More brainless sheep?

In researching Labour attack ‘brainless sheep’ I came across another use of the term ‘brainless sheep’ that was used recently – at Whale Oil.

SB posted: The National Party on Immigration and the refugee quota

I contacted National, Labour, Act, The Maori Party, NZ First, the Greens, the Opportunities Party, the Conservatives and United Future to ask them all three questions. The fourth party to respond to my questions was the National Party. My questions and the Minister of Immigration Michael Woodhouse’s answers are published below in full and un-edited.

Question:

The perception of many of our readers is that left-of-centre political parties prefer immigrants from low socio-economic countries who are highly dependent on the state and poorly educated because immigrants like that will naturally vote for the left-of-centre parties who allowed them in. Which immigrants get priority under your party’s policy and why?

Why do many Whale Oil readers (SB doesn’t quantify or say how she knows) think “that left-of-centre political parties prefer immigrants from low socio-economic countries who are highly dependent on the state and poorly educated because immigrants like that will naturally vote for the left-of-centre parties who allowed them in”?

This poorly informed political generalisation is as brainless as Labour Tauranga.

Answer:

Majority of our immigration policies are based on skill level and the Government is constantly making changes to improve the skill level of migrants coming to New Zealand.

Perhaps SN could learn about the objectives of Immigration New Zealand and educate her WO readers:

INZ Operational Manual – Residence

a The objective of New Zealand’s residence programme is to contribute to economic grow
th through enhancing the overall level of human capability in New Zealand, encouraging enterprise andinnovation, and fostering international links, while maintaining a high level of social cohesion.

b This objective is achieved through selecting a broad mix of migrants on the basis of either their skills and experience or their family links to New Zealand.

https://www.immigration.govt.nz/documents/ops-manual/residence.pdf

Question:

Many of our readers do not trust the UN to decide which refugees we will get and are concerned that they are not being vetted properly. There is also the problem that Christian and non-Muslim refugees who are more easily able to integrate and assimilate into New Zealand are not safe inside the camps and flee them which results in an almost 100% Muslim refugee intake for New Zealand. Given that we are a Christian and secular country where does your party stand on our refugee quota?

SB seems to state as fact “an almost 100% Muslim refugee intake for New Zealand”. I would be interested to know how she knows this, and if it is accurate.

Answer:

In regards to refugees, refugees are referred by the UNHCR to New Zealand for resettlement based on need for protection and are robustly screened by NZ Government agencies.

I thought this screening process (by NZ immigration) was common knowledge.

Question:

Our readers would also like to know if your party would support putting persecuted minorities such as Christian and non-Muslim refugees at the front of the queue?

Answer:

Under international conventions, religion is not a criterion that can be used for selection.

Using a poorly informed blog like Whale Oil to determine which religions were acceptable for consideration for refugee intakes is unlikely to happen, fortunately.

The ‘brainless sheep’ reference came up in comments.

Win: The answer “Religion is not a criterion that can be used for selection” – so why are all of these so called refugees muslim?

That SB states they are does not make it fact.

Shalice: That phrase only means “if we choose Christians we will be accused of not being diverse enough and being PC is infinitely more important than the safety of NZ citizens”

deja vu: At best it’s lazy thinking – at worst cowardice.

Who’s lack of thinking is lazy?

deja vu: Actually they’re not so private agendas. Can’t be, if even we stupid brainless sheep can find out what they are. There has to be another explanation which dares not speak its name in public – surrendering to the ultimate ambitions of the NWO.

I presume NWO refers to New World Order (conspiracy theory). That went unchallenged.

Trevor Hughes appears to have some detail:

Under the 1951 UN Convention a refugee is a person with a well founded fear of persecution because of their race, religion, social group or political opinion. New Zealand is free to take whichever refugees it wishes. Currently in the Middle East religious minorities like the Christians and Yazidis are the most severely persecuted groups.

Yazidism is an ancient religion in northern Mesopatamia (mainly Iraqi Kurds) and they have been persecuted by ISIS. Some of their own practices aren’t that flash either, with recent reports of stonings and ‘honour’ killings.

One of the largest Yazidi populations outside the Middle East is in Germany, something around 100,000 of them have gone their as refugees. Germany has been strongly criticised on Whale Oil for it’s immigration policies.

They have suffered unspeakable atrocities at the hands of radical Islamists and they dare not enter the UN run refugee camps which are largely muslim.

Many have suffered in the Middle East in Syria, Iraq, Yemen – mostly Muslims.

There won’t be many Muslims in the Yazidi refugee camp either. See “The first thing one notices upon entering the Yazidi refugee camp is the children. They seem to be everywhere—chasing each other between the UN tents…”.

Yet these people at present make up only about two percent of our refugee intake, the overwhelming majority of the intake being muslim.

Perhaps because most refugees currently in dire need are Muslim? Interesting he has quantified Christian and Yazidi refugees but not Muslims.

New Zealand could easily bypass UNHCR, which has a history of corruption running the camps, and work with agencies like the Barnabas Foundation to redress this travesty. Perhaps however we are afraid of upsetting our Saudi mates and the free trade deal?

Odd comment. Bypassing UNHCR and bypassing refugee camps would require a lot more work and vetting by New Zealand.

3 Comments

  1. Most people are aware the Woodhouse is a brainless UN parrot, but he will be going at the end of this year. Try writing to him to yourself, parrot repeats the mantra time after time. It can not think

    • Woodhouse is currently ranked 9 for National so if he stands again is very likely to remain.

      He parrots Immigration New Zealand ‘mantra’ as he is required to do as minister. It’s nonsense calling him a ‘brainless UN parrot’.

  2. NOEL

     /  February 19, 2017

    UNHCR has a mandate to identify if a displaced person is a “refugee”.
    After that the potential host country has the right to further investigate the person and decline to accept them if they consider there is a concern.

    A scenario former PM John Key claimed has happened in the past.