Supporting refugees ourselves

There's been a lot of calls recently for New Zealand to increase its refugee quota in response to the crisis in Syria.

I'm all for that, but I can understand the government getting antsy about the additional cost.  But what if we took on that cost ourselves?

In Canada, people can sponsor extra refugees in addition to the quota.  Refugees coming in this way don't have access to state benefits or housing for the first year: the sponsor(s) have to house them and pay their living expenses for that time.  Presumably the assumption is, after they've been around for a year, chances are they'll be in a fit state to provide for themselves and so will never have needed state assistance.

Someone has started a petition calling for a similar thing to be instituted here.  You can sign it here.

I think it's a really good idea.  I'm pretty sure my church, which has around 80 adult members, could pay the rent on a three-bedroom unit for a year, and could probably stump up $350 per week for living costs (which is what the government gives cash-in-hand for 'job-seeker support' for a family of 4) as well.  We could support an extra family of four, in addition to the 750 people the government supports.

I don't know what happens in Canada for health care or education for such people - if we had to pay international student fees for the kids and the full cost of any health care then I'm not sure we could manage it.  But if those were covered I think we could, and I think lots of other groups of people could, too!

If the idea appeals to you, too, then add your name to those calling for this to be possible.

Raising the refugee quota

Currently New Zealand accepts 750 'quota refugees' every year - a number that hasn't increased since 1987.  That puts us at 90th in the world (per capita) for accepting refugees.

I'm increasingly seeing calls to increase this number, but those calls are often met by concern.  People worry whether this will increase unemployment in New Zealand, whether this influx will dilute our culture and even whether such refugees will bring the conflict they're fleeing with them.

That got me thinking: what proportion of those we grant residency to are actually refugees?  And who are the other people we let in?

Using data from pages 6-8 of the pdf in this file from the immigration department's website, I generated the following graph:

It turns out that people granted residency for refugee/humanitarian reasons are a tiny proportion of the total. Surely too tiny to have much impact on our culture or our job-market!  If we're concerned about the impacts immigrants have on those things, quota refugees aren't the problem.

If we'd like to basically retain the status quo, why not reduce the number of skilled migrants we bring in, rather than keeping the refugee quota static?  We could double the number of people accepted on humanitarian grounds to 6% without changing the total number of migrants: just offset them by reducing the number of skilled people we take in from 53% to 50% of the total.  I suspect that would hardly make a difference to the job-market, whilst having a huge impact on some very desperate people.

That still leaves the concern of whether more refugees will bring more conflict with them.  That's an understandable fear, but I think a largely groundless one.  I haven't looked into it, but I've rarely heard of conflict being introduced into New Zealand by refugees, so any increase would likely leave it at a very low level.

Notes:

1. You can see a spreadsheet with all the data used to generate the pie chart here.  The most processed data is at the top and as you go down you eventually reach the raw data.  Quite a few steps were involved in going from their numbers to my simple chart!
2. The categories on the pie chart are my own.  There are a truly surprising number of categories under which residency can be granted.  I have grouped them into ones that seemed to have a similar rationale behind them.
3. Refugee/humanitarian is broader than just quota refugees.  It also includes other categories that had 'refugee' in their title but didn't appear to be part of the quota, as well as the categories 'Victims of Domestic Violence' and 'Humanitarian'.
4. Family reasons is mostly foreign spouses of NZ citizens/residents or their children or parents.  This doesn't include refugee family reunifications - they're in the refugee/humanitarian category.
5. PAC/Samoan Quota is people from Tonga, Tuvalu, Kiribati and Samoa who can come in under quota schemes.
6. Skilled migrants/Talents/Employees includes not just skilled migrants but also people who come in with 'talents' in sports or arts and culture (!) or as employees (presumably being relocated from overseas).

Easing the Mediterranean refugee crisis

I've just written to New Zealand's Minister of Immigration in support of a proposal I've come across to ease the refugee crisis in the Mediterranean.

To be honest, what I'd really like him to do (and what I've written to him about in the past) is to actually allow people to seek asylum in New Zealand.  Currently NZ Immigration puts considerable effort into making sure asylum seekers never reach our shores.  We actively prevent these people from exercising a legal right, presumably in the fear that, if they come, we may find them legitimate refugees and have to let them stay.

However, I don't think I'm going to get any traction on that, but maybe traction on this proposal is possible: after all, it doesn't just come from me - it comes from the UN's special rapporteur on the human rights of migrants!

My letter is below.  Maybe you would like to send something similar?

Dear Hon. Mr. Woodhouse,

I am horrified by the recent deaths in the Mediterranean of people trying to cross into Europe.  I am writing to you in support of the proposal by François Crépeau for these people to be resettled by the UN in an organised manner so that they no longer have to take such risks to reach sanctuary.

He proposes that the rich nations of the world take in a quota of Syrian refugees each year for the next five years.  Based on the number he is proposing Australia to take, I estimate New Zealand's annual quota would be around 1000 per year.  This would be in addition to the refugees we admit under our current quota.

I understand that this would involve more than doubling our current refugee intake.  However, the situation in Syria is extreme, so extreme measures are called for.  In addition, as François Crépeau points out, such measures are not without precedent.  In 1979-1980 New Zealand took in around 1500 Vietnamese refugees under a similar UN scheme.

I strongly urge you to support this proposal on behalf of New Zealand.

Moreover, I encourage you to offer New Zealand's expertise to assist with the second part of his proposal.  This concerns African migrants seeking to cross the Mediterranean to take up low-skilled jobs in Europe.  His proposal to assist them seems similar to the highly successful Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme in New Zealand.  I feel you could offer valuable advice in establishing a similar scheme in Europe.

Thank you for your consideration of these matters.