Better Australia/New Zealand relations

Early today (NZ time), Australia announced a “pathway to citizenship” for New Zealanders living in Australia. This brings the rights of New Zealanders in Australia more in line with the rights of Australians living in New Zealand.

For decades, citizens of the either country could live and work in the other country without visas or permits, however, in 2001 a conservative Australian government created a “Special Visa Category” that New Zealanders need to have, but it was hard to become an Australiaqn citizen, or even a permanent resident, thereby blocking most New Zealanders from getting the rights that Australians had when living in New Zealand. New Zealand never did the same, despite the obvious provocation.

New Zealand Prime Minister Chris Hipkins is in Australia for, among other things, observance of the 40th anniversary of the signing of the Closer Economic Relations agreement between the two countries. He said, “Most of us know someone who's moved across the Tasman. They work hard, pay taxes and deserve a fair go. These changes deliver that and reverse erosions that have taken place over 20 years."

From July 1, a New Zealander who has a Special Category Visa, and who has lived in Australia for four years, can apply for citizenship, but they won’t need to be permanent residents, unlike other immigrants. They’ll also have to pass routine standards, including a character check, a language test, indicate an intention to stay in Australia, and they’ll have to attend a citizenship ceremony.

Australians living in New Zealand currently have to live here for five years (including at least eight months of each of the five years) before applying to citizenship, and they have to pass a character test and a basic language test. It seems probable that New Zealand will reduce the time to four years, in line with Australia.

Predictably, the leader of the conservative NZ National Party, and Leader of the Opposition, Chris Luxon, praised advancing the interests of New Zealanders living in Australia, but suggested that it could lead to a “brain drain” from Kiwis moving to Australia for better opportunities. However, Kiwis have always moved overseas for better opportunities, including ones that simply don’t exist here. That doesn’t by itself mean they’ll never return, as Luxon suggested, and many do move home to New Zealand. What he didn’t recognise is that there are a LOT of reasons someone moves from one country to another, and it doesn’t always means they’re rejecting their homeland—I’m an example of exactly that sort of person.

The Prime Minister said, "We want to make New Zealand a very attractive place to live, work, to raise a family, so that we encourage more New Zealanders to stay here, and so that we encourage New Zealanders who are in Australia to come home to New Zealand.” He added, "That said, it's always been a feature of our relationship that New Zealanders will, for a variety of reasons, relocate to Australia, and we want to make sure that they're treated fairly when they're there."

It’s also fair to note that this move is, as Luke Malpass put it in a piece for Stuff, “a late capstone to the legacy of Jacinda Ardern’s prime ministership,” because she had consistently pushed hard for better and fairer treatment of New Zealanders living in Australia. He added:

This is a significant moment for Hipkins, who gets to bring home the bacon, but even more it is a victory for Ardern. The former prime minister was very quick to make sure she crossed the ditch to see Albanese once he got elected prime minister last year.

This backed up a significant amount of work New Zealand diplomats have undertaken in Australia for many years, work that was set back after Scott Morrison’s surprise election victory in 2019.

This is a very important change, one that finally fixes the deliberate unfairness—some have even called it cruelty—in the way that New Zealanders living in Australia were treated. This will go a long way to repairing the 22-year-long strain in the relationship between the two countries who otherwise have so much shared history and culture. Prime Minister Chris Hipkins called it “a blimmin' good day for Kiwis living in Australia,” and he’s absolutely right. It’s very, very good news.

What 2019 may bring

These two videos from The Economist list what the editors think will be the biggest stories of 2019. Predictions are always interesting when, as in this case, the source is reputable. So, it’s not whether the predictions prove to be right or wrong, it’s The Economist’s take that’s interesting. But they definitely won’t be right about everything.

The first part, above, includes glowing, breathless predictions about driverless cars. I think they’ll be flat out wrong about the predictions. Elected officials are always cautious about unleashing new technology like this, something that can kill people, and the people who elect them won’t be clambering for them to act faster. Indeed, I think it will take years before the technology establishes a good enough safety record—probably at least 10% less dangerous than human-driven cars—before they’ll start to be accepted by politicians. Besides, there’s zero evidence that people actually want driverless cars, even though transport companies obviously do.

The predictions in the rest of the first part is are less problematic, though I’m far less optimistic about global progress on LGBT+ human and civil rights in a word with expanding fascism. I hope they’re right, of course.

Part two, below, has similar predictions that will have varied results. The use of augmented reality itself won’t suddenly take off, however, I do think research into it will progress, since the usefulness of it is probably obvious when the technology gets far enough advanced. But that won’t happen in 2019, even if progress does.

The bits about Japan were particularly interesting. The upcoming Rugby World Cup has been news here in New Zealand ever since it was announced Japan had would be hosting the Cup, and not all of that news was good. For example, it was announced that the New Zealand All Blacks will be required to cover up their tattoos to cater to Japanese culture (apparently, they associate tattoos with organised crime syndicates). Since then, some relaxation of the requirements were announced, which is good: LOTS of rugby players from many countries have tattoos, and forcing them to cover up their tattoos is a bit over the top.

As outsiders, their look at US politics was good. The USA is so deeply divided politically, and the current regime controlling the White House is so unpredictable that anyone who declares they know for sure what will happen in 2020 is delusional.

The look at Europe was also good. The spread of far right and fascist politics in Europe poses a grave threat not just to the world economy, but also to world peace. An unstable Europe has caused two world wars, and if fascism continues to rise in Europe, another could be unavoidable.

The first video was released on December 27, and I thought the second part would be released on or before December 31, so I planned on posting the two together when both were posted. Unfortunately, it turned out that Part 2 was released on January 2, a time when I was too busy celebrating the holidays to check out YouTube videos. I finally checked last night, and Part 2 had been posted. Oh well, at least I didn’t count on them to meet my quota for 2018.

Predictions are always interesting, and whether The Economist’s predictions prove to be right or wrong, their take is still interesting. But they definitely won’t be right about everything.

And neither will any of us.

2018 in review

The video above from Vox is easily described by its title alone: “2018, in 5 minutes”. It’s the first “year in review” video I’ve seen this year, so, naturally, I went looking for others, and I found the one from the Associated Press, below. They’re both good.

Both videos try to provide context to what they show, and both emphasise different things. So many of the images and stories they include were striking, and remain so. For me, the most memorable story of the 2018 was the rescue of those boys from the cave in Thailand. No one thought it would work, or that they’d all survive. It was the one damn near perfect story of the year: Good news, positive, happy ending, and so damn heartwarming that it almost singlehandedly erased all the utter shit that happened all over the rest of the world in 2018. Almost.

Each year has good and bad, and 2018 has been no at least we got the one great story this year. Maybe next year we’ll do better.

Pew’s 'striking findings' from 2018

Pew Research has long been the go-to place for statistics on what the world thinks about issues, policies, and so much more. Their data is so good that when they label a report, “18 striking findings from 2018”, it’s hard to ignore. In fact, it’s good not to.

Many of their findings this year were surprising to me, including the one that the number of illegal immigrants to the USA continues to fall, and has been since its peak in 2007. In fact, it’s now as low as it was in 2004. It’s not the statistic itself, it’s that so many people believe the exact opposite is true—that the number is rising. Most of those who believe that support the current regime, but I’m sure far too many who don’t also believe it.

A similarly not-at-all-surprising statistic was that Americans 18-49 were far better at identifying factual statements as factual, and opinion statements as opinions, than those who ere 50+. Moreover, this held true regardless of ideological bend of the statements. The current regime’s strongest, most hardcore supporters tend to be low-information and/or more poorly informed than people who don’t watch any news at all, and most of them also tend to be older. I have no way of knowing whether that’s coincidence or not.

There are so many other stats that are interesting for one reason or another that it’s impossible to single them out. I’m sure they picked 18 because it’s 2018, but if they were as interested in clickbait as news organisations are, they’d have had fewer and picked an inflammatory headline, something like “5 most shocking findings of 2019”. I like their way much better.

But, then, that figures: I don’t have trouble telling the difference between facts and opinion, and I’m not too keen on supposed news organisations blurring that line.

I wonder what striking findings they’ll tell us about next year. I can’t wait to find out.

More gratuitous cruelty from the USA’s current regime

There are plenty of times the current regime controlling the White House does something that is obviously wrong. Sometimes, though rarely, it’s not obvious that there’s something wrong with their actions, and rarest of all is when the regime does something truly awful, but to supporters of the regime it looks perfectly fine and reasonable. Yesterday brought an example of this sort of thing.

Yesterday the regime announced that it would no longer give diplomatic visas to the same-gender domestic partners of United Nations staff or diplomats unless the couples are married. They’re spinning it as merely ensuring all couples should be treated equally. That’s false.

Under the new policy announced Monday (US time), unmarried couples have until December 31 to prove they’re married. If they don’t, then the non-diplomat partner will be required to leave the USA within 30 days.

The regime points out that normally the partner of a diplomat or UN official must be married to the diplomat in order to get a diplomatic visa. This is why the supporters of the current regime would think this policy is okay—because it’ll “treat all couples the same”. There are good reasons for the old policy.

The State Department changed the rules for un-married same-gender couples in 2009 to help gay people avoid persecution. Currently, only 12% of UN members recognise marriage of same-gender couples—but that’s not the biggest problem: As of last year, 72 countries and territories criminalise homosexuality, which means gay people there could be sentenced to prison. Worse, 10 countries or parts of them have the death penalty for homosexuality.

What this means is that unmarried same-gender couples could face prison or worse when they return home after getting married in the USA in order to meet visa requirements. So, in essence, the current regime is potentially forcing same-gender couples to choose between love and life.

The obvious question here is why is the current regime doing this? There’s no reason they couldn’t have just continued the current policy and protected vulnerable LGBT couples. But, they didn’t. Why? The most likely reasons for this policy change are: Anti-gay animus, personal grudges, hatred of the United Nations, or a combination of one or all of these motivations.

The current vice president is a vicious anti-LGBT bigot who has been working quietly out of sight to erode the rights of LGBT people in the USA in line with his ultra-extremist religious views. He wants to go much farther, and if the regime controls the Supreme Court he may get his wish. This policy change is an easy way to screw over LGBT people without getting a law change through Congress.

In considering a personal vendetta as a motive, consider this: The person who implemented the previous policy, allowing un-married same-gender couples to be together without marriage, was then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The current occupant of the White House hates her with a blood-lust second only to his hatred of President Obama. The hatred of the Clintons by Republican Party leaders is well-known and decades old. So, this would be an easy way to undo one of the very good things that Secretary Clinton did, just as the current occupant has been working hard to erase President Obama from history.

Third, this regime despises the United Nations. This is obvious, among other reasons, because of the way the current regime constantly belittles and alienates long-term allies and praises brutal dictatorships. In fact, as Foreign Policy reported exclusively, the current regime has been secretly working to cut off funding for UN programs they don’t like, in direct defiance of Congressional intent. This policy change could really be just another way to stick it to the UN.

The most likely explanation is the regime’s anti-gay animus, given how hard the current vice president has pushed his anti-LGBT agenda. The revenge factor would have appealed to the current occupant, and would be enough to get him enthusiastic about it, but the anti-gay animus is by far the most likely reason for the sudden change.

The United States doesn’t permit citizens to sponsor their partner for immigration unless they are married—and these days, not even that is enough as they routinely deny residence to the legal spouses of US citizens, and even deport the non-citizen spouse. Most Western countries have far more sensible and humane policies, allowing citizens—and usually permanent residents—to sponsor their partner for residence, regardless of gender and whether they’re married or not.

However, this isn’t about ordinary citizens, but, rather, about people who come to the US to work for diplomatic missions or the United Nations and want to bring their same-gender partner with them. By forcing them to marry or split up, the current regime is being gratuitously cruel—another reason to suspect it’s the vice president’s work.

There are plenty of times the current regime controlling the White House does something that is obviously wrong. Yesterday brought an example of this, and of their abject cruelty.

Easier targets first?

Every day’s news reports reinforces the view that there doesn’t seem to anything too extreme or too unthinkable for the current regime to do. The current occupant of the White House has made his racism and nativism crystal clear, and his regime is working to operationalise that. So the regime’s moves to make people “uncitizens” is not at all surprising—but it may be just the start.

Today The Washington Post reported today that the regime is denying passports, or revoking them from, citizens born along the Texas border with Mexico. The underlying issue isn’t new: Allegedly, in the 1990s some midwives in South Texas faked the birth records of children who were actually born in Mexico to state they were born in Texas. Because of that, successive governments have treated anyone born in that region with suspicion.

There are huge problems with this, not the least the presumption of guilt, but extends on to creating possibly unattainable requirements for additional proof that someone really was born in the USA. Additionally, revoking passports means the person is no longer considered a citizen, potentially making them vulnerable to ICE raids and deportations—despite living their entire lives in the USA, paying taxes, voting, and even serving in the US military.

These are people who even some otherwise reasonable citizens might think are fair game, thinking that if their births were registered in the USA falsely, they have no defence. The problem with that is that if those otherwise reasonable citizens can excuse harsh treatment of the people in Texas, who would be safe from the regime’s excesses? Will it only be Hispanics singled out? Or Mexicans in particular? Or the children of any immigrant family?

There really can be a “slippery slope”, in this case, accepting oppression of one group of people makes it easier to accept the oppression of other groups, until all hope of control and restoring the rule of law is lost.

Among the easiest targets after immigrants are expat American citizens returning home. In fact, it’s now one of my very real fears about returning to the US for a visit. After the current regime finishes going after easy targets, they’ll expand it, and that means returning expats could easily be on the list of folks to harass. After all, there aren’t all that many (easy number of people to contain), but they all have friends and/or family in the USA who will hear of their ordeal. And that would be the point.

The regime’s first goal in all this is to harass and oppress immigrants, either by making up alleged offences so they can be deported, or to make them fearful enough to leave the USA. By expanding harassment, they would also stoke fear among native-born Americans so that they don’t offer any opposition to the current regime.

All the regime has to do is put some returning expat Americans into ICE concentration camps for a few months while the victim proves they were born in America, as they ultimately would. The result would be that ordinary people would decide it’s best to remain silent and offer no opposition to the regime. Silencing opposition if the first and most important step in eliminating it.

Here’s the thing: Even in the darkest days of Bush the Second, I would’ve laughed at any suggestion like this as mere paranoia. Under this regime, however, we’ve learned absolutely anything is possible, and nothing is off the table or goes too far.

Will this happen? I don’t know of course, but if it does, it’d be after they’ve gone after all the easy targets. But if this regime is deposed, first in the elections in November, then by taking back the presidency in 2020, all of this can be avoided and we can all return to the certainty that there are some things that go too far for any government.

In the meantime, there doesn’t seem to anything too extreme or too unthinkable for the current regime to do. And that is terrifying.

This Post is a revised and expanded version of comments I left on a friend’s Facebook share of the article I linked to. I also saw the article because I subscribe to the Washington Post electronic version to help support journalism because, as they put it, “Democracy Dies in Darkness”.

Why Is Australia Deporting So Many Kiwis?

This video above (which runs 29:34 and has some occasional language that some may consider NSFW), is from the “Foreign Correspondent” series of Australia’s ABC News. In it, Peter FitzSimons reports that, “Australia is detaining, cuffing and deporting more New Zealanders than any other group.” FitzSimons shows the unfairness and capriciousness of Australia’s policies.

In May of last year, I talked about the increasingly awful way that Australia is treating the New Zealanders who live there. Fortunately, they haven’t sprung any more surprise policy changes since then, but the unfairness and injustice remains.

I said last year that one of the main reasons we won’t treat Australians living here as badly as Australians treat Australians there is that “we’re better than that.” That sentiment was echoed in this video by New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters (who is presently Acting Prime Minister while Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern is on maternity leave). What it boils down to is that two wrongs don’t make a right. So, New Zealand will continue to do what’s right, even as we wait patiently for Australia to come to its senses.

Relations between New Zealand and Australia are still strained, which is a problem when, as Winston Peters said, the two countries need each other to deal with the geopolitical realities we share in a dangerous world. Hopefully the Australians will realise that before a crisis happens.

But I certainly won’t hold my breath waiting for them.

Australia’s shame

There’s a story about Australia that’s well-known in this part of the world, but not much beyond. It’s about how Australia set-up prison camps for people who have tried—and failed— to illegally reach Australia by boat. People have been stuck in those camps for years, and in many cases it’s because of the Australian government. Then, when New Zealand raised the issue by reaffirming its offer to take some refugees, it was made out to be the ogre. But New Zealand isn’t the reason for this situation—it’s just trying to be part of the solution.

Australia set up the camps to prevent “asylum seekers”, as they’re often called, from reaching Australia’s shores. The government says that since setting up the camps, no asylum seeker has drowned at sea, and that, they say, proves their harsh policies are effective. The problem, of course, is that correlation is not causation, and there are probably other factors involved, ones that don’t reinforce a largely political narrative. Regardless, Australia also doesn’t seem to want to do anything that would settle the refugees cases at least in part because it believes doing so would encourage more people to board boats bound for Australia. It is, in their view, a sort of “tough love”.

The situation at the facility on Manus Island became dire when the Australian government wanted to move asylum seekers to new facilities, and they didn’t want to go, fearing violent reprisals from locals, among other things. Australia, in a frankly petulant response, simply shut off the water and electricity and ended routine medical assistance, effectively turning their backs on the men remaining, perhaps hoping to make them desperate enough to go to the new camps. This seems a foolish attitude, since these are people who were desperate enough to cross oceans in rickety boats, so defying Australia’s demands would seem like an easy thing for them. It also opened Australia to worldwide condemnation.

Australia’s treatment of detainees, especially on Manus Island after they retaliated against those who wouldn’t leave, has caught the attention of SOME around the world. For example, according to a major piece in the New York Times: “Veteran United Nations officials said this month they had never seen a wealthy democracy go to such extremes to punish asylum seekers and push them away.”

Meanwhile, New Zealand had an election and a new, more Left-leaning government took over. New Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern repeated the former National Party-led Government’s offer to take 150 refugees, and Australia at first flatly rejected the offer, then, after more international attention, softened their attitude somewhat, suggesting they’d consider it.

Australian politicians—and conservatives in New Zealand—attacked the new NZ government, saying they were “meddling” in Australia’s “domestic” policies, that we must never upset Australia because we need them far more than they need us, that the new government was being naive and even a bit childish. All this despite the fact the offer—originally from a conservative New Zealand government—had been on the table for a very long time. Clearly pure politics was the sole reason for the criticism of the NZ government.

However, Australia was obviously rattled by the attention on its appalling treatment of the refugees. In addition to verbal attacks from Australian government politicians, the Australian government also leaked unsubstantiated and uninvestigated claims that men on Manus Island were guilty of child sexual abuse. The smear was an attempt to convince the world that the detainees were all “bad” people (a line of attack picked up by conservatives in New Zealand) and therefore they “deserve”, as the narrative goes, their harsh treatment.

The Australian government has also repeated its claims that it intercepted and turned away “several” boats filled with refugees headed for New Zealand. They’ve never publicly released any proof that this claim is actually true. Is there any?

So, what’s going on here? First, Australia apparently really does believe that their harsh treatment of asylum seekers has stopped the flow of such people. Whether that’s actually the reason for the reduction or not is beside the point: They seem to sincerely believe that.

Second, Australia doesn’t like being told what to do by anyone, including the United Nations, and definitely not New Zealand. It will only change its treatment of asylum seekers if it suits them.

Third, and related to the second reason, it’s good politics in Australia. Australian voters have rewarded tough treatment of asylum seekers, most recently in returning the conservative Liberal-National Coalition Government to power. Because the asylum seekers are held in remote facilities, well out of view of Australians and their news media, it becomes a case of “out of sight, out of mind”. The Australian public never sees the extent of the harsh treatment, perhaps precisely so they can’t care about it. I don’t know that any country’s people would be any different under similar circumstances (for example, Guantánamo). This is also why the detention centres are NOT in Australia.

Finally, there’s a particular reason the Australian government is opposed to New Zealand taking any asylum seekers, in addition to all the reasons above. If the refugees are granted permanent residence in New Zealand, and then become citizens, they can move to Australia to live and work. One of the main reasons for Australia’s ongoing crackdown on the rights of New Zealanders living in Australia is because the Australian government believes it’s too easy for people to gain New Zealand citizenship, and that they use it as a means to settle in Australia legally. The truth is, they’re right in that a foreigner who couldn’t qualify to legally live and work in Australia could do so if they become a New Zealand citizen first. That’s even true for me.

However, it’s not quite as easy to become a New Zealand citizen as Australia seems to think it is, but that’s still their view, and it is the basis for much of their government’s hostility to New Zealanders living in their country and why they dismiss the simple repeating of NZ’s existing offer to take 150 refugees.

Where does this leave us? Nowhere. The United States would probably be the ONLY country in the world that might have some influence over Australia, but it no longer cares about human rights, is openly hostile to immigration (legal or not), and will do nothing to ease people’s suffering. The current occupier of the White House famously hung up on the Australian Prime Minister the first time they spoke because he was angry that President Obama had agreed to accept some of these same refugees, something he called "the worst deal ever". He also referred to the phone call as “the worst call by far”. While that was all probably mostly about the current occupant’s abject hatred of President Obama, it nevertheless damaged US-Australian relations.

New Zealand has no leverage with Australia, either, for completely different reasons. Despite a relationship forged on foreign battlefields, Australia mainly tolerates New Zealand, as one might an annoying younger sibling, but they don’t really care what we think, whether it’s about them, world affairs, or even how they treat New Zealand citizens living in that country.

There is one possible glimmer of hope, though: If the United Nations could somehow broker an agreement to at least remove the refugees that the UN has recognised as genuine. But, with the UN both cowardly and compromised these days, I wouldn’t hold my breath about that, either.

So, the situation shows no sign of improving any time soon. It’s not even clear that a change of government would matter. What is clear is that barring the UN suddenly growing a metaphorical backbone, or regime change in the United States, there’s nothing that can push this situation toward resolution.

And that, really, is the world’s shame.

Tip o' the Hat to Roger Green for the link to the NYT article.

Explaining the DACA situation

The video above from Vox explains DACA, both its history and what’s at stake. It also explains the origin of the far-right talking points against DACA, and why some Republicans are so virulently anti-DACA. Vox also posted a look at what they call “ticking time bomb for 800,000 immigrants”, which includes a timeline for the end of DACA. Taken together, they help explain it, but they don’t really answer the question of why this is being done.

Is Don doing this because he’s racist? He has clearly demonstrated animus toward Mexicans in particular. Even so, this particular action is not legally racist because it affects ALL children brought to the USA illegally by their parents, regardless of where they're from. To cite just one example, and while I don't watch his videos (not my thing), there's a popular YouTuber (4.9 million subscribers), David Dobrik, who was born in Slovakia, and brought to Chicago as a child. He’s a Dreamer and may end up being deported [WATCH – the link is set to start of the segment]. However, this action undeniably affects kids from Mexico, Central and South America far more than kids from other countries.

None of the children in question are US Citizens, though they all have permits to live, work, and study in the USA under certain conditions, as the video mentions. So, because the affected kids are not citizens, and because DACA was a Justice Department directive and not a law, Don rescinding it isn't breaking any laws, unless, maybe, someone can prove in court that Don's specific motivation was animus toward Hispanic peoples, but I doubt anyone could successfully make that case, and even if they did, the fact that the kids aren't US Citizens may make the courts reluctant to intervene. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but I doubt it.

In this single case, I think that Don—despite his pattern of animus against Hispanics—is acting more to pander to his base, especially the white supremacist and racist parts of his base. It was an easy bone to throw to the drooling knuckle-draggers who demanded he deport all people in the USA illegally, including the Dreamer kids, too, and this is something that Don thinks has no consequences for him. Jury’s out on that.

But let me be a cockeyed optimist about this—and not just because the reality of watching all the harm Don's regime is doing to the USA is soul-destroying. Congress COULD act to pass the DREAM Act to make the DACA programme into federal law. Democrats all want this, and so do many Republicans, even some pretty staunch right-wingers on other issues and other immigration issues. The only people staunchly opposed are the farthest Right among the Republicans, the folks who are part of the teabagger caucus in the US House in particular. They're a sizeable group, but with Democrats on board it's entirely possible that there will be a bi-partisan DREAM Act passed into law.

I'm betting that the attempt will happen in December, as part of the bipartisan deal to raise the debt limit. Democrats could make it a condition of their support, since Republicans need their votes to raise the debt ceiling because the hard-right part of the Republican caucus always opposes raising the limit. There’s a simple incentive for more rational conservative Republicans to back legalising DACA: Money.

Ending DACA will cost the US economy hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars: The libertarian CATO institute says $200 billion, and the left-leaning Center for American Progress estimates it will cost the USA $433 billion. Clearly even the lowest estimate would be a huge hit to the economy.

There’s strong bipartisan support for DACA nationally among major companies. For example: “Here are the tech companies speaking out against a DACA repeal”, and that’s not just because of the enormous hit to the US economy. Even the most soul-less among Republicans in Congress should be able to understand that the economic impact would be a very bad thing.

While the economic consequences are serious, it’s the human side that motivates the general public. Mainstream Americans are repulsed by the very idea of deporting people who have generally never known any country other than the USA, and may not even speak the language of their native land. These are productive residents of the USA who pay their taxes, work, and study to make the USA a better place, even as they also work to make their own lives better. It makes no humane sense to deport the Dreamers, who were brought to the USA by their parents and had no say in the matter.

I can’t believe I actually have to lecture rightwing Republicans on Christianity, but it must be done. Central tenets of Christianity include the fact that the “the child will not share the guilt of the parent” (Ezekiel 18:20). And, then, there’s that whole “Love your neighbor as yourself” thing. The founder of the religion they claim to follow said that. It’s more than a little presumptuous for self-declared Christians to ignore their religion’s own teachings.

So, there are perfectly good reasons to enact DACA into law: It makes economic sense to do so, it is the humane and compassionate thing to do, and the religion that the hard-right Republicans claim to follow so passionately pretty much commands it. Will any of that be enough?

Congress hasn’t shown an ability to get much of anything done, so that’s the first problem. If they succeed, the question then becomes, would Don sign it? Because it's unlikely Congress would have the votes to override a veto, this is a vital question. Don has signalled that he wants Congress to act, but, as well all know, he says something one day and the complete opposite the next day (or hour…), while claiming he never, ever said the first thing. So, who knows?!!

I don’t care who gets credit for it, or even how they bring it about, it just needs to happen, and as soon as possible. The Dreamers have paid their dues, they have earned the right to have this settled quickly.

This post is a revised and extended version of a comment I made on the AmeriNZ Facebook Page.

Update – September 8: 15 US states and the District of Columbia have filed suit to stop the current president from ending the DACA programme, alleging that Don's animus against Hispanics has to be taken into account. CNN reported:

The groups laid out five different constitutional arguments against Trump's move, saying it was motivated by discriminatory reasons, that it violated due process by being "fundamentally unfair," and that it violated laws that dictate procedures for federal regulations.

The lawyers note that most DACA recipients are of Mexican origin and devote a whole section to inflammatory statements Trump has made about Mexicans, including his attacks on a federal judge of Mexican descent.

ABC (USA) News said: "Legal experts, however, say the evidence of bias is not strong in the case involving the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA." As I said, I think that it will be difficult to prove bias was the motivation. That doesn't mean it's impossible, of course, and these are the same people that succeeded in getting Don's Muslim Ban struck down because of its motivation in bias. Good luck to them!

The states suing Don are New Mexico, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Washington.

Worth Quoting: Former President Obama

Earlier today, former US President Barack Obama issued the following statement, shared to his Facebook Page:

Immigration can be a controversial topic. We all want safe, secure borders and a dynamic economy, and people of goodwill can have legitimate disagreements about how to fix our immigration system so that everybody plays by the rules.

But that’s not what the action that the White House took today is about. This is about young people who grew up in America – kids who study in our schools, young adults who are starting careers, patriots who pledge allegiance to our flag. These Dreamers are Americans in their hearts, in their minds, in every single way but one: on paper. They were brought to this country by their parents, sometimes even as infants. They may not know a country besides ours. They may not even know a language besides English. They often have no idea they’re undocumented until they apply for a job, or college, or a driver’s license.

Over the years, politicians of both parties have worked together to write legislation that would have told these young people – our young people – that if your parents brought you here as a child, if you’ve been here a certain number of years, and if you’re willing to go to college or serve in our military, then you’ll get a chance to stay and earn your citizenship. And for years while I was President, I asked Congress to send me such a bill.

That bill never came. And because it made no sense to expel talented, driven, patriotic young people from the only country they know solely because of the actions of their parents, my administration acted to lift the shadow of deportation from these young people, so that they could continue to contribute to our communities and our country. We did so based on the well-established legal principle of prosecutorial discretion, deployed by Democratic and Republican presidents alike, because our immigration enforcement agencies have limited resources, and it makes sense to focus those resources on those who come illegally to this country to do us harm. Deportations of criminals went up. Some 800,000 young people stepped forward, met rigorous requirements, and went through background checks. And America grew stronger as a result.

But today, that shadow has been cast over some of our best and brightest young people once again. To target these young people is wrong – because they have done nothing wrong. It is self-defeating – because they want to start new businesses, staff our labs, serve in our military, and otherwise contribute to the country we love. And it is cruel. What if our kid’s science teacher, or our friendly neighbor turns out to be a Dreamer? Where are we supposed to send her? To a country she doesn’t know or remember, with a language she may not even speak?

Let’s be clear: the action taken today isn’t required legally. It’s a political decision, and a moral question. Whatever concerns or complaints Americans may have about immigration in general, we shouldn’t threaten the future of this group of young people who are here through no fault of their own, who pose no threat, who are not taking away anything from the rest of us. They are that pitcher on our kid’s softball team, that first responder who helps out his community after a disaster, that cadet in ROTC who wants nothing more than to wear the uniform of the country that gave him a chance. Kicking them out won’t lower the unemployment rate, or lighten anyone’s taxes, or raise anybody’s wages.

It is precisely because this action is contrary to our spirit, and to common sense, that business leaders, faith leaders, economists, and Americans of all political stripes called on the administration not to do what it did today. And now that the White House has shifted its responsibility for these young people to Congress, it’s up to Members of Congress to protect these young people and our future. I’m heartened by those who’ve suggested that they should. And I join my voice with the majority of Americans who hope they step up and do it with a sense of moral urgency that matches the urgency these young people feel.

Ultimately, this is about basic decency. This is about whether we are a people who kick hopeful young strivers out of America, or whether we treat them the way we’d want our own kids to be treated. It’s about who we are as a people – and who we want to be.

What makes us American is not a question of what we look like, or where our names come from, or the way we pray. What makes us American is our fidelity to a set of ideals – that all of us are created equal; that all of us deserve the chance to make of our lives what we will; that all of us share an obligation to stand up, speak out, and secure our most cherished values for the next generation. That’s how America has traveled this far. That’s how, if we keep at it, we will ultimately reach that more perfect union.

I completely agree with President Obama. However, for me to say more would require me to use somewhat intemperate language to talk about the current regime, the guy currently occupying the White House, or this particular issue. One thing I'm certain of is that I’ll have plenty of opportunities to do that other times, without sullying the words of President Obama.

Is the special relationship ending?

Australia seems determined to destroy the “special relationship” that has existed between that country and New Zealand since the disaster of Gallipoli. On Monday, mere days after Anzac Day, the day set aside to remember the sacrifices at Gallipoli and beyond, Australia stuck the knife into New Zealanders yet again.

Since 2001, Australia has been moving farther and farther along a road toward making New Zealanders living in Australia second-class citizens. Back then, they cut off New Zealander’s ability to become citizens and to receive welfare, including disability benefits, even though they pay taxes to Australia like all workers do.

In 2006, actor Russell Crowe, who was born in New Zealand but who has lived in Australia since he was a child, was denied citizenship because he had been outside Australia in 2001 working on the Oscar winning film Gladiator, and returned after the law had been changed. Here’s a guy who brought fame to Australia, and millions of dollars, but they still treated him like a second-class citizen.

In 2005, Australia cut off the ability of New Zealanders living in Australia to access student loans. Probably as a result, children of New Zealanders were half as likely to go to university as the children of Australians. In 2016, Australia did restore the ability of New Zealanders to get student loans.

On Monday, Australia announced that the children of New Zealanders will no longer be able to pay the domestic fees for university—despite Kiwis paying taxes to support the university system. Instead, their fees will go up A$8000 per year (about NZ$8700). Oddly enough, their taxes and levies are not being reduced.

The Australians say Kiwis will still be able to access student loans (gee, thanks…), and at least they won’t be paying as much as non-resident foreigners, who face a 500% increase, paying an average additional amount of A$33,000 (NZ$35,600) per year.

Worst, the Australian Government didn’t even have the decency to warn the New Zealand Government before announcing the change—and only days after Anzac Day. Two weeks ago, Australia made it even tougher to get citizenship, and again they didn’t bother to warn New Zealand.

In 2015, Australia suddenly decided it would deport some ex-criminals, no matter how long they’d lived in Australia, even if they’d arrived as a child, regardless of whether they had any connections whatsoever to New Zealand, and no matter how many years they’d lived cleanly.

Australia just started deporting, including people who knew no one in New Zealand, and had no idea where to go or what to do. Some of them were legitimate criminals, but because Australia gave New Zealand virtually no notice it was doing this, New Zealand had to rush through a law change to allow the New Zealand Government to monitor prisoners deported to New Zealand.

Add it all up, and it’s not really such a “special relationship”, not when one side disrespects the other so much.

By way of contrast, Australians who move to New Zealand can vote after living here one year and can get welfare benefits after living here for two years.

So, what to do? Well, New Zealand Governments—Labour and National alike—have expressed how darn cross they are and done nothing else whatsoever. There are some 600,000 New Zealanders living in Australia, their rate of participation in the workforce is higher than Australians’, yet they’re still treated like this, and the New Zealand Government does nothing about it.

This has got to change.

It’s time that New Zealand started changing the way Australians are treated here so that their citizens face many—but not all—of the same problems that New Zealanders face over there. One thing we mustn’t do is cut off all access to welfare, disability benefits in particular, because we’re better than that.

I also note that Australia has done this stuff under rightwing Liberal-National Coalition governments, not under governments run by the Australian Labor Party. The Coalition tends to want to pander to racist and xenophobic Australian voters, but the real reason they do this is money.

Australia collects the taxes and levies from hundreds of thousands of NZ-born Australian workers, but it provides them with very little in services. From a budgetary perspective, it’s a pretty sweet deal! And, they know that New Zealand governments won’t retaliate, so there’s no risk to Australians.

Any chance that Australia and New Zealand might one day be part of the same country is now well and truly dead, and the Australians are the ones that finally killed off the idea. There’s also pretty much no chance of currency union, either, which is a good thing for its own reasons.

The worst that could happen is that relations could deteriorate so much that the two countries treat each other like totally foreign countries. But Australia won’t want to risk the money it gets in taxes from New Zealanders living there, nor from Kiwi tourists visiting the country, nor from trans-Tasman trade. For New Zealand, it’s mostly about trade, and a bit of tourism.

So, both countries have financial incentives to plod along, and they’ll do so. Even when Australia once again sticks it to New Zealanders living there—and they absolutely will—nothing will change; the New Zealand Government of the day will express how darn cross it is and do nothing else whatsoever.

The real issue here is that there are hundreds of thousands of people who are being treated very badly by Australia, and the Australian Government just doesn’t give a damn. Yeah, that’s a really “special relationship”, alright.

Escape to New Zealand

Air New Zealand wants Americans to escape to New Zealand (video above) following the US election last week. It’s an interesting pitch, and one that takes place against a backdrop of a big jump in the number of Americans exploring the possibility of moving here. That’s no surprise.

Every election since at least 2004, Americans who voted for the losing candidate for president have vowed they’d move away from the USA. This is something we’ve become increasingly aware of in the social media age, but it no doubt happened before then.

While most Americans declaring they’re leaving the country don’t actually do so, there’ll be a slight rise in the number of arrivals from the USA, if history is any indicator. Back in 2004, after Bush the Second won a second term, the number of Americans settling in New Zealand rose by about a third (which still wasn’t a huge number: From around 2,000 to 3,000).

Thousands more Americans than usual checked out government sites dealing with immigration, and three months' worth of people registering their interest on government site New Zealand Now in only the first two days after the election, according to TVNZ’s One News. It’s a safe bet that despite all that, most of them will not move to New Zealand, but if things are only half as bad as they’re expected to be under Don, the numbers actually migrating here could be larger than usual.

Last month, website Thrillest published an article aptly titled, “The 12 Best Countries for Americans Who Want to, Y'Know… Live Abroad All of a Sudden”. I have no idea about the other countries, but what they said about New Zealand is fair. New Zealand almost always makes such lists—around almost all US presidential elections.

I don’t have any opinion on whether this was a good move by Air New Zealand—recently designated the best airline in the world. It’s in keeping with the airline’s often irreverent promotions, and their YouTube description was typically cheeky:

Well, that was a journey. Here’s an invitation that might be a bit more relaxing. #EscapeToNZ #ElectionHangoverCure

Election Hangover? Yeah, pretty much. But, then, New Zealand is always a good destination to visit, and I think it’s a great place to live, too. But, then, that’s no surprise.

Escape to New Zealand, indeed.

Remote options for U.S. exiles

Several months ago, an Internet meme began, saying that a small Irish island called Inishturk would accept American refugees if Donald becomes president. The short film above, released about three weeks ago, asks the Irish, especially the people of Inishturk, what they think about that. It’s a well-made film.

There have been many articles published for those interested in fleeing the USA if Donald wins, and there are actually several options, including Ireland. All that is mostly a bit of fun, and shouldn’t be taken too seriously.

The reality is that it’s now a given that around the time of every presidential election, people will say they’ll leave the USA if the candidate they don’t like wins. However, there’s something very different about this year: How early that talk started. After Donald won the Republican contests in Super Tuesday last March, Google reported that searches for "Move to Canada" were the highest they’d ever been in Google’s history. I imagine such searches would break the Internet if he actually wins.

Still, I’m not sharing the film because I actually think Americans would really move to Inishturk if [insert the name of the despised candidate here] wins the US presidential election. I just think this is a very well-made film, with interesting cinematographic techniques that aren’t either cliché or pointless, but rather add feeling, mood, and interest, while also helping to move the narrative forward.

History has shown that very few people ever follow through on their declaration and actually leave the USA. Will this year be any different? Well, if Donald won, it would be more than usual. But hoards leaving? I doubt that. So, Inishturk doesn't have to worry about mass migration, I’m sure.

But if people really do leave the USA after the November elections, that would make for an interesting film, too.

Sensible policy: So of course it’s opposed

If a government policy is old and time-tested, and it’s also both sensible and fair, when would a sitting NZ prime minster condemn it? When the prime minster is John Key and the person talking about that sensible government policy is Leader of the Opposition, Andrew Little, head of the NZ Labour Party. Meanwhile, the policy remains sensible.

Andrew Little said that employers of semi-skilled workers should have to hire New Zealanders first, before bringing in cheap foreign workers. So, John Key engaged his snark mode: “Now [Labour] don't want people with Chinese-sounding names making chicken chop suey.” Which is ironic, because Andrew Little did NOT talk about ethnic chefs except to defend them.

The problem for John Key is that Andrew Little’s absolutely right.

Before I was allowed to move to New Zealand, my would-be employer had to satisfy Immigration New Zealand (INZ) that there was no resident or citizen of New Zealand available who could do the job I was hired to do. That meant liaising with several different government agencies. It was only after ALL those departments were satisfied that my work visa and permit were issued and I was able to move to New Zealand—for one year at a time. This was over 20 years ago now, and it demonstrates that there's nothing even remotely new about what Andrew Little said—and John Key obviously knows that.

Little's larger point is that allowing mainly unregulated migration by low-skilled workers was driving down wages in New Zealand. National Party policy has been to keep NZ a low-wage economy [See: “Confirmed: National welcomes low-wage economy” by Frank Macskasy; while left-leaning, his piece also has links to original sources backing this assertion]. Low wages increase companies’ profits, of course, and that benefits the elites that back the National Party.

But, what about ethnic restaurants, specifically? That industry was the focus of John Key’s snark—should it have been?

There are several incidents in which foreign workers were treated as virtual slaves by their employers, and the most notorious was in the hospitality industry. Back in 2013, the Sunday Star-Times reported on a chain of Indian restaurants in Auckland that had paid staff as little as $3 an hour, forcing them to work 11 hours a day, six days a week, and made them live in overcrowded dormitories.

Two years later, Fairfax reported the chain was fined $25,000 for exploiting a worker—one week after being fined $10,000 for exploiting workers.

In October, 2015, two of the restaurant chain’s officers were convicted in Auckland District Court of exploiting foreign workers after an investigation by Immigration New Zealand. INZ felt the convictions sent a “strong message” that such exploitation would not be tolerated, but the limp sentences, on top of the clearly irrelevant earlier fines, seems to suggest that is probably not actually the case.

All of this went on while John Key was prime minister, so he knew—or should have known—about the existence of the exploitation of foreign workers. If this one chain would so brazenly—and repeatedly—exploit workers, there’s no reason to think others aren’t doing the exact same thing. John Key’s snarky remarks about “people with Chinese-sounding names making chicken chop suey” suggests that he may not actually care about exploitation of foreign workers, or that he has no idea what the extent of the problem is.

While I expect John Key to ignore real problems facing ordinary New Zealanders, I was surprised at the Green Party jumping to the defence of John Key and the status quo. Co-leader James Shaw, who is much more conservative than his predecessor, suggested that since companies importing semi-skilled foreign workers are “performing”, they should be left alone. This seems like more evidence for how the Green Party is no longer left-leaning, since Shaw never commented on the downward wage pressure on semi-skilled New Zealand workers caused by the current policies. That makes it look like he and the Green Party think that forcing wages lower for semi-skilled workers is okay as long as the companies are “performing”. If so, it’s an awfully elitist position for a party that likes to say it stands for the needs or ordinary New Zealanders.

So, when you combine all this—the long-standing policy of giving New Zealanders first crack at jobs within their own country, the downward wage pressure caused by cheap foreign workers, and the opportunity this system creates for exploiting foreign-born workers, Andrew Little is exactly right to say this system needs to be changed.

Twenty years ago today

Twenty years ago today, on September 12, 1995, I arrived in New Zealand as a tourist, beginning the arc my life has followed since. Twenty-one years ago, I never could’ve imagined how different my life would become, and I wouldn’t have believed it if someone had told me it was even possible. It all began, really, 20 years ago today, and this is the story of what led to that day.

In early 1994, a good friend of mine who was a travel agent gave me a ticket to fly to Berlin (travel agents could do that back then). I’d never visited Germany, the land of many of my ancestors, and I was keen to go. I had a great time, apart from language difficulties: My high school German and cramming in the weeks before I left weren’t really of much use, and I struggled.

I visited only about 3½ years after German Reunification, and my hotel was in the former East Berlin, where English wasn’t as widely spoken as in the former West Berlin. I had no idea how limited my own abilities in the German language were until I was fully immersed. I managed to get through those to enjoy my visit.

That Christmas, my friend gave me a ticket to fly anywhere in the world that United Airlines flew. My first thought was to go back to Germany, but my friend gently reminded me that this was a bigger opportunity, so I broadened my thinking.

I then thought of South America, but remembering my language difficulties in Germany, I figured travelling to a continent when I didn’t speak or understand either Spanish or Portuguese wasn’t a good idea. So, I decided that wherever I went should be English-speaking. I thought of South Africa, but it didn’t feel safe enough to travel to, especially alone, and English wasn’t necessarily the main language I’d encounter. That left Australia and New Zealand, and it was about as far from Chicago as I could fly.

My original trip was to be a couple weeks or so in Australia, and something like three days (!) in New Zealand. I arranged the time off work, and was ready to go.

My friend was on Apple’s eWorld online service, which was international, something America Online, my service, wasn’t. So, I asked him that if he was in an eWorld chatroom with folks from Australia or New Zealand, would he see if anyone would be willing for me to email them to get advice on what to see and—maybe even more importantly—what not to see.

My friend gave me three email address: The first turned out to be a bad address, the second was an Australian guy who told me he’d be happy to give me advice, but he was far too busy right then, so I should contact him closer to the time. The third email address was Nigel’s.

Over the following months, Nigel and I emailed back and forth, and I eventually joined eWorld, too, and we chatted online. It soon became clear that we were onto something bigger than the both of us, which led me to change around my itinerary to spend more time in New Zealand.

On September 12, 1995, I got off a United Airlines flight from Melbourne, and met Nigel in person for the first time. Over the couple weeks that followed, he showed me some of the main tourist spots in the upper North Island, and I also got a job, which was an important task.

Finding a job mattered so much because it would be what would allow me to move to New Zealand to be with Nigel. It, too, was a step in the process that began on this day.

I’ve written a lot about the things that happened in the past twenty years, but not a lot about what came before it. That’s mainly because the day eventually became “lost”, particularly after I became a permanent resident. I talked about all that back in 2011’s September 12 post.

November 2 has always been the important anniversary because that’s the date I arrived in New Zealand to stay. I like to remember this day, though, because it led to the bigger one later on—and many happy years.

Today also begins what I (not seriously) call the “Season of Anniversaries”, and an annual series of blog posts commemorating events that have marked the progress of my life in New Zealand. It’s all in fun, really.

So, today's may be a minor anniversary, but it’s still an important milestone in this journey. Back in 2012, I posted something on Facebook that’s still as true as ever:

“Never underestimate the power of love to make the improbable possible, or to transform the unlikely into an entirely new life.”

The journey toward my entirely new life “began to begin” twenty years ago today. I’m the better for it.

Previous posts about this anniversary (the first three only mention it):

Anniversay Time (2007)
Blogoversary 2 (2008)
Anniversaries Three and Fourteen (2009)
Where it began (2010)
Anniversary of the beginning (2011)
Another anniversary (2012)
18 years ago today (2013)
19 years ago today (2014)

Foreign-born human

What’s the difference between the words “expat”, “immigrant” and “migrant”? Is it race? Culture? Class? Until this year, I’d never thought about it, but as an immigrant and a left-of-centre person, the answer matters to me.

This all came up because several months ago my friend Linda shared a link with me on Facebook, a link to a piece on the Guardian’s website that discusses this very topic. All of which is part of the story. I tried to write a response at the time, but I was of two minds and after weeks of trying, I just couldn’t finish the post.

Then, today, I read about how Al Jazeera has announced that they will no longer use the word “migrant” when talking about the people, nearly all of them refugees from war or worse, trying to cross the Mediterranean to get to Europe. They argue that word “has evolved from its dictionary definitions into a tool that dehumanises and distances, a blunt pejorative.” I think they have a point.

The Guardian link from last March, the one that started this line of thinking for me, was to a blog post called “Why are white people expats when the rest of us are immigrants?” by Silicon Africa blogger, Mawuna Remarque Koutonin.

He begins his post by staking out his thesis in his first paragraph:

“In the lexicon of human migration there are still hierarchical words, created with the purpose of putting white people above everyone else. One of those remnants is the word ‘expat’.”

He next mentions the standard definition of expat explained by Wikipedia, a definition I’ve used on my blog many times, in many posts (such as one this past February). All of this is to get to his main point:

“Defined that way, you should expect that any person going to work outside of his or her country for a period of time would be an expat, regardless of his skin colour or country. But that is not the case in reality; expat is a term reserved exclusively for western white people going to work abroad.”

To be completely honest, my eyebrow was firmly raised by then. The word expat was implicitly racist?

I never really thought about the word until I came to live in New Zealand and encountered the word frequently. Up until that point, when I thought of expats, I thought of Americans of long ago hanging around in Paris with Gertrude Stein. But, Gertrude Stein was white. So was Hemmingway, and F. Scott Fitzgerald, and Sinclair Lewis, and—in fact, all the people I'd thought of when I thought of Gertrude's expats were white. Uh, oh…

Three years ago, Ritwik Deo, an Indian writer living in London, wrote “The British abroad: expats, not immigrants”, also published by the Guardian. He talks about British people living overseas basically act like the British Empire still exists.

Both of these writers see the word expat as being something of an imperialist throwback, something applied mostly to white people. It’s hard to argue with their perception, particularly with the concrete examples they provide. But could they actually be talking about a problem for British people? Maybe this isn’t actually a white problem as such, but a remnant of colonialism?

Christopher DeWolf, a Canadian writer and photographer who has lived in Hong Kong since 2008, wrote a piece for the Wall Street Journal in December last year, talking about who is, and who is not, considered an expat in Hong Kong. The dividing lines in Hong Kong are primarily ethnic, even among Chinese. He also suggests that the term expat is more about privilege than race.

In New Zealand, the term expat is used for a variety of people, not all of them white, and the term immigrant is frequently used to describe people of all races, cultures and classes who have moved to New Zealand. I’ve seen no evidence that in this country, at least, the term is used to classify people by race. It also seems to me that the word immigrant is starting to be used instead of the word expat, with the word migrant also being used more.

From what I’ve seen of Americans liiving overseas, it seems to me that expat is used to refer mainly to business migrants, not worker migrants, so it does imply a class distinction, though not necessarily a racial one. The term immigrant is a highly politically charged term in the USA, often used as if it always means “illegal immigrant”, an even more politically loaded term. When the word immigrant is used so negatively—and even pejoratively—in the USA, it’s little wonder that Americans living overseas would prefer the term expat.

Personally, I don’t care what term others use to describe me. I’m an immigrant, obviously, so being called that doesn’t bother me at all. However, I’ve often used the word expat to describe myself because to me it better describes the modern nature of immigration. Where once migrants had to leave their homelands forever, and often had little or no contact with the folks they left behind, that’s not necessarily true for modern migrants.

A good example of this is what led me to this topic in the first place. Linda and I met and became friends when we worked at the same place, and that was nearly (gasp!) 30 years ago. Facebook allows us to easily keep in contact, despite me living in another country in a different hemisphere.

Similarly, I am in frequent contact with family and friends in the USA, through all sorts of technology, as well as friends around the world I know only through social media. All of that has developed since I’ve been in New Zealand.

For me, being an immigrant is completely different than it was, say, for my great grandfather, the last of my ancestors to migrate to the USA, around 1870. It feels less permanent because it IS less permanent, and national borders themselves matter less than they ever have. Now that Nigel and I are married, I could sponsor him for US immigration, something that only became possible quite recently.

So, I think the term expat implies a status that’s a bit more fluid, a bit more flexible, than traditionally has been true for immigrants. I don’t personally see it as racist, but I do think there are class overtones.

The point in all this is that people moving from one country to another, for whatever reason, are people, not labels. It’s why Al Jazeera dropped use of the word migrant, and it’s why I now think we should avoid casual use of words intending to label immigration.

For example, I could be called an “American-born New Zealander” instead of an “American expat”. After all, it’s what I call myself in the banner for this blog and other sites.

I’m a human being, and so are all immigrants, migrants, expats, and refugees. Maybe if we started thinking of them that way first—as human beings—we might not need labels as much, and maybe then we could calmly and rationally deal with migration policies.

This clown trumps them all

The crowded Republican Clown Bus of candidates for US president has been filled to overflowing with crackpots, cranks, and vanity candidates. Now there’s one who’s all three. The comedy factor just soared.

I have to admit that it’s been quite liberating to say exactly what I think of the candidates as they announce, and the more bizarre the candidate or quixotic the campaign, the more fun it has been. Today, however, will test my ability to engage in more than just mockery.

Donald John Trump said stuff today, which isn’t particularly unusual. One supposes that he talks all day whether anyone is there to listen or not—though he may require his minions to sit and listen to his latest bloviation. Today, though, he said something that made the newsmedia pay attention: He officially announced that he’s a candidate for the Republican nomination for US president, even though he’s made it clear for the past four years, really, that he would be. However, for years he’s also mainly been a big tease (sorry—didn’t mean to use a hairstyling term…), so he’s pretty lucky anyone’s paying attention.

All joking aside, I can’t understand why Trump thinks he’s a serious candidate. He’s rich, sure, but not rich enough to buy the nomination, and apart from Mr. and Mrs. Fringey McFringerson, who on earth does he appeal to? He certainly can’t appeal to enough Republican voters to actually win the nomination; as far right and extremist as Republican primary voters often are, there just aren’t enough of the most fringe Republicans to deliver for Trump. What does he expect to accomplish?

Maybe his plan is to say outrageously and bizarrely stupid things, as he so often does, in order to make the other Republican clowns candidates seem like they’re slightly rational. Actually, that’s too tall an order for anyone.

The list of what’s wrong with Trump is too long to include here. Suffice it to say that he’s a crackpot and a crank, as, for example, his fringe attacks on climate change. He’s also rabidly against immigration reform, and included a tirade against Mexican immigrants in his announcement speech, something that a Republican National Committee spokesperson refused to condemn. In an interview with Good Morning America to be aired tomorrow, Trump talks about his promise to “build a wall” around Mexico, as he said in his announcement, and also how he’ll “make Mexico pay for it”. George Stephanopoulos asks the obvious question, HOW, precisely, would Trump make Mexico pay for it? His answer was that once elected, he just WOULD, because, you know, he just would!! Okay… (See also: “11 bonkers quotes from Donald Trump's campaign announcement”)

Trump has long been a promoter and believer of crackpot conspiracy theories. Most famously, he led a years-long crusade against President Obama, saying he wasn’t a natural born US citizen. Even when a frustrated Obama issued extraordinary proof that he was, something no white president or presidential candidate has ever had to do, Trump still went on about it, desperately trying to get people to buy whatever delusional conspiracy theory he was selling at the time.

It is Trump’s fame, largely from television, that is his biggest strength: People have heard of him. They probably don’t know anything about his politics, but they don’t really know about any of the others, either, polls show. So, as just another clown among may that most people aren’t yet paying any attention to, Trump’s fame will be his biggest asset—well, until people start learning who and what he really is.

But, let's play the game and pretend he’s a real candidate: Donald Trump is 69, and on Inauguration Day he’ll be 70 years, 221days old. Trump is ten days older than George Pataki, making him the oldest Republican clown candidate so far, and the second oldest major party candidate so far (Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders is nearly 5 years older). The oldest US President, Ronald Reagan, hallowed be his name, was 69 years, 349 days when he was sworn in.

Like most rational people, I just can’t take Trump seriously, but the Democratic Party had fun with that (the image at the top of this post is what they posted to Twitter today). In a media statement, Democratic National Committee National Press Secretary Holly Shulman said:

“Today, Donald Trump became the second major Republican candidate to announce for president in two days. He adds some much-needed seriousness that has previously been lacking from the GOP field, and we look forward to hearing more about his ideas for the nation.“

Yes, they’re mocking Trump, maybe even brilliantly, but there’s also a bit of hopeful thinking in there: If Trump does well enough, he’ll be included in debates and that will ensure that those debates are an even bigger circus than they promise to be without him. It would make them much more entertaining, that’s certain.

So, it turns out I mostly mocked Trump. Oops. That’s because I have such contempt for him that I just can’t be bothered pointing out everything he’s wrong about. Actually, let’s just simplify this: Trump is wrong about everything. There—sorted!

There’s still 1 year, 4 months, and 23 days until the US presidential election.

A clown with one name

As entertaining as the Republican Clown Bus of candidates for president has been so far, we now have a serious clown. One who, pundits constantly tell us, is the real deal, the one who can win the White House. No, he’s just another clown—AND another Bush.

John Ellis “Jeb” (just don’t say) Bush today finally announced that he’s a candidate for the Republican nomination for president. Surprise! No, this time for real! Not like that time last month he accidentally said he was running, no, this time he really, really means it!

Jeb Bush is 62, and on Inauguration Day he’ll be 63 years, 345 days old. This makes his age more or less average among Republican clowns candidates, maybe toward the younger end. The oldest US President, Ronald Reagan, hallowed be his name, was 69 years, 349 days when he was sworn in.

Jeb (just don’t say) Bush delayed his announcement for months so he could raise more money for his super PAC, quite possibly violating federal election law by engaging in illegal coordination—not that you’d know much about that because the US TV news networks didn’t bother to cover that story. Bygones! Jeb—who apparently wants his last name to be an exclamation mark—is now really running.

Just don’t talk about the (Bush) wars.

The reason that Jeb (just don’t say) Bush wants to be just “Jeb!” is that, you know, his brother—kinda not popular. Started two wars, including an invasion based on lies. He tortured people. He spied on innocent Americans. He helped the rich at home. He divided Americans like they hadn’t been in decades. In short, he pretty generally screwed up the country. Yeah, if I were related to George Bush, I’d probably choose “!” as my last name, too.

But Jeb (just don’t say) Bush has plenty of his own problems. First, he hasn’t run for anything since 2002, which is a generation in political terms. Voters who turn 18 by election Day 2016 were four years old the last time Jeb (just don’t say) Bush ran for anything. He has to introduce himself beyond the puffed-up pundits to be taken seriously—he has to talk to all those people who ONLY know of him as another Bush.

For someone who’s supposed to be the frontrunner for the Republican nomination, Jeb (just don’t say) Bush has been pretty awful so far.

Jeb (just don’t say) Bush is no moderate, despite what pundits like to suggest. He has a long anti-gay record (see also: “Jeb Bush's Worst Comments About Gay People”). Most recently, he’s embraced the newest cause célèbre of the radical right anti-gay industry, “religious freedom”, specifically arguing that people should be free to discriminate against LGBT people if they claim it was because of their supposed “religious freedom”. He also declared that he wants to bring the "Christian voice" to the White House, by which he means aggressively fundamentalist “Christian”, of course.

It even turns out that the man that Jeb (just don’t say) Bush said was his favourite author hates democracy and thinks that the ultra rich should seize power. And THAT is the person that Jeb (just don’t say) Bush says influenced him the most?! Sheesh!

When Jeb (just don’t say) Bush announced today, there were immigration protesters, and he “went off script” to sort of answer them. Vox, writing glowingly of the event, said, “The moment was remarkable… that it happened at all,” and went on to note that what he said was “actually similar to the tone he's taken with voters at campaign events who've come at him from the right on immigration.” Huh! Who’d have guessed that?!

I know that I’ve grown cynical after decades of shitty American politics, but come on! This was a fake, a set-up, a stunt. Campaign announcements are the most closely choreographed events there are, so it’s highly improbable that immigration rights protesters would get in, and very convenient that it allowed Jeb (just don’t say) Bush to repeat one of the few things he differs with the other Republican clowns candidates on. And why would they pick Bush and not some of the stridently anti-immigration candidates? Has ANY news media cooing over this story even bothered to check to see what, if anything, happened to the alleged protesters? I couldn’t find any evidence that they did.

And this gets to the second biggest of all the problems facing Jeb (just don’t say) Bush: He will say anything to get elected, and he will pander to anyone. I honestly don’t know what he actually believes, if anything, because he chops and changes so much, issuing a statement, walking it back, then saying something different again later on. It’s impossible to trust anything he says or does.

Obviously, Jeb!’s biggest problem is that he’s a Bush, something that’s a much bigger deal than the fact that Hillary is a Clinton. Jeb (just don’t say) Bush is the son and brother of US presidents, and three of them in less than 25 years is asking a lot of tolerance from American voters, especially when they booted the first one out after only one term and the second one left office pretty nearly universally disliked. The public’s largely forgotten about old man Bush, but George? The memory of his disastrous years in the White House is still too fresh, and too raw—and if it’s not, you can bet that should Jeb (just don’t say) Bush win his party’s nomination, every Democrat will remind voters that Jeb (just don’t say) Bush’s last name is NOT an exclamation point. With luck, though, maybe his ultimate defeat can be summed up by one.

There’s still 1 year, 4 months, and 24 days until the US presidential election.

Photo of Jeb Bush by Michael Vadon [CC BY-SA 4.0], via Wikimedia Commons.

Getting immigration right

The NZ Labour Party has already announced a lot of great policies, and will right up to the election. Labour’s immigration policy is one of those, one that’s quite close to my heart, of course, so I’m glad it’s so good.

Labour says of immigration (a copy of the full policy is available at the link):

“New Zealand is a country built on immigration. Labour is committed to immigration that not only meets economic priorities but which contributes to social objectives and to New Zealand’s vibrant multicultural society. Boosting regional development and lifting New Zealand’s economic performance toward a high-skilled high-income economy are key components of Labour’s immigration policy.”

The current government’s immigration policies tend to favour wealthy investors at one end, and short-term, cheap labour at the other. While the wealthy can bring investment capital into New Zealand, the low-skilled workers, many of whom are paid badly by New Zealand standards, drive down wages paid to New Zealand citizens and permanent residents. Added to this, many of these temporary workers are kept on temporary permits for a very long time, which prevents them from making long-term plans or putting down roots.

I can say based on my own experience how temporary everything feels when living here with a succession of temporary, short-term permits, as I was for nearly four years. There’s also the fear that a change in policy can take everything away, forcing one to leave New Zealand. Temporary residence doesn’t exactly encourage settling down or happiness.

So, Labour says that in government it will “ensure that the immigration system promotes a high-skilled high-wage economy rather than exploiting cheap labour that undercuts wages and undervalues training,” and they will “revitalise the settlement programme and seek to reduce the numbers of migrants on temporary visas for long periods.” This is great stuff.

Labour has already committed to raising the minimum wage within it’s first 100 days in Government, at will do so again in 2015. Over time, Labour will move to promoting a living wage. This, combined with a reorientation of immigration policy, will ensure rising standards of living for all New Zealanders, and it will also end the exploitation of immigrant workers. This is a win-win for all New Zealand workers, whether they were born here, live here permanently, or are on sponsored work visas, like mine was.

Before I could get my first temporary permit and visa, Immigration had to be satisfied that no one in New Zealand could do the job I was being sponsored to do. That meant I was bringing skills into New Zealand, not taking a job from a Kiwi. Labour’s policies will emphasise this again for new migrants.

Labour will also “use the points system and other tools to manage the number of immigrants entering the country on work visas to even out the peaks and troughs in the immigration cycle.” This has been a constant problem, affecting things throughout the economy, including housing prices. It’s worth trying to smooth this out a bit. But Labour also plans to “reward skilled immigrants who live in the regions, where their skills can unlock growth and job opportunities for the community,” which will benefit places outside of the main towns and cities. Taken together, these two commitments are about managing immigration so it benefits New Zealand and the nation’s economy as a whole, which is good.

Labour has also committed to making it easier for Pacific families to be reunited, given New Zealand’s unique relationship with Pacific island nations. This, combined with Labour’s commitment to raising the number of refugees that NZ accepts—the first time the number will have been raised since the 1980s—means that the immigration policies of the new Labour-led government will ensure that NZ meets its international obligations.

As an immigrant, I feel government policies in this area a little more keenly and personally than policies in other areas. The immigration policies of the new Labour-led Government will be better than the ones in place when I arrived in New Zealand in 1995, and I really like that.

To get better and fairer immigration policies—and a better and fairer New Zealand—we first have to vote to change the government. On September 20, I’ll be doing exactly that when I cast my Party and Electorate Votes for Labour. These policies are part of the reason why I’ll be doing that.