It really annoys me when the racism card is pulled. In this case, the card was pulled by a refugee who was welcomed into New Zealand and given a home. What he has called a racist policy is nothing of the sort. Calling the policy racist is a lazy way to try to shut down a discussion of the facts of the case.
So what are the facts about this “racist policy”?
Fact one:
There is a ‘family link’ restriction imposed on refugees from Africa and the Middle East that is not imposed on refugees from other areas.
The policy was introduced in 2009 and it requires refugees coming from the Middle East or Africa to have an existing family connection to New Zealand.
While some refugees from the Middle East have been brought in under emergency intakes, including those from Syria, the overall intake from the two regions, particularly Africa, has been heavily affected by the policy.
newsroom.co.nz/2019/08/21/764750/campaign-to-scrap-discriminatory-refugee-restrictions
Fact two:
New Zealand’s refugee quota takes more refugees from the Asia Pacific region and the Americas.
Fact three:
In practice, refugees from the Africa and Middle East regions who are already here in New Zealand have the same opportunity to reunify with family members as all other quota refugees.
Fact four:
There were three main reasons for the implementation of the policy.
- The cost savings as it is cheaper to settle refugees coming from the Asia Pacific region.
- “The political appetite to help regional partners like Australia in taking refugees from Asia Pacific and the Americas.”
- Most significantly: security concerns
The counter-argument to these facts (if you can call it an argument) from Muslim activist Guled Mire was an emotional one.
- He said that the policy was put in place to stop people like himself from coming to New Zealand. (Yet here he is, in New Zealand exercising his freedom of speech and calling the system that granted him a home racist.)
- He said, “It was never done with our best intentions at heart. We know that”. (I would have thought that security concerns are there to protect ALL New Zealanders including him)
- In response to the security concerns argument, he said, “That thinking and logic led to March 15”. (So acting to protect NZ from terrorism led to terrorism? Really?)
What I am seeing is an activist trying to make New Zealanders feel guilty and racist for having policies in place to try to protect us from terrorism. I refuse to accept the racist card or to feel any guilt whatsoever. The fact is that some countries present more of a risk to New Zealand than others. It is not because of race, it is because of ideology and terrorism.
I can understand that selfishly Guled Mire wants as many people from his home country in New Zealand as possible. We can all understand that desire, but our immigration policies and refugee policies are not there for the refugees, they are there for us. We do not owe refugees anything. They owe us. Refugees do not get to dictate who we welcome to New Zealand, we do. Safety must come first, and the facts are that Africa and the Middle East have way more “security concerns” than Asia Pacific and the Americas.
New Zealand is a small country. We need to be picky. If we import the third world willy nilly we will become the third world.
