to support it.
"the US and UK had good reason to expect those Jewish refugees included commos, criminals and German spies."
Undoubtedly there would have been a few such among them.
But their potential to damage the societies which gave them shelter was far less than a modern jihadist offers. And the laws, legal systems and social structures made it far easier to identify and prosecute them.
The Jewish populations of any country are overwhelmingly law-abiding and an asset to their societies. The same can't be said for the muslim populations of Western countries--they're little more than incubators for radicalism and anti-Western activists.
When was the last time a synagogue was exposed as a haven for hate-sermons directed at the host country? Or a repository for explosives? When was the last time a Jewish bookshop was found to be selling anti-Western literature which advocated murder?
I could expand that list into a full post and still not cover all the ways muslim immigrants and refugees threaten our societies and still the multiculti idiots refuse to see what's happening.
The doctors who tried to blow up an airport terminal in the U.K. weren't Presbyterians or Catholics yet multiculturalists and lefty bleeding-hearts still speak of "moderate" muslims. Those docs were fine professional moderate muslim immigrants right up until the moment the bombs went off.
There's nothing heartless about refusing to import people who are adherants of a proven, murderous ideology. It's commonsense and simple self-preservationWhat you dress up as humanity and compassion is a protracted act of suicide.

Psycho Milt said...

I'm more than happy to let the above comment from KG speak for itself.

KG said...

I bet you are. :-)

Mondo Rock said...

I wonder if KG would be honest enough to simply admit that, in his view, there is no such thing as a moderate muslim. That it is perfectly reasonable to treat ALL muslims as potential terrorists.

That is, after all, the point he is clearly trying to make with his "respectable doctors right up until the bombs went off" example above. You can't trust any muslims you see - even the educated ones turn out to be terrorists.

Come on KG - why not just say it? Stop dancing around the issue like a coward and simply admit that you think all Muslims are potential terrorists.

KG said...

Mondo, even for a despicable lefty troll it's a bit rich to accuse someone of cowardice before giving them the opportunity to reply to the question.
I've made my views on muslims very plain.
The Koran leaves no room at all for interpretation or doubt when it comes to the duty of muslims to wage war against the infidels, to either convert them or kill them. Infidels may live under sharia law as dhimmis or slaves but not as free men and women.
The duty of every muslim is to work towards the establishment of the caliohate, worldwide muslim rule.
Therefore it follows that any devout muslim must be an enemy of Western civilisation, since muslims claim that the koran is the revealed, unalterable word of god and may not be interpreted or altered by any individual.
So to answer your question--I believe that to assume any muslim isn't hostile to Western values is to hold an irrational belief that flies in the face of the evidence.