The UN responsible for changing New Zealand’s immigration policy

A politically correct opinion piece on Islamic immigration to New Zealand in The Dominion Post got lots of comments.?Interestingly despite the politically correct stance taken by the writer the majority of commenters disagreed with what he said. It made me realise that Whaleoil readers are not the only New Zealanders who can see what folly it is to import a culture, religion and political ideology so at odds with everything we hold dear. We are not the only New Zealanders who have observed what happens in other Western countries when they import an ideology that thinks homosexuals should be killed, that women are second class and that want to spread their laws and values to New Zealand rather than assimilate to our laws and values.

The article interested me because it inadvertently explained that we had a sensible immigration policy until the United Nations put pressure on our government. Believe it or not, our governments all had sensible immigration policies until the United Nations opened New Zealand up to Muslim immigration.

…Discrimination on the basis of ethnicity and religion characterised New Zealand’s immigration and refugee policy until the late 1980s. The country wanted British immigrants. Small numbers of refugees from the Middle East began arriving in New Zealand from the late 1970s, comprising people of Baha’i and Christian backgrounds.

He says discrimination as if it is a bad thing. I am discriminating when it comes to food. I don’t eat any old muck. Discrimination should not be always seen as a negative word. We used to be discriminating when it came to who we selected to move into our country. We selected people based on their compatibility with our values and culture. People that would fit in well. People from the middle east with compatible values and religions were a good fit as were British immigrants since the majority of our population were descended from British immigrants.

The admission of Muslim refugees remained controversial. In response to pressure from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to resettle Iranian refugees in 1985, New Zealand said that it wasn’t prepared to accept any Iranian refugees other than those of the Baha’i faith. In the mid 1980s, churches and groups (such as Islamic Associations) approached the New Zealand government to accept refugees from Afghanistan.

Why is it that our government told the UN to get knotted back then but bends over and accepts whatever the UN pushes now?

New Zealand was unwilling to accept more than a very small number largely due to the perception that the refugees, who were “devout” Muslims from rural often nomadic backgrounds, would have difficulty fitting in.

It wasn’t a perception it was fact. It had nothing to do with race and everything to do with a culture at odds with our own and values at odds with our own.

The 1987 Immigration Act reflected a major policy shift. It ushered in the selection of immigrants on the basis of their skills and qualifications rather than their ethnicity and religion. New Zealand’s refugee quota of 800 (later reduced to 750) was set up at this time.

According to some people involved in refugee resettlement at that time, the issue was not religious bias against the Muslim faith but ease of settlement in the community. If the cultural differences were too large, the community wouldn’t cope. If the community couldn’t accept the refugees, their chances of having good settlement outcomes were poor.

What about the refugees being unable to fit in because the divide between their culture and values and ours was too large for them? Do you blame a vegetarian society if meat eaters are unable to cope inside their society? Putting Muslims inside a secular and Christian society was never going to be a good idea. Muslim countries don’t take in Jews or Christian refugees for that very reason. They don’t even take in Muslim refugees if their sect is different to their own. Sunni won’t take in Shia and vice versa.

…”I don’t want people coming who repudiate our key values,” leader of the National Party Don Brash was reported to say in 2006, identifying these as religious and personal freedom and sexual equality. Brash was reluctant to be explicit about who he wanted to keep out of the country, but was reported to say: “Some Muslims believe strongly in the establishment of an Islamic State and that’s not consistent with bed-rock values.”

… In his view, ideal migrants were British, Australians and others “who fit in very well in New Zealand”.

Another critic of government policy was Winston Peters, Minister of Foreign Affairs in Helen Clark’s administration. He said that New Zealand’s policy did not deal adequately with immigration from “high risk” countries. An auditor-general’s report in 2007 had also highlighted the “fragility” of the immigration system, focusing on the inability of officials to detect fake identities and fraud.

– The Dominion Post