Speaker by Various Artists

Read Post

Speaker: Low-quality language on immigration

99 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last

  • Farmer Green, in reply to Ian Dalziel,

    ...too much information!

    Insufficient insulation ?

    Lower North Island • Since Nov 2012 • 778 posts Report Reply

  • Chris Waugh, in reply to simon g,

    I think he deserves an apology, frankly.

    I don't. But to be clear, I did not mean to accuse him personally, but probably didn't make that clear enough. I have no reason to believe he's anything than what he says he is. But he is co-leader of a party which has a history of the same sort of xenophobia as Labour - take the Crafar farms as an example. So my problem is not with James Shaw, but with the party he co-leads.

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 2401 posts Report Reply

  • mark taslov, in reply to Chris Waugh,

    To be honest I’m not even sure why we’re discussing the Greens given they weren’t represented on stage in the segment this thread is in response to. Historically between the Greens and Labour it’s a no contest. My oversight here has possibly been implying that ‘The Chinese Names’ campaign was a blip rather than a return to stale form by the New Zealand Labour party.

    In April 1920 Labour MPs Michael Joseph Savage, Bill Parry and Frederick Bartram telegrammed Reform Party prime minister Massey asking that “steps be immediately taken to deal with (the) menace” of an “alarming influx of Asiatics and other classes of cheap labour. . .” The Labour figures argued that this influx inevitably involved “the lowering of the living standards of our people, as well as the probable deterioration in the physical standard of all races mixing indiscriminately. . .”

    Te Ika-a-Māui • Since Mar 2008 • 2281 posts Report Reply

  • Chris Waugh, in reply to mark taslov,

    Historically between the Greens and Labour it’s a no contest.

    Labour has a longer history, but I'm struggling to see the Greens as being any better on this count.

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 2401 posts Report Reply

  • Katharine Moody,

    The real issue is that NZ is bad for immigrants.

    We have no proper immigration policy – instead we have an exploitation and education trafficking policy;

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/337158/the-outcome-of-these-10-years-is-not-even-zero

    And many, many more similar stories - it's been known for years - and the National Government is complicit in respect of the exploitation.

    Wellington • Since Sep 2014 • 798 posts Report Reply

  • Farmer Green, in reply to Katharine Moody,

    The real issue is that NZ is bad for immigrants.

    The real issue for me is not the immigration per se , but rather
    the policy that sees a generation of young NZers provided with dismal education , thus creating a need for immigrants, who have the required education, to take the place of the "unsuitable " Kiwi youth.

    A self-fulfilling prophecy . . . .we need immigrants because Kiwis don't have the necessaries.

    Lower North Island • Since Nov 2012 • 778 posts Report Reply

  • Joe Wylie, in reply to ,

    ...the cool thing about TOP policy's on the web, is that they ask for feedback. They want to know what we want.

    I can just picture him & Plunket - "Kitchee-koo, you unwashed tree huggers."

    flat earth • Since Jan 2007 • 4593 posts Report Reply

  • Katharine Moody, in reply to Farmer Green,

    A self-fulfilling prophecy . . . .we need immigrants because Kiwis don’t have the necessaries.

    But that is simply popular myth - it isn't the case at all. Rather in the main the immigration policy has been deliberately set such that we are able to import labour that we can exploit;

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/335411/too-easy-to-flout-employment-laws-says-union

    The fact that the Labour Inspectorate has been wholly inadequate to police this is another deliberate government policy - much like the Mining Inspectorate in the lead up to Pike River.

    Wellington • Since Sep 2014 • 798 posts Report Reply

  • linger, in reply to Katharine Moody,

    popular myth

    Well, not sure if it's really all that popular, except among the rich pricks that dominate the commentariat (so it gets a lot more airplay than it should); and in some sectors a lack of trained individuals is a reality rather than a myth (largely the result — as others have noted above — of the past 20 years of user-pays education and the dismantling of continuing-education programmes) ... but it's certainly part and parcel of Blinglish's bullshit about dole recipients being unskilled lazy druggies.

    Tokyo • Since Apr 2007 • 1940 posts Report Reply

  • mark taslov, in reply to Chris Waugh,

    Labour has a longer history

    Now that you mention it, so does Donald Trump. It’s amazing what one can get away with when the hairs start falling out. When the next populist revival of racism inevitably rolls around people will no doubt look back on today and say “but that was 2017, people didn’t know any better”.

    Chances are that then as now the Greens still won’t have made a habit of weaponizing the names of marginalised groups for political traction, but if per chance we get to then and can look back on a GP political history peppered with the exploitation of words like Asians, Asiatics, Chinese etc and all that comes with that – interspersed with apologies – then I may be inclined to agree on this count.

    Te Ika-a-Māui • Since Mar 2008 • 2281 posts Report Reply

  • Farmer Green, in reply to Katharine Moody,

    So in your manifesto, immigration is necessary for what?

    Lower North Island • Since Nov 2012 • 778 posts Report Reply

  • simon g,

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1330 posts Report Reply

  • Katharine Moody, in reply to Farmer Green,

    At the moment it is predominantly necessary in order to fill positions in low paid sectors of our workforce – as was demonstrated when National tried to use wages as a proxy for skills (i.e., it was plain to see we were mainly importing for low wage positions across a number of sectors in what were classified as low skill migrants);

    "The revised salary threshold is more realistic for migrant workers to go from a lower-skilled role to a mid-skilled role with training and more experience, and will be more workable in the regions."

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11895865

    Immigration is not really necessary, rather it is convenient/expedient.

    Wellington • Since Sep 2014 • 798 posts Report Reply

  • Chris Waugh, in reply to simon g,

    Several parties support increasing the refugee quota. That is only right.

    And:

    Green Party co-leader James Shaw has apologised for how the party introduced its immigration policy last year, which was slammed as "racist pandering" by migrant groups.

    And I'm glad James Shaw was big enough to make that apology. What I want to see is the Greens develop a record of being (in Mr Shaw's words, from the above-linked article) "the most migrant-friendly party in Parliament", and I want to see that because in most respects I'm a natural Green voter. But the Greens haven't yet done enough to win my trust back (but there's time).

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 2401 posts Report Reply

  • Neil,

    House prices in Auckland are dropping even though immigration remains high.

    A higher population means more people to pay for and utilise public transport.

    A higher population creates a larger local market in which to develop added value products that can be exported.

    And yet Labour are sticking to cutting numbers. Or something, it doesn't seem particularly clear.

    It's easy enough to promise trains for all, harder it seems to stand up to the rhetoric of Peters.

    Since Nov 2016 • 380 posts Report Reply

  • Farmer Green, in reply to Neil,

    And yet Labour are sticking to cutting numbers. Or something, it doesn't seem particularly clear.

    A higher population means a greater impact on the environment.
    A lesser impact on the environment might be something that the populace believes should be brought about.
    Cutting immigration would be easier and cheaper than reducing the impact of the present population.

    Lower North Island • Since Nov 2012 • 778 posts Report Reply

  • Moz, in reply to Farmer Green,

    Cutting immigration would be easier and cheaper than reducing the impact of the present population.

    Which is not to say that reducing the impact of the present population is particularly difficult, just that immigration is a seemingly trivial thing to change. The flow-on effects are much more exciting, not least because "real" GDP growth depends almost entirely on immigration. National is more dependent on that effect than Labour, but both rely on it to provide the illusion of progress in the neoliberal framework they use.

    The annoying thing is we could reduce the environmental impact of a number of sectors just by reducing the subsidies or changing the subsidy mix. Some of the stupid things we spend money on only make any sense at all if you rely on tradition and never think about what we're actually doing. "We have always sacrificed our first-born to Moloch" makes as much sense as "farmers have always let the cow shit run off into streams".

    Sydney, West Island • Since Nov 2006 • 1233 posts Report Reply

  • Farmer Green, in reply to Moz,

    makes as much sense

    Do you mean "makes as little sense" ?
    The comparison is between two untrue statements.
    Can "reducing the environmental impact" ever be enough?
    In other words , how far do we want to go in reducing the human footprint , and who decides when enough is enough?

    Lower North Island • Since Nov 2012 • 778 posts Report Reply

  • Farmer Green, in reply to Moz,

    It would be true to say that ruminants have always recycled most of their excretions into the grasslands/soil association which has evolved with them, and which sustains them.

    Lower North Island • Since Nov 2012 • 778 posts Report Reply

  • linger, in reply to Farmer Green,

    But then it would also be true to say that NZ ecosystems have not evolved with any ruminants. NZ is the last landmass (other than Antarctica) to have been settled and changed by humans, which makes your question

    how far do we want to go in reducing the human footprint, and who decides when enough is enough

    even more pointed. There’s a Radiolab episode, Wild Things, that explores some of the resulting dilemmas: (i) what it means, and whether it’s even possible, to preserve wild animals in a natural habitat; and (ii) an interesting take on hunting vs. conservation.

    Tokyo • Since Apr 2007 • 1940 posts Report Reply

  • Moz, in reply to Farmer Green,

    It would be true to say that ruminants have always recycled most of their excretions into the grasslands/soil association which has evolved with them,

    Nah bro, you're not in Africa now. Unless you're saying that there's ruminant moa somewhere in Aotearoa? The co-evolution you're talking about happened overnight like so: Mount Taupo erupted, hominids arrived, CO2 hit 400ppm. Blink. Wooah. Or gronk, as the moa apparently used to put it.

    Linger nailed it, but I had the mental picture of a ruminant moa saying "gronk".

    Sydney, West Island • Since Nov 2006 • 1233 posts Report Reply

  • Katharine Moody, in reply to Farmer Green,

    A lesser impact on the environment might be something that the populace believes should be brought about.

    I would like to see us make far greater use of environmental carrying capacity (quantitative analysis) as a part of our planning/development decisions - including built environment as well as natural environment carrying capacity. I think that was what the RMA's effects-based approach was supposed to do but it can't be working given our congestion problems; our nutrient problems; etc.

    It was pointed out very early on in the RMA implementation (and that implementation is 1991) that the Act as written failed to deal with cumulative effects - yet regardless of the many amendments to it since 1991, we still haven't solved that problem.

    So we now see that problem trying to be solved in much lower order (and in many case, non-regulatory) documents, such as catchment strategies and local/village strategic plans. We have become adept at talking the talk.

    Wellington • Since Sep 2014 • 798 posts Report Reply

  • Farmer Green, in reply to Moz,

    Nah bro, you're not in Africa now.

    :-)
    The grasslands that we have today in NZ might suit a moa . . . chickens like it.
    I was just referring to the phenomenon of the building of productive topsoils by grazing ruminants. It might be the only sustainable lifestyle that Homo sapiens has encountered so far.

    But I think you meant Eurasia ;-

    http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/March2012/120327-cattle-traced-back-80-animals

    Lower North Island • Since Nov 2012 • 778 posts Report Reply

  • Farmer Green, in reply to Katharine Moody,

    From what I can read in the farming and business papers , we are, nationally, at the stage of identifying the most problematic soil/catchment situations which will not meet the national guidelines. And regulating these areas to achieve compliance.
    Some soils will always be very "leaky".

    The proliferation of dairying in the South Island took place in spite of the geography, a consideration of which might have led to the conclusion that some locations were totally unsuitable for some types of food production.

    I think that progress on the reduction of human impact is predictably slow , in both urban and rural environments . . . this is a local government function after all.
    But for affected farmers, it is a dream shattered.

    Lower North Island • Since Nov 2012 • 778 posts Report Reply

  • Farmer Green, in reply to Moz,

    Here's what I was actually trying to get at:-

    "Although all plants photosynthesize, no vegetation type beats grasses, which cover a greater area of the earth’s landmass than any other. And if that wasn’t enough, unlike forests, grasslands store most of the carbon they sequester from the atmosphere deep under the soil surface as organic matter, which actually increases fertility and enhances soil life in countless ways. That is why the great grain growing regions of the world are former grasslands, not forests.



    "Grasslands are the most important ecosystem for human civilization.

    When healthy, they purify the air, absorb and filter water and allow it to infiltrate back into underground reservoirs, they support immeasurable wildlife and biodiversity, and they build the deepest most fertile soils on the planet.

    Grasslands are also home to more than 1 billion people who depend on them for their food and livelihoods."

    Alan Savory is saying that if you want to save agriculture , then you must save the grasslands.
    The question is :- "why would you want to save agriculture" , right?

    Lower North Island • Since Nov 2012 • 778 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.