A thread to discuss how Jacinda will make NZ Choice again

Thread Rating: 11 votes, 3.73 average.
(11 votes)
Results 51 to 75 of 7153

  1. Post
    #51
    teelo7 wrote:
    And I'm sure a Chinese person who wants to teach Chinese could easily get a visa for NZ, too. Just like they could get a visa for NZ to be a practicing accountant, programmer, business manager, property investor, corner four square dairy attendant... but could I get a Chinese visa for any of those things that leads to residency/citizenship after a few years? Hell no.
    This. **** China. Close our borders.

  2. Post
    #52
    MXRecord wrote:
    This. **** China. Close our borders.
    While we're at it, remove the automatic residency for Australians. Give them a "special class visa" the way they treat us.

  3. Post
    #53
    MXRecord wrote:
    This. **** China. Close our borders.
    Not really reading the thread but +1 this.

  4. Post
    #54
    When could you say that NZ stopped being choice? Still seems pretty damn good compared to 95% of other countries

  5. Post
    #55
    swazi wrote:
    When could you say that NZ stopped being choice? Still seems pretty damn good compared to 95% of other countries
    Under National there was only ever one option: their way

  6. Post
    #56
    Bobs wrote:
    I wasn't making any point. I was just adding my own experience with my chinese wife. I can't become a citizen of that country.
    So, dare I ask: as a person with a Chinese wife, what's your stance on immigration?

    teelo7 wrote:
    As it should be. I can't stay in China for more than a few months at a time, and I definitely can't work there.

    Also the scenario was hypothetical. Edited for clarity.
    In your hypothetical scenario, you have: met the woman of your dreams, committed to partnership with her for life, discovered you cannot buy property in the country she came from and then amended your country's law so she has to **** off. Still a strange scenario.

    Others have refuted your claims about living and working in China, so I'll ignore that.

    I remain unconvinced we have a problem with foreign ownership that mandates a hastily legislated "ban". Current statistics shows that roughly 3% (from memory) of residential property is owned by foreign interests. Now admittedly, speculation is that that number is actually on the low side as it doesn't account for residential property which is owned by a locally registered company -- while that company is actually owned by foreigners.

    The proposed "ban" does nothing about that, however. Further, reducing that number may take some steam out of the housing market, but it's really not going to do much.

    The solution to the housing crisis is pretty straightforward: build more houses, redistribute the tax load to include a CGT and land tax and work on LVR limits and risky bank lending. Everyone sees "tax" though and screams. Blaming foreign investment is a lazy scapegoat.

    SirGrim wrote:
    i want the house prices to come down, ain't nothing racist about that but some people are quick to jump in the social justice bandwagon I see, like roumelio who has just about wrote a thesis already something greek yada yada borin, something personal relationship issues and self projection yada yada etc..
    I've addressed your comments on housing prices above. I'm guessing you would not be pro-taxes?

    You claim not to be a single issue voter, so I'll continue believing you. Again, other than immigration control, what policies do you believe overlap between Trump and Labour?

  7. Post
    #57
    frio wrote:
    So, dare I ask: as a person with a Chinese wife, what's your stance on immigration?


    In your hypothetical scenario, you have: met the woman of your dreams, committed to partnership with her for life, discovered you cannot buy property in the country she came from and then amended your country's law so she has to **** off. Still a strange scenario.

    Others have refuted your claims about living and working in China, so I'll ignore that.

    I remain unconvinced we have a problem with foreign ownership that mandates a hastily legislated "ban". Current statistics shows that roughly 3% (from memory) of residential property is owned by foreign interests. Now admittedly, speculation is that that number is actually on the low side as it doesn't account for residential property which is owned by a locally registered company -- while that company is actually owned by foreigners.

    The proposed "ban" does nothing about that, however. Further, reducing that number may take some steam out of the housing market, but it's really not going to do much.

    The solution to the housing crisis is pretty straightforward: build more houses, redistribute the tax load to include a CGT and land tax and work on LVR limits and risky bank lending. Everyone sees "tax" though and screams. Blaming foreign investment is a lazy scapegoat.


    I've addressed your comments on housing prices above. I'm guessing you would not be pro-taxes?

    You claim not to be a single issue voter, so I'll continue believing you. Again, other than immigration control, what policies do you believe overlap between Trump and Labour?
    That 3% figure is wrong dude. As the saying goes, lies, damned lies, and statistics. The 3% figure came from a survey that I believe was deliberately framed to produce politically expedient answers. I have some guff to back that up, but I'll have to track it down.

  8. Post
    #58
    frio wrote:
    So, dare I ask: as a person with a Chinese wife, what's your stance on immigration?
    I fit that criteria

    Personally I think it should be drastically cut - maybe to Winston levels, at least until Auckland can catch up infrastructure wise. Also stop anyone with no real ties to this country from buying our houses.

    My wife became a NZ Citizen many years ago. She had to give up her Chinese citizenship!
    Now she needs a visa to visit her home country.
    She cannot buy property there.
    Her brother could take all their inheritance and there is nothing she can do about it (hopefully he is nice).
    She is no longer part of the "household" which is some sort of official thing over there. Eg if her parents agree to sell some dingy old apartment to the government, they get less money for it because my wife no longer factors in to the payout.

    Now lets see if any white knight SJWs calls me racist...

  9. Post
    #59
    frio wrote:
    Current statistics shows that roughly 3% (from memory) of residential property is owned by foreign interests.
    Current statistics also show 61% of all home buyers in my North Shore suburb in 2016 were Chinese.

  10. Post
    #60
    Edward Diego wrote:
    That 3% figure is wrong dude. As the saying goes, lies, damned lies, and statistics. The 3% figure came from a survey that I believe was deliberately framed to produce politically expedient answers. I have some guff to back that up, but I'll have to track it down.
    Like I said, I know it's on the low end of reality . Further studies haven't really swung the needle that much in terms of percentage reported, but that's because -- like I said -- they don't target the reality, which is boring, standard rorting of the system like shell corporations. What I'm getting at is that the proposed ban on foreign ownership of existing housing is a lazy , racist scapegoat of a policy that achieves very little as it doesn't (and, probably, *cannot*) target shell corporations or similar.

    At best, it can remove 3% of activity -- which, again, isn't nothing -- but it cannot fix the problem.

    I want comprehensive housing reform; I want it managed in a staggered fashion that reduces current prices but doesn't harm all the poor ****ers who've bought overpriced houses at ridiculously low interest rates that'll shoot up as soon as there's a whiff of trouble; I want the new Government to take care of that. They've spent 9 years banging on National for being incompetent ****wits (and as a lefty, I absolutely agree); starting their term with a lazy, incomplete, racist policy doesn't fill me with hope that they'll fix the problem or last more than a single term.

    BorgWarner wrote:
    I fit that criteria

    Personally I think it should be drastically cut - maybe to Winston levels, at least until Auckland can catch up infrastructure wise. Also stop anyone with no real ties to this country from buying our houses.

    My wife became a NZ Citizen many years ago. She had to give up her Chinese citizenship!
    Now she needs a visa to visit her home country.
    She cannot buy property there.
    Her brother could take all their inheritance and there is nothing she can do about it (hopefully he is nice).
    She is no longer part of the "household" which is some sort of official thing over there. Eg if her parents agree to sell some dingy old apartment to the government, they get less money for it because my wife no longer factors in to the payout.

    Now lets see if any white knight SJWs calls me racist...
    See, that's the thing. I actually agree with a short term reduction; Auckland in particular horrifies me now. Continually firing turds into West Auckland beaches everytime the sewage system overflows (which is far more regular now) is awful. Auckland's waterways are its jewel. We cannot continue wrecking them.

    My concern is that "reducing immigration" should not and cannot be the entire policy . Infrastructural investment has to follow, and we then need to relax the laws again and continue growing. We're a surprisingly large country with a surprisingly small population; we can absolutely sustain growth, and it makes us all better. Sadly, we overstepped our ability to accept that growth while we had a Government that refused to invest in making it sustainable.

    WRT marrying a Chinese person and backing a reduction in immigration, what I'm getting at is: you've met the (presumably ) love of your life thanks to relatively free-flowing immigration laws. I would hope you (and others in this situation ) would afford that possibility to others!

    I guess what I'm trying to say is: I actually don't mind a reduction in immigration, so long as it's recognised as a temporary bandaid. What sticks in my craw a bit is that we end up on the same side of the issue as a bunch of straight up racists (and I'm still curious what else SirGrim sees Trump/Labour as having in common). If our cool new left-wing Government isn't careful, being on-side with the Kyle Chapmans of the country is going to unravel it pretty quickly.
    Last edited by frio; 27th October 2017 at 11:23 pm.

  11. Post
    #61
    M0F0 wrote:
    +1 to this, they also have a much higher beautiful women ratio than NZ.


    If you're a ****, people generally treat you like that. Maybe Roumelio is just a utter ****.
    Actually my real self would give you the shirt off my back. Thanks, but you're barking up the wrong tree. A major part of a reason why sometimes I'm in a shit mood is because people are shit even when you try to do the right thing and then there is a lot of people who are treated like shit for no apparent reason (black South Africans among others).

    When someone else is suffering I'm generally the first in and the last to leave. Unless of course its self-inflicted misery, then in this instance I don't particularly care (in this instance) about white South Africans with a woe is me attitude. The law of parties says you inflicted that suffering and now you want to complain you got burnt when you were playing with matches. Yeah, sorry but no. You can't claim the Nuremberg defense either, we already dealt with that one.

    TLDR:

    • If you by party or by proxy are gonna make others lives shit you deserve everything you get.
    • As I identify as part of a minority group (Southern European, sometimes claimed non-white) I identify more with black South Africans than I do with these people.
    Last edited by Roumelio; 27th October 2017 at 9:31 pm.

  12. Post
    #62
    Vulcan wrote:
    I worked within a team that was more than 50% saffas, mixed english and afrikaner - all of them were nice - even the one I used to argue with firewalls about . Most of them moved to NZ because of the trouble there (one had been held up at gunpoint in his own home). All of them really missed SA and wanted to live them - but just couldn't due to safety issues. Not one of them was racist in any way I could note.

    Seems like Roumelio has a chip on his shoulder.
    This has been my experience with SA's as well. Maybe it's just the ones I've met, but most have had a solid work ethic. I used to rip on them for being racist back in college when I knew nothing, but having grown up a bit and actually listening to their stories makes me think some of them have had it pretty rough.

    Also, I alluded to this in the other thread:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...jacinda-ardern

    Is this old news or something? Haven't seen much of it on stuff. I've got dual citizenship so it doesn't worry me too much (I'm Australian born, NZ parents, NZ wife) but I do wonder if I should keep hold of my house in NZ..

  13. Post
    #63
    * If you by party or by proxy are gonna make others lives shit you deserve everything you get
    It's entirely possible that your hostility towards South Africans makes their lives a bit shit sometimes, so... Yeah...

  14. Post
    #64
    As I said I don't care about making peoples lives shit who most probably at some point in time either directly voted for the National party in South Africa, or indirectly were involved in white privilege. In fact it doesn't bother me in the slightest about self-inflicted misery.

  15. Post
    #65
    Roumelio wrote:
    Actually my real self would give you the shirt off my back. Thanks, but you're barking up the wrong tree. A major part of a reason why sometimes I'm in a shit mood is because people are shit even when you try to do the right thing and then there is a lot of people who are treated like shit for no apparent reason (black South Africans among others).

    When someone else is suffering I'm generally the first in and the last to leave. Unless of course its self-inflicted misery, then in this instance I don't particularly care (in this instance) about white South Africans with a woe is me attitude. The law of parties says you inflicted that suffering and now you want to complain you got burnt when you were playing with matches. Yeah, sorry but no. You can't claim the Nuremberg defense either, we already dealt with that one.

    TLDR:

    • If you by party or by proxy are gonna make others lives shit you deserve everything you get.
    • As I identify as part of a minority group (Southern European, sometimes claimed non-white) I identify more with black South Africans than I do with these people.
    Black or coloured South Africans? You know there is a big cultural difference, right?

  16. Post
    #66
    Yeah I know there is a big difference, everyone including myself would be in some way considered "coloured" in South Africa (or anywhere where the old language was/is used).


    • I am (or could be considered) "coloured" in the old language, this is why I self identify with others of colour. As a Western Oriental Gentile person.
    • You know a Golliwog?
    • The majority black South Africans are the rightful owners of South Africa.
    • I don't really give much of a shit about anything else.

  17. Post
    #67
    Roumelio wrote:
    Yeah I know there is a big difference, everyone including myself would be in some way considered "coloured" in South Africa (or anywhere where the old language was/is used).


    • I am (or could be considered) "coloured" in the old language, this is why I self identify with others of colour. As a Western Oriental Gentile person.
    • The majority black South Africans are the rightful owners of South Africa.
    • I don't really give much of a shit about anything else.
    The Khoisan would disagree with you as the Bantu's are relatively new to Southern Africa. But you knew that as well. Also under Apartheid it was discretionary as to your race. If you looked mostly white, you were classed as such.

  18. Post
    #68
    How technical do we want to get? You're arguing with someone who has a history and international relations/politics double major. If you're speaking of the use of the word colour in a South African sense then you are correct.

    If you're speaking of the word colour in a European race sense then yeah you threw me off on a technicality. Well done.

  19. Post
    #69
    You are arguing with somebody who lived there. Checkmate

  20. Post
    #70
    Not particularly, a technical knock out. I'll play that one because you are using the specific South African sense:

    OK...

    I was using more of the generic European sense.

    Well done none the less...

  21. Post
    #71
    Nice ninja edit btw

  22. Post
    #72
    Thanks.

  23. Post
    #73
    frio wrote:
    We're a surprisingly large country with a surprisingly small population; we can absolutely sustain growth, and it makes us all better.
    What Labour has proposed is only a return to the historical norm after the total open door policy under National that is x3 the rate of the UK. So yes cutting migration is an important part of the solution. I would like to see it cut on a permanent basis.

  24. Post
    #74
    swazi wrote:
    The Khoisan would disagree with you as the Bantu's are relatively new to Southern Africa. But you knew that as well. Also under Apartheid it was discretionary as to your race. If you looked mostly white, you were classed as such.
    Like most places race was discretionary under shit policies like Apartheid. In Australia it was 1 quarter or 1 eighth black by discretion before you could be considered not black under those sorts of shit laws. Happened in the United States by discretion also, it's not particularly unique to South Africa.

    Until the 1950s people like myself would have not been able to legally live in Australia under the White Australia policy. They changed it so Southern Europeans and those of Near East Asian origin could migrate to Australia when they ran out of Brits, Kiwis and Poms. They changed it to a close enough policy...

    It still happens in Europe where the further south or east you go the less European you are considered still to this date (particularly in Italy). The use of the term colour is also not specific to South Africa. Sicilians and those Greeks living closer to Turkey in terms of their origin are considered in some spaces "blacks" even in Europe today.

    Yes you are correct re: the original inhabitants of South Africa, like a game of chess I wasn't thinking that far ahead.

    Racism is shit, affirmative action on the other hand is not.

  25. Post
    #75
    Here we go...Grant Robertson going full herp derp on us:

    The disparity in pay between New Zealand's top men and women rugby players is on the new Government's agenda.

    Sport and Recreation Minister Grant Robertson was asked on Three's The Nation on Saturday if the national women's team the Black Ferns should paid the same as the men's team the All Blacks.

    "I will be looking forward to a conversation with NZ Rugby about how they will achieve the Government's goal of pay equity," Robertson said.
    https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/...-with-nz-rugby

    Yeah nothing to do with popularity, sponsorship and advertising revenue is it Grant. Lets hope he does the same for the mens netball team.