A thread to discuss how Jacinda will make NZ Choice again

Thread Rating: 11 votes, 3.73 average.
(11 votes)
Results 7,126 to 7,150 of 7195

  1. Post
    Edward Diego wrote:
    Sure, tell me the effective difference:

    Can get free healthcare on both? Tick.
    Can go on the dole on both? Tick.

    What are the "other keys to the kingdom" I'm missing? Soimon didn't know either.
    Re: healthcare, my understanding is it depends on the length of visa, whether they get free healthcare. And are you sure you are correct about jobseeker benefit? I'm pretty sure that is only residents.

    He can also now vote, get access to domestic tertiary tuition fees, student allowance/loan, WFF, NZ Super

  2. Post
    Pxndx wrote:
    lol, it wasn't clear at all. Unless you really believed what the media was telling you..

    ??

  3. Post
    Indigo1 wrote:
    Re: healthcare, my understanding is it depends on the length of visa, whether they get free healthcare. And are you sure you are correct about jobseeker benefit? I'm pretty sure that is only residents.
    You can get it on grounds of hardship if you're not a citizen or permanent resident. And so long as your work visa is 2 years long, then healthcare is free.

  4. Post
    CODChimera wrote:
    ??
    Huh, two post that aren't related?

  5. Post
    bradc wrote:
    Most things are permitted until there's a problem. Everyone can have a rocket launcher until someone (or multiple people) act like tools with them.

    You can have gun restrictions, or you can fix society to the point where people aren't shooting up the place. Doing the latter is far, far harder.
    We don't have a firearm problem. If the treasury is saying that semi auto ban won't save lives. Which is true.

    If the stuff news investigation showed that most gun crime is committed by unlicensed people with 22's and shotguns cut down.

    If E cat MSSA were never used in a crime ever.

    The how is it justified unless you are just following the UN guidelines on disarmament.

    Social engineering is hard. Labour would stuff it up. Much easier to sack all of the weak judges. And just lock the people doing gun crime up.

  6. Post
    Mr sika wrote:
    We don't have a firearm problem. If the treasury is saying that semi auto ban won't save lives. Which is true.

    If the stuff news investigation showed that most gun crime is committed by unlicensed people with 22's and shotguns cut down.

    If E cat MSSA were never used in a crime ever.

    The how is it justified unless you are just following the UN guidelines on disarmament.

    Social engineering is hard. Labour would stuff it up. Much easier to sack all of the weak judges. And just lock the people doing gun crime up.
    what's the average number of victims per gun crime with a 22 vs an E cat MSSA?

  7. Post
    Timmi wrote:
    what's the average number of victims per gun crime with a 22 vs an E cat MSSA?
    Its a little bit convoluted. Putting a magazine of 11 rounds into an a cat then made it an e cat. Until that magazine is removed.
    It's a tiny percentage though (single digit percentage of firearms crime I believe). I'm positive that an oia request has been done on this but I cant remember the exact figures.

    Most of the time when a pistol is reported, it's a sawn off shot gun.

  8. Post
    Timmi wrote:
    what's the average number of victims per gun crime with a 22 vs an E cat MSSA?
    No E-cat MSSAs. The report is here: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/cri...in-new-zealand

    It is compiled from police data. And you can see shotguns and 22s dominate the stats. Shotguns are the preferred weapon of criminals as they are easy to conceal and minimal skill to shoot. 22s are popular as they are so abundant, and the 'gang pistol' is typical a cut down semi-auto 22.

  9. Post
    What does everyone think of the decision on the immigration policy for parents?

    Especially on them raising the salary threshold in order to bring parents over here?

    Do you think that was the right move considering how many international students NZ brings in every year?

    How many international students do you think we will lose vs the cost benefit of not letting older people in the country?

    I think the money from international students spent over the course of say 3 - 5 years should be enough to allow them to bring their parents over. Imagine $35,000NZD per year x 3 years of study x $300-400NZD per week in rent x $200NZD in food costs x $50 per week in transport costs.

    I think if I was an international student and I heard I needed to get a job bringing in $150,000 per year salary there's no way I'd choose NZ to study at, considering how many jobs in NZ are actually paying $150,000 especially to immigrant graduate students....

  10. Post
    I'd ask you what comparable countries charge internationals for education compared to residents. I know for instance when I did a bit of studying in the UK, I was paying around double what the locals did and couldn't bring my parents over. Nor did I feel entitled. It was a privilege to be able to study at the cost I willingly accepted

  11. Post
    swazi wrote:
    I'd ask you what comparable countries charge internationals for education compared to residents. I know for instance when I did a bit of studying in the UK, I was paying around double what the locals did and couldn't bring my parents over. Nor did I feel entitled. It was a privilege to be able to study at the cost I willingly accepted
    Let me ask you, which looks better a uni degree from the UK or a uni degree from Auckland?
    And for most international students who do come to NZ, i believe they do want to bring their parents over. Theres a tradition in the Asian culture where the younger generation must look after the older generation when they retire. I dont think their children will want to move back to their country after completing a degree. So thus they'll want to bring their parents over.

  12. Post
    Lol politics

  13. Post
    holocaust wrote:
    Let me ask you, which looks better a uni degree from the UK or a uni degree from Auckland?
    And for most international students who do come to NZ, i believe they do want to bring their parents over. Theres a tradition in the Asian culture where the younger generation must look after the older generation when they retire. I dont think their children will want to move back to their country after completing a degree. So thus they'll want to bring their parents over.
    Well thats a nice story. They still dont deserve shit based on their cultural norms. Either bring in the $$$ or have the skills to be of value to NZ. Also depends on the Uni in the rankings tables I suppose.

  14. Post
    Timmi wrote:
    what's the average number of victims per gun crime with a 22 vs an E cat MSSA?


    holocaust wrote:
    What does everyone think of the decision on the immigration policy for parents?

    Especially on them raising the salary threshold in order to bring parents over here?

    Do you think that was the right move considering how many international students NZ brings in every year?

    How many international students do you think we will lose vs the cost benefit of not letting older people in the country?

    I think the money from international students spent over the course of say 3 - 5 years should be enough to allow them to bring their parents over. Imagine $35,000NZD per year x 3 years of study x $300-400NZD per week in rent x $200NZD in food costs x $50 per week in transport costs.

    I think if I was an international student and I heard I needed to get a job bringing in $150,000 per year salary there's no way I'd choose NZ to study at, considering how many jobs in NZ are actually paying $150,000 especially to immigrant graduate students....
    The parents shouldn't be allowed in. They haven't paid taxes long enough to pay for their health care or their gold card.

    holocaust wrote:
    Let me ask you, which looks better a uni degree from the UK or a uni degree from Auckland?
    And for most international students who do come to NZ, i believe they do want to bring their parents over. Theres a tradition in the Asian culture where the younger generation must look after the older generation when they retire. I dont think their children will want to move back to their country after completing a degree. So thus they'll want to bring their parents over.
    Yeah but this is NZ. We are not obligated to be a retirement village for free just because their off spring are here.


  15. Post
    holocaust wrote:
    What does everyone think of the decision on the immigration policy for parents?

    Especially on them raising the salary threshold in order to bring parents over here?
    It's just another instance of the wealthy getting special privilege. I don't see why these things can't be done on a case-by-case basis? A colleague was able to bring his parents, who would not be able to under this new rule. His parents home was flooded, they lost almost everything. Imagine having to either leave your parents to fend for themselves or having to go back to a shit hole country - based on nothing but your paycheck.

  16. Post
    Mr sika wrote:
    The parents shouldn't be allowed in. They haven't paid taxes long enough to pay for their health care or their gold card.



    Yeah but this is NZ. We are not obligated to be a retirement village for free just because their off spring are here.

    Then that must also mean that Pacific island students' parents would be in the same boat.

  17. Post
    holocaust wrote:
    Then that must also mean that Pacific island students' parents would be in the same boat.
    Pacific Islands are a different kettle of fish due to our far closer relationship with them - Samoans get a special pass because we kinda ****ed them over as their colonial masters, we've been aligned closely with Tonga for years (Tongans served in our armed forces during WW2), Tokelau and Cook Islands are still somewhat part of NZ. We have the Pacific Access category visa for Tongans, Fijians, I-Kiribati, and Tuvaluans to reflect our historical relationships.

    So in terms of "bring the parents across" visas, yep, they're in the same boat, but the parents themselves may be able to immigrate here without the parent category visa.

  18. Post
    Edward Diego wrote:
    Pacific Islands are a different kettle of fish due to our far closer relationship with them - Samoans get a special pass because we kinda ****ed them over as their colonial masters, we've been aligned closely with Tonga for years (Tongans served in our armed forces during WW2), Tokelau and Cook Islands are still somewhat part of NZ. We have the Pacific Access category visa for Tongans, Fijians, I-Kiribati, and Tuvaluans to reflect our historical relationships.

    So in terms of "bring the parents across" visas, yep, they're in the same boat, but the parents themselves may be able to immigrate here without the parent category visa.
    So, best way is to get parents tongan passports and then get them to immigrate to NZ?

    legit.

  19. Post
    No. Samoans get more immigration rights.

  20. Post
    swazi wrote:
    No. Samoans get more immigration rights.
    Yep, bingo. The Samoan Quota visa is our way of saying "sorry for the Spanish Flu, and also for that time we massacred a bunch of people during the Mau parade."

  21. Post
    MXRecord wrote:
    Lol politics
    Doubly so because its nz politics

  22. Post
    CODChimera wrote:
    Doubly so because its nz politics
    Name:  derp.jpg
Views: 132
Size:  92.3 KB

  23. Post
    The best coping strategy

  24. Post
    Tonga has never been part of NZ as far as I know, so why would they get special treatment?

    Samoa I can understand.

  25. Post
    Bobs wrote:
    Tonga has never been part of NZ as far as I know, so why would they get special treatment?

    Samoa I can understand.
    Was this Samoa thing taught in history class at school?

    It's the first i've actually heard about it.

    Unless I've been living under a rock.