According to an article by RNZ, the UN should be dictating our immigration policy, but to our government’s credit, they ignored the United Nations directive to increase African refugees showing that in this case at least, the UN is not yet in charge of our immigration policies.
Cabinet papers show the government rejected UN recommendations on increased shares of refugees New Zealand takes from Africa and the Middle East.
[…] the Cabinet and ministerial papers show the government rejected UNHCR and MBIE recommendations to take more refugees from Africa and the Middle East and fewer from areas with lower refugee numbers, such as South America and the Asia Pacific.
UNHCR had asked for the proportion of African refugees to rise to a quarter and those from the Middle East to increase to 35 percent to rehome refugees from Syria, Iraq, South Sudan, Somalia, Congo and Eritrea. MBIE officials recommended that option, saying it best reflected the humanitarian intent of the Refugee Quota programme.
But the immigration minister recommended to Cabinet a lower limit of 20 percent each for those regions. The Cabinet settled on its own proportions: 15 percent each, 1 percent more than the proportion since 2010.
That left the Asia-Pacific – which UNHCR estimates accounts for 8 percent of the world’s refugees – with half the quota total. The Americas, which has less than 1 percent of the world’s refugees, makes up a fifth of the quota.
[…] Immigration Minister Iain Lees-Galloway, who announced the increase from 14 to 15 percent, said it was to “maintain the focus on the Asia-Pacific region to demonstrate regional responsibility sharing”.
Good on him. Why should New Zealand take on refugees from countries which are located far from us and which are best suited culturally and religiously to other countries? The most wealthy Islamic countries are the ones currently doing nothing to help the world’s Muslim refugees. Why is the United Nations not knocking on their doors demanding that they do their part? If New Zealand is to help anyone it should be those closest to us geographically and who are most likely to be able to successfully assimilate and integrate into our society.
The papers show MFAT warned that old geographical and other criteria had reputational risks.
“It considers there is a risk that New Zealand could be perceived as less welcoming of refugees from the Middle East and Africa regions, which would be inconsistent with New Zealand’s response to the Christchurch mosques terror attack and recent international political commitments New Zealand has made with respect to refugees and international responsibility-sharing.”
Unbelievable! They are seriously suggesting that government policy should be based not on what is best for New Zealand, but on how it might look to the rest of the world? That is high school level decision making!
That was echoed by other officials who said New Zealand risked bad publicity because international media outlets were intending to publish articles if changes were not made.
Do you know what makes a country look bad? Being the rape capital of the world makes a country look bad (ask Sweden). Having terror attacks makes a country look bad (ask Australia). Having acid attacks and stabbing as a new normal in your capital city makes a country look bad (ask the UK).
New Zealand shouldn’t have signed the UN Migration Pact, but credit where credit is due; at least in this instance the CoL cabinet saw sense. I wonder which ministers refused to follow UN directions?
