The Inhumane Immigration Policy of our Welfare State

October 30, 2005

I read this article on Stuff the other day:

Deaf girl dies after residency challenge
23 October 2005

The parents of a deaf South African girl allegedly murdered by her father in Auckland were told by the Immigration Service the child and her deaf sister were a potential "burden on the state".

The Sunday Star-Times has learned that shortly before the girl's death, the parents received a letter from the Immigration Service indicating they might be denied New Zealand residency because the child and her deaf sister would be a drain on health services.


The Immigration Service requires immigrants to prove they or their dependents will not be a burden on health services and applicants have to answer medical questions, including whether they have hearing difficulties.


The Star-Times understands the letter to the South African couple approved the parents, but said their two daughters were potential burdens. The parents were asked to prove they would not be.

In August, a short time after the letter arrived, the father of the girls is alleged to have driven them off the side of Mt Wellington in Auckland.

The vehicle rolled more than 100m down the mountain and the oldest girl died.

The father was taken to hospital, where he was charged with murder and attempted murder.

The Star-Times understands the man was under stress from several factors, including the family's battle for permanent residency.

But an immigration source denied they were being unfairly treated. The man, a sales representative, has no family in New Zealand but his wife's parents live here. His wife is sticking by him.

Supporters said he had been dedicated to the children.


The principal of the school the girls were attending said they were legally enrolled almost two years ago. Their parents had to show they had a work permit. They also had approval from the Secretary for Education for the children to be enrolled in the school. "My view is that they are parents who cared deeply about their kids. They were valued members of the school community," the principal said.


The government last year announced stricter health screening requirements for immigrants, including medical examinations and an assessment of likely special education costs.


Thompson said the Immigration Service considered every case.

"Included in this assessment are the costs of surgery, ongoing medication needs and the cost of health equipment and resources," she said.

"We do not make residency decisions lightly. We look at each applicant on a case by case basis and weigh up the different and often complex aspects involved."


I was incredibly angry about this, but being of South African extraction myself, I didn't say anything at the time, as people might think that I was not objective enough to comment.

And then today I saw this:

Singing star quits NZ in immigration protest
30 October 2005

A fourth generation Kiwi has renounced her citizenship after a year-long battle with the Immigration Service over getting residency for her husband of 32 years.

Mari McGuire says she is ashamed to be a Kiwi.

McGuire's husband, American folk singing star Barry McGuire, has been refused permanent residency because the service says his age - 70 - and heart condition would make him a burden on the health system. McGuire, who had a US No 1 hit in 1965 with the anti-war song Eve of Destruction, has a pacemaker.

The couple's $1 million-plus home - built on the Whangaparaoa Peninsula north of Auckland 18 months ago - goes up for auction today. They will return to California.


McGuire, whose two adult children have New Zealand citizenship, said he felt for the South African family.

"What they (immigration) are doing is playing games with people's lives. Why didn't they tell the family before they got here they might not be able to stay? They don't give a fig about people, it's all politics and money."

McGuire has been a permanent resident in New Zealand before - he and Mari lived here for six years in the 1980s. He says his pacemaker corrects a faulty nerve and his heart is otherwise in good shape.

"They (the government) are quite happy to tax my worldwide income, including royalties from 40 years ago, but they don't want me to have access to the health system.

"I'm certainly not going to be a financial burden on this country. I've poured a ton of finances into this country and I've contributed a lot."


In last week's text poll, "should disabled people be barred from immigrating to NZ", 59.5 per cent said yes, 40.5 per cent no.


Doesn't that just make you sick? Isn't it incredibly inhumane how the socialists treat people like cattle - as a cost-benefit calculation?

You might ask yourself at this stage, is a libertarian actually proposing that we should open the floodgates to all and sundry to come and bludge of the welfare state? Has hell frozen over? Simply, no.

Look at this immigration policy:

Libertarianz will have no truck with the racist xenophobia against refugees and immigrants touted by other political parties. We will accept any refugee whom anybody wishes to sponsor and run a completely open immigration policy subject only to a requirement that immigrants waive any claim to remaining elements of the welfare state.


So, to hell with that poll that "disabled people be barred from immigrating to NZ". That question is based on the implicit assumption that once a resident, you are automatically entitled to the welfare system. There, my friends, is the real problem.

When, in either of these cases, and in fact, any of the thousands of other cases of potentially hugely valuable immigrants, were people given the choice to opt out of the welfare system? Never. Even if you are a millionaire and would sign a document waiving any claims to the health system, you would not be allowed residency. Where the hell is the logic in that? Is that fair? Is that humane?

No! Goddamnit! I get so pissed off with socialists who think they are caring and humane, but whose policies actually end up destroying so many lives.

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive... those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
-- C. S. Lewis

So, here is my proposal to make our immigration humane: Open the gates. As long as people are not criminals, and as long as they sign away any claim to the welfare system, let them in. A return airfare is required, and any violation of our laws within some set period - say 5 years, means instant deportation. Simple. Fair. Humane.

Think about it.

P.S. You might start thinking that it is not fair to tax these productive immigrants for services which they can never use. You're right. It's not. I'll leave that problem as an exercise for the reader.


RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is:

  1. Andrew Bates says:
    October 30, 2005 @ 19:41 — Reply

    Ayn Rand pointed out that (laissez faire) capitalism breeds good will since people only see others as people they can interact with solely to their benefit while Socialism breeds misanthropy as people see each other and wonder what benefit the other will be getting from the state at their expense.

    The reason they won't do what you suggest is that people would complain that they shouldn't be forced to pay tax for services they won't use. The government couldn't exempt them from paying that proportion of their taxes that paid for welfare as we would all want to be reclassified as immigrants.

  2. Rick says:
    November 5, 2005 @ 06:01 — Reply

    Yeah, we've already got several classes of citizen more than we need without adding more. But keep on thinking.

Leave a Comment

Sorry, Comments have been disabled for this post