Just starting a bit of a random topic here, specifically about special directions. And its nothing personal, i dont need one and i dont know anyone who does.
Firstly im curious as to whether someone who has previously been refused entry at a port of entry is considered to have a 'serious character issue'. It says previous 'removals' in the instruction manual for INZ is classed as a serious character issue and i know some countries consider refusal of entry at the border to be a 'removal'.
Now this would be kind of silly if someone who say, 20 years ago had gone for a holiday at a visa on arrival country but had lets say, had insufficient funds for their stay or just no proof, and then been returned home. They would then be classed as having a serious character issue and require a special direction from the ministry of immigration!?
Secondly, i heard recently of an important figure in the Islamic community of Australia who intended to visit NZ for the funerals of the ChCh victims. However due to his prior public anti homosexual comments, Denmark had decided to exclude him from the country. This resulted in him being labelled as having a serious character issue by INZ and he required a special direction for a visitor visa, which he got. Kind of silly that our immigration decisions are based on the whims of foreign governments.
I know anecdotally of a Singaporean citizen who was deported from Indonesia due to public consumption of alcohol during Ramadan, not behaving disorderly or anything, just drinks with a meal, the police were called and they argued over the legality of it, the police then called immigration and the man was forcibly returned home. This man would then require a special direction to enter NZ. And ive heard plenty of cases of people being removed from a country for : Blasphemy, participation in protests, expressing freedom of speech, insulting head of state, crimes of conscience etc. All these people would require a special direction to enter NZ. Absurd.
People are also excluded from nations which they have never even visited for expressing their political, religious and moral beliefs publicly too. Again requires special direction.
Why haven't immigration officers been given more discretion in legislation around granting people visas for these trivial issues? Or is the immigration act 2009 just a very poorly written piece of legislation excessively influenced by NZ first 2006-2008?
Thirdly, my concern is that the power for granting special directions lies with the ministry of immigration. Currently minister Iain Lees-Galloway and associate minister Kris Faafoi. Prior to becoming a career politician Mr Lees Galloway worked for the New Zealand Nurses Organisation as an organiser and subsequently publicity coordinator. Mr Faafoi was a journalist.
Now im not convinced these are the people that can be trusted with making critical decisions about peoples lives and welfare.
I would much prefer if special directions were dealt with by the judiciary/immigration & protection tribunal. So a person who is otherwise ineligible for a visa can pay a substantial application fee, present a case before a judge or panel of judges, demonstrate how they are not a threat to New Zealand and the judges can make a decision accordingly on whether to direct that INZ should grant a visa. Taking the political factor out of these decisions, particularly where those making the decisions arent exactly qualified to do so, seems far more preferable to me.
Heres a good hypothetical example of the absurdity of the character requirements in NZ:
Ms A, a US citizen was in Turkey on a visa on arrival, she participated in protests in Istanbul against the administration in Ankara, peacefully and in accordance with fundamental human rights. However she was detained by police in a crackdown by law enforcement and subsequently handed over to immigration who removed her from the country with a lifetime re entry ban. Now Ms A has a 'serious character issue' according to INZ and can only enter NZ if she obtains a special direction from the ministry.
Mr B, a UK citizen was convicted of aggravated robbery 15 years ago and sentenced to 4 years imprisonment. He has only a 'character issue', an immigration officer in this case has the discretion to grant a temporary entry visa with a character waiver.
I also notice having convictions related to immigration offences is not considered a 'serious character issue', just a 'character issue', as long as you weren't deported for them. However Mr C from Australia who made some public and rather unfortunate remarks about the Thai king whilst holidaying in Thailand and subsequently removed & excluded is considered to have 'serious character issue' and yes, needs that special direction.