100 signatures reached
To: The Minister of Immigration, the Education and Workforce Select Committee and all Members of Parliament
STOP New ICE-style Powers To Request ID & Other Measures Proposed in the New Immigration Bill
STOP new ICE-style powers to request ID documents & other measures proposed in the new Immigration Bill.
We oppose the changes proposed in the new Immigration (Enhanced Risk Management) Bill and Parliamentary Paper of additional proposals. We call on parties not to recommend it be passed and that it be scrapped.
We oppose the changes proposed in the new Immigration (Enhanced Risk Management) Bill and Parliamentary Paper of additional proposals. We call on parties not to recommend it be passed and that it be scrapped.
Why is this important?
The changes proposed erode Aotearoa’s longstanding commitment to fundamental human rights and humanitarian principles. It is clear that the effect of the changes proposed will have a significant, negative impact on everyone, all visa holders, but especially people seeking asylum, refugees and the broader refugee protection framework in Aotearoa. It will affect:
- Their right to stay if they find love or are offered a job.
- Their rights to appeal to stay on humanitarian grounds.
- Everyone's right to live free from being required by Immigration Officers to provide ID on request in the community, at home or at work.
New ICE-style Powers for Immigration Officers to Request ID on suspicion:
We are alarmed by the new powers proposed for Immigration Officers to request identification documents from people they suspect could be liable to deportation or in breach of visa conditions because:
- In practice, it is clear that these powers are likely to extend to people who are in Aotearoa legally, such as people seeking asylum and refugees but also residents or citizens, and will be used disproportionally against people based on their race, ethnicity or country of origin.
- It will be particularly harmful to people seeking asylum and refugees, many of whom have experienced heightened and harmful government monitoring in their countries of origin.
- Rather than fostering a sense of safety and belonging, these provisions risk increasing existing vulnerabilities and erode trust in public institutions.
- It risks vulnerable populations going further into the shadows. Individuals may avoid seeking medical care or even reporting crimes, like workplace exploitation or domestic violence, for fear of immigration enforcement and deportation.
Ban on alternative visa pathways for people who withdraw their asylum claim
- It is cruel to ban people seeking asylum who withdraw their claim, because they have fallen in love, married or are in a settled relationship with a New Zealand partner, from being eligible for an alternative visa such as a Partnership Visa
- It is cruel to ban people seeking asylum who withdraw their claim from being eligible for an alternative visa such as a Skills or Job specific Work to Residence Visa because they have been offered employment.
Limitation on humanitarian appeal rights
- The limitation on humanitarian appeal rights will reduce access to independent, experienced oversight at a critical point in the immigration system.These oversight and appeal rights are an important safeguard, particularly for individuals with complex or evolving humanitarian needs, including those facing serious harm if returned.
- Limiting appeal rights could also be unduly harsh on the children of those liable for deportation. Currently, many deportation cases regarding temporary visa holders (such as those who have sought asylum here over many years) involve families with children in school who have spent the majority of their lives in Aotearoa New Zealand. Deportation can have major, adverse impacts on children’s health and well-being, notably through family separation, disrupted education, and being returned to an unfamiliar country where they may not speak the language.
- Retaining the right to appeal deportation is an important avenue for protecting children’s rights and upholding New Zealand’s obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Conflation of people seeking asylum, seeking safety, with criminals
- This Bill and its public introduction by the Minister makes a problematic conflation between serious criminal offending by long-term residents and measures targeting asylum claimants, packaging both under the framing of "Enhanced Risk Management."
- These provisions address entirely different populations with entirely different legal statuses. One group has been convicted of serious crimes; the other is exercising a fundamental right recognised under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Refugee Convention.
- Grouping them in a single legislative instrument, such as this Bill, undermines public understanding of what the asylum process is and reinforces a damaging association between asylum seeking and criminality that is neither accurate nor justified, putting communities at risk.
We therefore call on this Bill to be scrapped.
For more about Asylum Seekers Support Trust:
Website: asst.org.nz
Facebook: facebook.com/ARCI.NZ
Instagram: @asylumseekersnz
How it will be delivered
We intend to hand this in at Parliament