Immigration rule changes raise spectre of failing

Comment by JIM PERON*

Once again immigration policy has taken a dramatic shift. Just one thing is certain about the Government's policy, and that is that nothing is certain.

Just a few months ago the Immigration Minister, Lianne Dalziel, announced new measures to solve problems in immigration. Now she's done it again.

But each time the rules are changed, it disrupts the lives of potential immigrants who have already filed their applications. Thousands who filed under one set of regulations suddenly find they are being judged under a different set. And the rather hefty fees they pay upon application are not refundable.

Under one set of regulations, a potential immigrant might have a decent chance of being accepted. Under the new rules, he might not. Had these rules been in effect at the time of filing, he probably wouldn't have wasted his money.

The Government concedes that under the new regulations, about half the applicants who have already filed will be rejected.

If you were buying a home and put down a deposit and agreed terms, you wouldn't like it if the seller suddenly changed the terms, said you no longer qualified for the deal, and then kept the deposit.

Basic rules of fairness should at least require that all applications filed and paid for under a specific set of regulations be judged by those regulations and not under whatever flavour-of-the-week rules are sprung unannounced.

Changing the regulations midstream is grossly unjust to those who filed, in good faith, under rules that the minister had set only a few months ago.

The new regulations also punish immigrants who wish to move to Auckland. Dalziel not only wants to micro-manage who comes to New Zealand, but in what regions they are employed.

She is ignoring basic economics and exhibiting Labour's ideological bias in favour of bureaucrats managing every minute aspect of individual existence.

To make it worse, she issues statements pretending she is doing this for the good of the immigrants. It is highly unlikely that many of the immigrants who have just had their plans turned upside down by her unpredictable, unstable policies would agree.

The minister laments that highly qualified professionals are driving taxis in Auckland.

To prevent these people suffering this fate, she will keep them out of New Zealand altogether, or mandate that they seek employment outside Auckland.

Professional immigrants do sometimes drive taxis, though I doubt the minister knows if it is more than a handful. But how many of them are doing so temporarily until they find a job in the field where they are qualified?

I know of one immigrant who took temporary jobs during the three months it took to find a good job in his chosen vocation. That an immigrant is driving a taxi now doesn't mean he will be driving one next year. This seemed to escape the minister's attention.

Secondly, how many professionals are taking these jobs because other Government policies require them to jump through other hoops before they are allowed to work in their field?

A professional may arrive, be accepted for residency, but be prevented from working in his field until he satisfies the authorities that he is qualified. While trying to satisfy government regulations he may have no option but to drive a taxi.

The minister claims she does not want immigrants to come to New Zealand and fail. But preventing them from moving to Auckland may do just that.

Immigrants in most countries are often friends or relatives of others who have migrated already. Friends and family members provide important support structures for the new immigrants.

But if the new immigrant is forbidden from living in Auckland, near this support network, the chances of failure increase.

Labour often forgets that in cultures not corrupted by welfare, families often provide for welfare needs. Dalziel's new policy strips new immigrants of the benefits of living near previous migrants.

In California it turns out that four-fifths of all doughnut shops are owned by Cambodian immigrants or their children. The reason is simple. Immigrants provide a social safety net for each other. Once the initial immigrant opened his first doughnut shop, other family members or friends migrated and did the same.

Forbidding the later waves of immigrants from moving to major cities would not have increased their chances of success. Instead it separates them from the private social net that was created by previous immigrants.

Surely the immigrants are more concerned about their success than the minister. As the ones who are taking the risks, they should be the ones who decide where they will take the risk.

Predictable public policies are required for individuals to make rational decisions. But the minister responds to whatever crisis the media finds fashionable and adjusts policies accordingly.

When the media was filled with reports about the English-speaking ability of migrants, she suddenly imposed new rules so strict they would disqualify many Kiwis.

Lately the media found the concentration of immigrants in Auckland a fashionable story and the minister has adjusted policies accordingly.

Instead of leading on the issues, she is following the lead of media reports.

I doubt this is the best way to set policy. In fact, it's about the worst way possible.

One thing is clear - as long as the minister is attempting to placate the media there will never be a uniform, predictable policy that is fair to potential immigrants.

* Jim Peron, an immigrant, is the executive director of the Institute for Liberal Values.