Ahmed Zaoui: Piss-taker or misunderstood?

[ManDownUnder]

That's a legal requirement if you are entering as a refugee. I shit you not.

Details please? (Never been a refugee so I've never gone through the process)

[Lias]

Arbeit Macht Frei.

I like "Auslander Raus" better.. So much so I got it tattooed on my arm..

[Guitana]

Gates of Auswitchz, "Work brings freedom"...... Very good

Jeez you two are a worry!!!!

[Hans]

7.62.............

338lm or some such.

[Sniper]

338lm or some such.

Each to their own I guess. I find 7.62 more common, although my fav is still .300

[Hans]

We'll settle on 7.62x54R , eh?

[MacD]

That's a legal requirement if you are entering as a refugee. I shit you not.

I have seen this statement a number of times with regard to this case, but I cannot find any evidence of it being correct. I would really like to see where this is stated in legislation, regulation or guidelines regarding Refugee applications in NZ. This is a serious request, not a wind-up.

The NZ Immigration Operations Manual which is available online at:
http://www.immigration.govt.nz/nzis/...nual/index.htm
states that a refugee applicant must be in the country at the time of application, and may be in the country legally or illegally (as in obtaining entry by use of a false passport) (section C4.5). Section C3.25 even states that a passport may be used as a form of identity in a refugee application. Section C4.25 also states that the country has a general responsibility to accept people who claim refugee status on arrival in the country.

Therefore it appears that the issue of destroying your passport (fraudulent or otherwise) is simply a failsafe mechanism to prevent Immigration from deporting you if they do not accept your request for refugee status, which they are effectively required to do. Section C4.25c states that Immigration Officers must "not take any action to remove the claimant".

So, who's an immigration lawyer on the site?

[Indiana_Jones]

Zaoui is a cunt.

-Indy

[Sniper]

We'll settle on 7.62x54R , eh?

Ahh, the russian. meus amiculus

[James Deuce]

I have seen this statement a number of times with regard to this case, but I cannot find any evidence of it being correct. I would really like to see where this is stated in legislation, regulation or guidelines regarding Refugee applications in NZ. This is a serious request, not a wind-up.

The NZ Immigration Operations Manual which is available online at:
http://www.immigration.govt.nz/nzis/...nual/index.htm
states that a refugee applicant must be in the country at the time of application, and may be in the country legally or illegally (as in obtaining entry by use of a false passport) (section C4.5). Section C3.25 even states that a passport may be used as a form of identity in a refugee application. Section C4.25 also states that the country has a general responsibility to accept people who claim refugee status on arrival in the country.

Therefore it appears that the issue of destroying your passport (fraudulent or otherwise) is simply a failsafe mechanism to prevent Immigration from deporting you if they do not accept your request for refugee status, which they are effectively required to do. Section C4.25c states that Immigration Officers must "not take any action to remove the claimant".

So, who's an immigration lawyer on the site?

If you turn up with documentation your application for refugee status is immediately declined. It has nothing to do with the intent of the law and everything to do with the implementation of policy.

As you say it is a failsafe. I've only spoken to Customs lawyers (off the record) about this, but they do work closely with Immigration after all.

[MacD]

If you turn up with documentation your application for refugee status is immediately declined. It has nothing to do with the intent of the law and everything to do with the implementation of policy.

As you say it is a failsafe. I've only spoken to Customs lawyers (off the record) about this, but they do work closely with Immigration after all.

OK, but I bet it's not nearly as clearcut as it sounds. One reason to decline a refugee application is if it is determined that there is no real threat to your safety in your country of origin. As Zaoui was travelling on a (false) South African passport it would have been difficult for him to prove that there was a threat in South Africa.

To say it's a legal requirement is a stretch however, and one of the pieces of spin that is being applied to his case by a very successful PR campaign (IMHO).

[Nitzer]

I like "Auslander Raus" better.. So much so I got it tattooed on my arm..

does that apply to all immigrants or only for those who don't speak English as a first language?

[Lias]

does that apply to all immigrants or only for those who don't speak English as a first language?

Any who dont speak reasonably fluent english.
Any who dont adapt to our culture and way of life.
Any who dont want to obey our laws.
Any who dont want to work hard.

Etc.

[Teflon]

We need to be more brutal and execute these fuckers. Chop the cunts head off.. fuck Islam

[Jorja]

The thing I find amazing is we basically allow a large amount of people from poorer countries who have no skills to come and live here. I have no objection to helping people who actually WANT to better themselves.

On the other hand, if someone from another country wants to come and actually start up a business here, they are required to have 2 million dollars nz first.

Who should we be encouraging? Unskilled labour who don't speak english or business people who are educated?