Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: "Parent visa scheme attacked for only benefiting well-off"

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    West Auckland
    Posts
    1,029

    Default "Parent visa scheme attacked for only benefiting well-off"

    "The government's reinstating of the parent visa category for migrants has been criticised for only catering to the rich...."
    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political...iting-well-off

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/a...ectid=12274262
    Last edited by Oregonkiwi; 7th October 2019 at 09:53 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    37,843

    Default

    They shouldn't be surprised it's being criticized. Do they think it's only the rich who have feelings?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    20

    Default

    Immigration policies worldwide are for the most part, nasty, elitist and racist.
    Typically they are motivated by financial considerations and maintaining desired demographic/ethnic ratios.
    Dont forget immigration policies worldwide have a significant element of eugenic considerations in play too.

    Small refugee quotas may warm some hearts but it's a drop in the ocean really.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    NZ
    Posts
    51

    Default

    Aidan,

    immigration policies for most of the western world are not elitist nor racist, nor for maintaining ethnic ratios, or eugenics. simply not true. The vast majority of immigration to western nations is not from western/european nations, western nations are rapidly becoming less and less european, ethnically.

    The days of immigration policies to keep populations white, such as the old white australia policies, are long gone.

    Today, immigration policies of western nations is purely economically motivated. Western nations need to maintain steady population growth to keep economies growing and stable, and they want well educated people, who earn a lot of money, who will in turn pay a lot of taxes, to benefit the nation.

    Bringing in elderly immigrants who pay no tax and consume a lot of public resources (namely medical resources) is not in the interest of the host nation. elderly people require a lot of expensive, publicly funded healthcare. If you do the math on an immigrant family, with 2 elderly parents who pay no tax, and one or two middle income earners who dont pay that much tax, the math doesnt add up. The government and people of new zealand end up subsidizing that family. And in such a circumstance, the nation of new zealand does not benefit economically from that family. Which is why, now, policy has shifted for parents to only join high income individuals, who essentially shoulder the entire tax burden of the tax demand of that family unit.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Christchurch, New Zealand
    Posts
    208

    Default

    The immigration policies of any country are designed solely to benefit the country, not the immigrants. Governments are just not that altruistic. Why does anyone expect anything else?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    37,843

    Default

    2 elderly parents who pay no tax
    Under the former Tier 1 NZ regulations for child-sponsored parent residence, parents had to show that they had an income for their lifetime. That would be taxed.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    new zealand
    Posts
    170

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dragstrut View Post
    The days of immigration policies to keep populations white, such as the old white australia policies, are long gone.
    I had to laugh at this! Racist immigration policies in Western countries, ESPECIALLY Australia, are alive and well.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    284

    Default

    @MagicPizza what Australian immigration policy is racist? Just researching if ever this NZ SMC thing will not have a good outcome

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    new zealand
    Posts
    170

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by allune View Post
    @MagicPizza what Australian immigration policy is racist? Just researching if ever this NZ SMC thing will not have a good outcome
    Their decades of cruel and unusual treatment of refugees from Asian and Middle Eastern countries.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    217

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dragstrut View Post
    Bringing in elderly immigrants who pay no tax and consume a lot of public resources (namely medical resources) is not in the interest of the host nation. elderly people require a lot of expensive, publicly funded healthcare. If you do the math on an immigrant family, with 2 elderly parents who pay no tax, and one or two middle income earners who dont pay that much tax, the math doesnt add up. The government and people of new zealand end up subsidizing that family. And in such a circumstance, the nation of new zealand does not benefit economically from that family. Which is why, now, policy has shifted for parents to only join high income individuals, who essentially shoulder the entire tax burden of the tax demand of that family unit.
    We would have preferred a long term multiple entry visa without medical benefits. Government could have imposed mandatory medical insurance. US, Canada or even Australia now has long term visa. See this- https://www.sbs.com.au/language/engl...ed-parent-visa.

    That all immigrants wants residency for their parents is itself a fallacy. When was the last time we had statistics on actual cost borned by the country for medical care of immigrants parents? Our parents are much happier living back in their home country, closely with other kids, relatives and community. They feel isolated here and live only when they don't have any option, such as single child. Government could have used sibling test for this in case of residency application. What they prefer is a long term multiple entry visa, so that they can come and see their kids whenever needed. The Gov. currently have a long term visa, but that is limited to 18 months stay in 3 years. They could have just worked towards increasing the period.

    What we clearly lacked is a wide and open discussion on these topics.

    Thanks,
    Saumya

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •