Wednesday, 19 July 2006

Phillip Field

Well, call me Not PC, but I really have no real problem with what Phillip Field is supposed to have done. The result of the inquiry is certainly one that conveniently avoids the possibility of an inconvenient by-election for Labour, but that on its own is no reason to condemn the man who seems 'guilty' of no more than helping out several individuals who were having troubles with Immigration officials.

Those people who think he was exploiting these poor tempest-tossed folk might like to have a look at a TV programme called (I think) 'Border Control' to see the utterly inhuman way these folk are regularly treated by the bullying scum who work for Immigration. As I said in my Cue Card on immigration, “God damn you if the only two words you can find to put together when talking about people who leave their homelands to seek a better life for themselves and their families are ‘illegal aliens.’” Those would be two of the nicer words used by immigration officials to describe these people seeking a better life.

Phillip Field -- who as Mangere MP would necesarily see more of the results of this bullying than most of us, and probably more than any other MP -- was at least able to see these people as human beings, and to find a non-sacrificial way to offer assistance. Good on him for that.

Personally I have more trouble with the bloody QC who was apparently paid nearly half-a-million dollars for the nine months he spent writing this report, and with immigration laws and officers who treat human beings like cattle.

LINK: Cue Card Libertarianism: Immigration - Not PC

Immigration, Politics-NZ, Politics-Labour


  1. Your are too kind to this chap PC.
    Field ONLY got off his arse for these folk because they were prepared to kiss his ring and paint/tile his house.
    If he had any shred of integrity he would have publiclly declared his cause before "helping them directly".

  2. So the immigration system sucks, I agree with that. But that doesn't give Mr Field a pass for what he did.

    He tacitly supports the broken system by supporting Labour and not advocating change. Furthermore, he personally benefited from the broken system by getting people to work for him free or on the cheap in exchange for him helping to get them a visa. And that is what got him in trouble because he moved from helping out, as he did in the majority of cases, to helping himself from a few people who had skills that he wanted.

    As for how long it took to get the report out. That seems to be mostly a measure of the delaying tactics used by Mr Field and other witnesses rather than how long it took to write.

  3. This is a bloody ridiculous post PC. He had power over these people because he could give them immigration status and that's why he used them to work for him for next to nothing. You offer no proof at all he would have helped them because they were human beings. It is actually quite unlikely he would have helped them. He didn't "help" them for nothing, doesn't that say it all?

    Really no one in this country, well, we can be exact on this subject, except a thousand people, agree with the Libertarian view on immigration.

  4. Any power he had over these people was due to those very immigration restrictions you defend, Berend.

    Sheesh. It was those very restrictions that give him and everyone else in power virtually a blank check over every one whose lives hang in the balance while the Immigration bureaucrats consider their fate.

    Take away that power, and you take away such potential abuses of it, and you de-fang both the bullies and the exploiters who really do exist.

    And you also strike a big blow for liberty and freedom.

    It doesn't matter if four million people are in favour of xenophobia. It doesn't make it right. Never will.

  5. To see the positive spinoffs of abolishing immigration controls one just has to look at the more enlightened EU members. The UK has unlimited entry from the 10 new EU states (Poland et al) and there is now a pool of hard working, willing people keen to make a living - an abject contrast to the benefit claiming underclass of barely literate ASBO seekers who were born here.

    It would be simple to allow immigration to NZ by anyone who:
    1. Has no criminal conviction (for a real crime).
    2. Will not have any access to state welfare of any kind (paying for their own and their kids' education/health) (and pay a far lower tax rate in return)
    3. Has sufficient funds to pay for an airfare home or a return ticket.

  6. This is not an immigration question.
    Philip field does not advocate for the Libz policy on crossing boarders.
    It is about a crooked politician using his office in a corrupt manner.
    And the prime minister yet again sucessfully deluding the public with a bucket of white wash.

  7. PC/libertyscott, you fail to show how any civilisation can adopt a few million barbarians, even if they can pay a return ticket.

    Perhaps that should be tried out first before we embark on another experiment.

    But if we had to start a country from scratch (any takers?), I would fully agree with your position.

  8. Berend. Barbarians? You mean the people who are the ancestors or virtually all of the population? Like my parents? You want to go here and find people who share your view of foreigners because it's bloody offensive

    Sorry that people coming from other countries are barbarians compared to the angelic productive hard-working people born here.

    or was it ok for NZ to absorb hundreds of thousands of people of British descent because they might not be barbarians?

    Yes I realise you almost certainly don't mean what I just said.

    Furthermore, who says that they would come here in a big band, after all, Australia, NZ, USA had very few people up until a few centuries ago.


1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.