[Debbie]

Just to follow on from the latest run of postings about Brash's immigration policy. I would be interested to see what effect his reforms would have on the users of this forum.
For myself, a definate rethink would be inorder, I want a perminant new life for my family and I want to be able to offer my parents the chance to join me if they wish.

[Moorf]

No, it wouldn't bother me. If the probation was just that, i.e if I do anything wrong / unlawful etc, then I'd be happy to have such a period imposed on me.

Although, if they had speeding down as a major offence then I'd have been sent home after week 2 :uhoh BUT if I had been on probation I wouldn't have been speeding ;)

[Paul and Linda]

Hi Debbie, I didn't vote because this is just one factor. I do however agree with you that it is discouraging to genuine people and would discourage employers also.

I guess he's just looking for something that would catch the patriotic vote.

It's one thing getting elected and quite another running a country!

I'd never vote for this blurt!

Paul

[Debbie]

Hi Paul,
Yep like you I think it is just one factor, I did try and put a 3rd option on the poll, "would cause you to have a serious rethink" put Im a techno-phob and can't get these poll things to work. :? :?
For me it would cause a rethink but we would probably still come, the sticking point would be not being able to sponsor family for so long and the sence of a lack of roots for my kids.
I have no criminal record and a clean driving licence :mrgreen: :mrgreen: and have never claimed a penny in benefit. I've always worked ( or been a kept woman/ mother) as the tax office / social could verify if NZIS asked. I don't object to a country having the right to kick out criminals and blaggers (the UK should look into doing more of it IMO) I just think it's better to not let them in in thefirst place and to get behind and support those people who are investing their future into the country rather than giving them more hurdels to jump.

[GeorgeM]

We just couldn't have coped with the uncertainty - who knows what further changes could take place to the rules during the four years you were on probation? It might not just come down to keeping your nose clean.

What if they say that you must be in employment to get PR and the company you've been working for for three and a half years goes belly up just before your four years expires? Do you then get told that you've got to go home (a posibility if the world is in the middle of a slump and there's high unemployment)? To a place where exchange rate variations and a different house price cycle means that you go back twenty years in terms of what you can afford? At a time in your kid's schooling which would be a disaster? At a time when no one in NZ wants to buy your house / car?

We've only been here 3 years and the rules have changed so much since we got here - who would put their hand on their heart and say that they can guarantee what the rules would be four years down the track? If your child's life depended on it? What about their future?

If the worry people have is with migrants coming in and claiming benefits then ban them from doing so for however many years you consider necessary. Or if the problem is with migrants committing crime then introduce a rule that if they get convicted of a crime with a penalty of more than x years inside within y years of arriving their residence gets revoked. (I believe that rules already exist in both of these areas so why not just make them harsher if they're considered too lax at the moment?)

Why is it necessary make things more insecure for the vast majority of migrants who expend a great deal of time, effort and cash to come here and are generally a credit to the country when they arrive.

We were taking a considerable risk in coming here in the first place (there are enough postings regarding people finding it impossible to settle and having to go home to know that it doesn't work out for everybody no matter how hard you try). The uncertainty of a four year probabtionary period after which you're assessed for permanency (possibly after TWO changes of government, remember) would have just been a bridge too far for us.

Which would have been a d@mn shame because we all love it here!!!

[selchie]

Answer C for me. I would want more information on the details of the 4 years probation and its implications for PR and citizenship. I have no problem with the desire to ensure that immigrants will be productive and law-abiding, but do not trust this entire plank in their metaphorical platform. It does sound like there's a racist slant to their stance, which makes me wonder about National's entire attitude.

If NZ starts leaning to the hard right (which I doubt :no), I'll just stay in the US and stay under the radar.