Dialogue: Patronising attitudes no help to our immigrants

The reality of immigration might be better appreciated if New Zealanders considered it in terms of the law of
contract, writes RAYMOND JIANQIANG HUO.

Auckland City councillor Bill Christian the other day generously offered to teach migrants how to use an oven or an iron, to switch on a light or to use a shower or a bath.

Mr Christian suggested that the Government should ensure that all migrants underwent training in the New Zealand lifestyle before being allowed to settle into the wider community.

His statement may have been well-intentioned but it created an impression that all migrants somehow suffered from an intellectual deficiency. And it seemed to imply that all migrants had come to New Zealand in search of civilisation or, at least, a better civilisation.

His arrogant and ignorant statement coincided with the publication in the Herald of an Auckland City Council survey which showed that almost all Asian ethnic groups in Auckland had more jobless than the general population.

The report provoked feedback from the wider community. Some urged migrants to do their homework before coming to New Zealand and not to view New Zealand as a "mini Asia." Some complained yet again that the country had attracted more migrants than they wished.

The statement, the survey and the complaints seem to have boiled the immigration problem down to three related issues. What kind of migrants does New Zealand desire, if it really does want them? How can migrants be incorporated into New Zealand so they can best contribute, rather than, as a particular politician has pointed out, rip off the system? And why have the migrants come to New Zealand anyway?

If Mr Christian was justified in generalising the migrants as quasi-retarded individuals - unless they came here by claiming refugee status or in the humanitarian category - the Immigration Service has been seriously remiss in selecting and allowing them to enter in the first place.

While New Zealand still imagines itself to be one of the most corruption-free of nations, the Immigration Service has amazed a large number of migrants who have survived or are still surviving its slow processing and its quirks.

As a rule, for example, a marriage for convenience should be a black mark against anyone wishing to gain residency. Yet in at least two cases, applicants who have pulled that stunt have been awarded resident status. The officer who processed the cases is now a private immigration consultant.

To address the issue will open a can of worms, but the Immigration Service needs to be held accountable by becoming more transparent. Also, immigration consultants must be regulated. Without the proper monitoring of the Immigration Service, there is no way of ensuring that only the right people are selected and allowed to come to New Zealand.

There are no short answers for the other issues but New Zealand could address them far better.

First, it must be recognised that while migrants must adapt to their new environment, they should also maintain their own unique cultures and customs. Adopting one and eliminating the other is unhealthy and impossible to practise.

Mr Christian's idea of training migrants in the New Zealand lifestyle was based on a presumption that his lifestyle - the one he felt familiar with - was the most desirable one. That presumption matches an ancient Chinese saying that a frog in a well appreciates only its very limited outlook and experience.

Many lifestyles outside New Zealand are as good as that of New Zealand. New Zealanders, as a hosting party, should be broad-minded enough to accept and learn from the others.

Secondly, the reality of immigration might be better appreciated if New Zealanders considered the concept of the law of contract.

The existing immigration policy, which allows and encourages prospective migrants to come here, is an open letter of invitation to the world at large. The letter constitutes a unilateral offer made to any qualifying applicants, the offer being accepted when the applicants fulfil its requirements.

Upon acceptance, the two parties become legally bound. Here comes a contract. Each owes the other a fiduciary duty - or whatever terminology you prefer to use.

It is similar to the practice of a marriage: you propose first, and upon accepting and fulfilling the legal requirements, the two parties are legally bound. It is irritating to regard the newly wedded husband or wife as an alien, either expressly or by implication.

New Zealanders must stop regarding migrants as aliens or addressing the issue as though migrants are outsiders. They are part of the family. Any I-thou mentality is childish and disharmonious.

New Zealand should learn from its counterparts in Australia and the United States. People there ask not why they should have immigrants, but how to have them and how best to benefit from their presence.

* Raymond Jianqiang Huo, an Asian migrant, is an Auckland-based journalist.