The government has introduced the Immigration (Enhanced Risk Management) Amendment Bill to Parliament, proposing a series of immigration law changes aimed at strengthening risk management, widening deportation powers, and tightening oversight of refugee and asylum claims.
Immigration Minister Erica Stanford said the bill would extend the period during which migrants can be made liable for deportation for serious offending from 10 years of residence to 20 years, while also giving immigration authorities greater ability to address migrant exploitation, criminal offending, and immigration breaches.
A related parliamentary paper proposes further changes to asylum settings, including allowing Immigration New Zealand to consider serious criminal convictions committed in New Zealand before refugee status is determined, aligning this with existing treatment of serious crimes committed overseas under the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.
Officials say 14 current refugee claims involve applicants convicted of offences in New Zealand, including murder, serious sexual offending, drug crimes, and arson. Additional measures would target asylum claims made in bad faith, including cases involving deliberate political activity or media exposure intended to strengthen refugee claims, and provide stronger responses when claimants fail to attend biometric appointments. The bill is expected to receive its first reading in the coming weeks before progressing through the full parliamentary process.
“Additional measures would target asylum claims made in bad faith, including cases involving deliberate political activity or media exposure intended to strengthen refugee claims…”
Hmmmm whilst I like much of what I’m hearing generally speaking, what does this mean exactly? Anyone who’s been an activist, for example may be declined? This needs substantial clarification. Rejecting people because they have political opinions, is dangerous territory and smacks of yet more censorship.
Sounds more like a seeker attempting to use exposure in the public domain & or social media to force allowane. The case of Ackmed Zowie is a perfect example.He put his passport in the airline toilet & sought asylum meanwhile using high profile bleeding heart libtards campaign on his behalf
Maybe but it would be good to have clarity. We don’t just want yes men and women who do the globalists bidding, no matter how unsavory. Importing people like that is a classic tactic, with marked historical precedents.
Excellent! 👍
the most worrying phrase: “…and provide stronger responses when claimants fail to attend biometric appointments.”
Biometric appointments.
They came for the biometrics of the immigrants. I didn’t object because I’m not an immigrant.
Then they came for my biometrics. There was no one left to object.