ImperatorFish: Government Moves To End Boat People Crisis

Written By: - Date published: 2:28 pm, May 1st, 2012 - 24 comments
Categories: im/migration, same old national - Tags: ,

Scott at Imperator Fish has kindly given us permission to syndicate posts from his blog – the original of this post is here.

The Government has introduced into Parliament a series of amendments to the Immigration Act, in an effort to keep out illegal immigrants. 

John Key announced today that the law would be changed to put a stop to the influx of boatpeople and put an end to the massive crisis threatening to overwhelm New Zealand’s immigration system.

Officials have long been concerned about the potential threat to civilised society that illegal refugees pose.

Although no illegal refugee boats have ever reached New Zealand, the dangers posed to a nation of four and a half million people by a boatload of desperate and wretchedly poor brown people, assuming they survived the immense sea voyage here, is too dreadful for many to countenance.

Experts say that brown people often speak a language other than English, eat different foods, and engage in unusual religious practices.

It is feared that if even one refugee boat managed to somehow make it across thousands of kilometres of difficult seas, the few dozen ragged and desperate brown people that set foot on New Zealand shores would corrupt our morals, destroy our economy with their bludging, and speak all funny funny.

Medical authorities already have contingency plans in place in the event of a refugee boat landing.

Their modelling has shown that the country’s hospital system would quickly be overwhelmed in the event of a boat of brown people arriving here to make a better life, as radio talkback callers all around New Zealand went into sudden seizures, haemorrhaged, or experienced severe chest pains and panic attacks.

Medical plans to protect the population include the creation of special gated communities, and economic measures designed to encourage white people to look down in disdain at the minimum-wage immigrants serving their burgers or cleaning their office toilets.

Mr Key said that the law change was designed to make it tougher for some people to queue jump ahead of genuine applicants.

“Although it is likely that few, if any, refugee boats will ever reach New Zealand, we don’t want to be seen as a soft touch when it comes to immigration.” said Mr Key.

“This is about applying a consistent set of rules across the board. If people don’t like the rules we set down, then there are always alternatives for them. They can choose to settle in another country. Or they can do what some people do when they don’t like the law: pay us to change it.”

24 comments on “ImperatorFish: Government Moves To End Boat People Crisis ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Draco T Bastard 1
    1 May 2012 at 2:45 pm

    😆

  2. TheContrarian 2
    1 May 2012 at 2:51 pm

    Although this is very tongue and cheek, and I got a laugh out of it, the real reason I believe is to do not with the people on the boat but the criminals that trade in people smuggling. It is quite a serious issue.

    • Bill 2.1
      1 May 2012 at 3:01 pm

      What about the bastards who hem people into borders; bomb, starve or otherwise sanction the fuck out of them and then criminalise them if and when they are able to find a person who might be able to get them the fuck out of there?

      If you don’t want people smugglers then stop supporting the creation of situations that make them necessary.

      Or even better, demand open borders as many on both the right and the left (for different reasons) advocate.

      • TheContrarian 2.1.1
        1 May 2012 at 3:06 pm

        You are right, there are bastards who ‘What about the bastards who hem people into borders; bomb, starve or otherwise sanction the fuck out of them and then criminalise them if and when they are able to find a person who might be able to get them the fuck out of there?” but this is no underground railway. The people sending them on these boats care not for freeing people or for making better life’s. These are awful criminals making a buck from misery.

        I don’t know how anyone could defend people smuggling

        • Bill 2.1.1.1
          1 May 2012 at 3:46 pm

          Are there unscrupulous, heartless bastards looking to make a buck from peoples’ desperation? Absolutely! Are all people helping others flee unscrupulous, heartless bastards? Nope. But is any media going to highlight cases of people acting on humanitarian grounds? Nope. Not a chance.

          The only ‘good’ people smugglers – to use the common and very loaded phrase – lived during the 1930’s in Germany or Austria or in France in the 40’s etc. And none of them were unscrupulous bastards. Of course.

          • TheContrarian 2.1.1.1.1
            1 May 2012 at 3:50 pm

            “Are there unscrupulous, heartless bastards looking to make a buck from peoples’ desperation? Absolutely! Are all people helping others flee unscrupulous, heartless bastards? Nope”

            I wholeheartedly agree. But how do you determine whether or not the arriving boat people were smuggled by criminal gangs or not?

            I would also hazard the suggestion that those who are genuinely trying to help wouldn’t stick them on a boat and send them thousands of miles into open water from a country like Indonesia (for example).

            • Bill 2.1.1.1.1.1
              1 May 2012 at 4:19 pm

              If ‘our’ governments treated people on boats who have travelled however many miles on open oceans with respect and a bit of humanity, rather than as some form of floating scum then the influence of the gangs might diminish.

              I honestly don’t know the pro’s and con’s of an ocean journey versus a land crossing. I don’t know how many sea worthy boats make the journey that we don’t hear about. And I don’t know how many people are fleeced and then faced with boarding a floating coffin.

              But while people seeking to flee really fucked up and terrible situations are viewed as somehow ‘dodgy’ and that perception is underscrored again and again by the propaganda we get while legal barriers are put in their way, then they are going to have no option other than to escape by any means necessary…probably almost always illegally and often with massive associated risks.

              And I’d guess many are aware that they may well be fleeced and ‘dispatched’ without ever seeing a boat. Or that they might wind up on a sinking piece of shit that was never properly provisioned in the first place. That’s a mark of their utter desperation.

              You want rid of the gangs and an end to the drownings? Drop the bullshit propaganda and let these people out. It’s that simple.

              • TheContrarian …
                1 May 2012 at 4:31 pm

                “If ‘our’ governments treated people on boats who have travelled however many miles on open oceans with respect and a bit of humanity, rather than as some form of floating scum then the influence of the gangs might diminish.”

                Who are “our” governments? If you mean the NZ government I fail to see how treating the boat in any poorer or better way can diminish the influence of gangs.

                “But while people seeking to flee really fucked up and terrible situations are viewed as somehow ‘dodgy’ and that perception is underscrored again and again by the propaganda we get while legal barriers are put in their way, then they are going to have no option other than to escape by any means necessary…probably almost always illegally and often with massive associated risks.”

                This paragraph doesn’t make sense – do you mean viewed as dodgy by their own governments? Because if you mean dodgy by the NZ governments the sentence reads as if boat people are escaping NZ!

                “You want rid of the gangs and an end to the drownings? Drop the bullshit propaganda and let these people out. It’s that simple.”

                Let these people out of where? Who isn’t letting them out?

                • Bill …
                  1 May 2012 at 4:37 pm

                  That’s the most abyssmal of non-responses.

                  • TheContrarian …
                    1 May 2012 at 4:43 pm

                    Non-responses? You made a conflicting statements that made very little sense and I asked you to clarify a few things to which you call a non-response.

                    OK…sure. Whatever.

  3. Colonial Viper 3
    1 May 2012 at 2:56 pm

    A “massive crisis” threatening NZ yet no illegal refugee boats have ever made it here.

    Yes this is more controlling, fear mongering bullshit from Wellington.

  4. Campbell Larsen 4
    1 May 2012 at 3:25 pm

    Now that we have established that all those that travel by boat are criminals and terrorists it shouldn’t take long to eliminate them – the solution is obvious, we must destroy all boats – there is clearly a causative effect at work here.

    • Te Reo Putake 4.1
      1 May 2012 at 3:31 pm

      Au contraire, Campbell. It’s not the boats that are the problem, clearly the common link is the sea. If we just polluted our oceans and made them as unpleasant to live in or sail on as soon as possible, then the problem would go away. Luckily, BP are already way ahead of us and have already solved the boat people problem in Texas. Gisborne’s next!

      • DJL 4.1.1
        1 May 2012 at 4:42 pm

        Or we could make the wages and living conditions worse here than where they are fleeing from..wait a sec the nacts are already onto that.

  5. Janice 5
    1 May 2012 at 3:51 pm

    This bill was publicised as a distraction from Shonkey supporting Banksie.

  6. bad12 6
    1 May 2012 at 4:02 pm

    Yes how dare those naughty boat people pay good money to people smugglers to convey them from one country to another,

    Don’t those naughty people know that they are supposed to pay a previous Minister of Immigration an exorbitant fee to arrange for them to be allowed to enter the country after having payed an even larger fee to the Government to be allowed to enter…

  7. Carol 7
    1 May 2012 at 4:32 pm

    If people could freely immigrate, then governments in wealthier countries today would be less inclined to stay wealthy by exploiting poorer countries. Countries around the globe would behave more responsibly and work for more equality across countries. International aid wouldn’t be organised with strings attached that promoted the business and economic interests of the donor countries.

    It’s totally wrong that the wealthy can buy residency in countries of their choice, while the poor are restricted to live in the ghettos they were born into.

    Once anyone could move freely across geographic regions….. then along came capitalism.

    • TheContrarian 7.1
      1 May 2012 at 4:37 pm

      “Once anyone could move freely across geographic regions….. then along came capitalism.”

      That is really reaching. In communist states there was no freedom of movement for example.
      Also, but this is going from memory, there have been many examples in history of freedom of movement being restricted by nationality and religion.

  8. Kiwi Pete 8
    1 May 2012 at 10:04 pm

    This non-issue is a complete smokescreen to divert attention away from the heat the govt is feeling over the Banks and ACC issues.

    • Campbell Larsen 8.1
      1 May 2012 at 11:17 pm

      Smokescreen or no, peoples liberty is at stake – I/S sums it up in Channeling Howard

      • mike e 8.1.1
        2 May 2012 at 9:10 pm

        anyone who can sail a dodgy boat from southeast Asia to NZ should be given automatic citizenship and immediately signed up to team NZ for the America’s cup