Winston Peters would argue that permanent residents who don't want to become citizens are not "committed to New Zealand" and therefore do not deserve the right to vote. After all, the right to vote is the right to tell other New Zealanders who should govern them. That is a privilege that should not be given lightly, if at all.
Winston Peters has a point. Immigrants from China and India, for example, often choose not to become New Zealand citizens because they wish to retain citizenship in their country of origin. Their primary loyalty is to their home country, where they do enjoy all the normal rights of citizenship, including the right to vote. If that is their choice, so be it.
However, immigrants from the US, UK, Australia, Canada and South Africa can have dual citizenship. They can become New Zealand citizens while their primary loyalty remains to their country and people of origin. They are no more committed than the immigrants from China or India who do not become citizens and do not get the vote. They just benefit from a set of circumstances that have their origin in the old imperial order in which British subjects enjoyed the same civil rights and political privileges wherever they resided within the territories of the empire.
So what is the solution? Giving all foreigners resident in the country the right to vote is not an appropriate response. From the point of view of Aotearoa (the nation state to be once colonialism is eliminated) the appropriate response would be to deny the right to dual or multiple citizenship. That would put immigrants from China, India, the US, UK, Australia, Canada and South Africa on an equal footing. They would all have to choose, and to be committed in their choice. But there would be none of this crazy, discriminatory nonsense of requiring immigrants to swear allegiance to a British monarch in order to qualify as New Zealand citizens. That would remove a serious moral impediment to choosing New Zealand citizenship.
Many countries do not allow dual citizenship. For many migrants, relinquishing citizenship of their first country means they cannot easily return if they need to.
People who have surrendered their citizenship can always return to their country of origin as visitors. They just lose the rights of citizenship, perhaps the right to work and usually the right to vote and any other financial and welfare benefits which are restricted to citizens. So migrants need to choose carefully where they want to belong. They should not expect to have their cake and eat it.
Dual citizenship is not allowed for a reason. Citizenship should mean something. Peter Thiel collects citizenships like some people collect postage stamps. But is he truly loyal to anyone or anything but himself? I doubt it.
Jesus said "No man can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other". That remains true. In a world where nations go to war, or engage in economic warfare, no one can be loyal to two countries. A dual citizen will "be devoted to the one (country) and despise the other". He may be committed to serve one, and shamelessly exploit the other.
You don't have to be a citizen to live in a country. But in most countries you do have to be citizen if you want to be able to determine how the people of that country are governed. New Zealand is an exception. In my opinion it should not be.
I came to NZ from the UK with my Kiwi husband in 1970. I have NZ citizenship and have lived and worked here all my adult life, but have kept my British passport solely so that I can travel more easily, especially going back to the UK in a hurry when my elderly parents needed help.
I am one of the fortunate ones who have been able to have dual citizenship, but because I have not been resident in the UK for many years, I do not have the rights there that a resident has, I am treated as a visitor, except for entry.
Please do not conflate 'citizenship', or keeping the passport from one's country of origin with 'commitment'. I and many other immigrants like me, are totally committed to this country and contribute just as much as anyone born here.
Winston is continuing his divisive crusade and setting people of different origin against each other. Please don't fall for that classic 'divide and rule' tactic.
You have ties to Britain and to New Zealand. You are a dual citizen. You don't need to choose between the two countries. In that respect you are privileged.
I won't ask which citizenship you would choose if you had to choose one or the other, but I know of an immigrant from Mexico who is a dual citizen of New Zealand and Mexico and who says quite frankly that if she had to choose, she would choose Mexico. She says she came to New Zealand to get rich. I believe that many dual citizens are like her. New Zealand is a good place to make money, but the first loyalty of such people is to their country of origin.
It is a bit like a man with a wife and a mistress. He doesn't want to have to choose between them. But sometimes the wife or the mistress will say "Sorry. You have to choose. Make up your mind".
Tangata motu are saying to the vast numbers of immigrants who have flooded into the country in recent years "If you want the benefits of New Zealand citizenship, you will have to make up your mind which country you really want to belong to. It is up to you".
It is not a question of what one contributes. That is an important personal consideration, but it is irrelevant to the right of citizenship. "Total commitment" is subjective. What does it mean? I can believe that you are an upstanding member of the community but that is not the point. The question is whether anyone should be allowed to simultaneously be a citizen of two countries. I say they should not be, even if if dual citizenship may be convenient for them.
By the way, Winston Peters is not proposing to disallow dual citizenship, which is a privilege enjoyed by western peoples, from the US, UK, Australia, Canada, South Africa etc.
He is proposing to take away the voting rights of those permanent residents who cannot have dual citizenship, in particular those from India and China.
I am comfortable with that providing that at the same time he disallows dual citizenship and removes the discriminatory requirement for an oath of allegiance to the British monarch.
However Peters is unlikely to reach for a fair and non-discriminatory solution by disallowing dual citizenship. He will instead seek to preserve the privileged status of European immigrants and withdraw those same privileges from non-European immigrants.
So the "divide and rule" that Peters is proposing is one that privileges you over Chinese or Indian immigrants. Up to you how you deal with that.
The only good thing for a NZ immigrant, if you still have citizenship from the country you left, you can be deported from NZ if you break a serious law.
Winston Peters would argue that permanent residents who don't want to become citizens are not "committed to New Zealand" and therefore do not deserve the right to vote. After all, the right to vote is the right to tell other New Zealanders who should govern them. That is a privilege that should not be given lightly, if at all.
Winston Peters has a point. Immigrants from China and India, for example, often choose not to become New Zealand citizens because they wish to retain citizenship in their country of origin. Their primary loyalty is to their home country, where they do enjoy all the normal rights of citizenship, including the right to vote. If that is their choice, so be it.
However, immigrants from the US, UK, Australia, Canada and South Africa can have dual citizenship. They can become New Zealand citizens while their primary loyalty remains to their country and people of origin. They are no more committed than the immigrants from China or India who do not become citizens and do not get the vote. They just benefit from a set of circumstances that have their origin in the old imperial order in which British subjects enjoyed the same civil rights and political privileges wherever they resided within the territories of the empire.
So what is the solution? Giving all foreigners resident in the country the right to vote is not an appropriate response. From the point of view of Aotearoa (the nation state to be once colonialism is eliminated) the appropriate response would be to deny the right to dual or multiple citizenship. That would put immigrants from China, India, the US, UK, Australia, Canada and South Africa on an equal footing. They would all have to choose, and to be committed in their choice. But there would be none of this crazy, discriminatory nonsense of requiring immigrants to swear allegiance to a British monarch in order to qualify as New Zealand citizens. That would remove a serious moral impediment to choosing New Zealand citizenship.
Many countries do not allow dual citizenship. For many migrants, relinquishing citizenship of their first country means they cannot easily return if they need to.
People who have surrendered their citizenship can always return to their country of origin as visitors. They just lose the rights of citizenship, perhaps the right to work and usually the right to vote and any other financial and welfare benefits which are restricted to citizens. So migrants need to choose carefully where they want to belong. They should not expect to have their cake and eat it.
Dual citizenship is not allowed for a reason. Citizenship should mean something. Peter Thiel collects citizenships like some people collect postage stamps. But is he truly loyal to anyone or anything but himself? I doubt it.
Jesus said "No man can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other". That remains true. In a world where nations go to war, or engage in economic warfare, no one can be loyal to two countries. A dual citizen will "be devoted to the one (country) and despise the other". He may be committed to serve one, and shamelessly exploit the other.
You don't have to be a citizen to live in a country. But in most countries you do have to be citizen if you want to be able to determine how the people of that country are governed. New Zealand is an exception. In my opinion it should not be.
I came to NZ from the UK with my Kiwi husband in 1970. I have NZ citizenship and have lived and worked here all my adult life, but have kept my British passport solely so that I can travel more easily, especially going back to the UK in a hurry when my elderly parents needed help.
I am one of the fortunate ones who have been able to have dual citizenship, but because I have not been resident in the UK for many years, I do not have the rights there that a resident has, I am treated as a visitor, except for entry.
Please do not conflate 'citizenship', or keeping the passport from one's country of origin with 'commitment'. I and many other immigrants like me, are totally committed to this country and contribute just as much as anyone born here.
Winston is continuing his divisive crusade and setting people of different origin against each other. Please don't fall for that classic 'divide and rule' tactic.
You have ties to Britain and to New Zealand. You are a dual citizen. You don't need to choose between the two countries. In that respect you are privileged.
I won't ask which citizenship you would choose if you had to choose one or the other, but I know of an immigrant from Mexico who is a dual citizen of New Zealand and Mexico and who says quite frankly that if she had to choose, she would choose Mexico. She says she came to New Zealand to get rich. I believe that many dual citizens are like her. New Zealand is a good place to make money, but the first loyalty of such people is to their country of origin.
It is a bit like a man with a wife and a mistress. He doesn't want to have to choose between them. But sometimes the wife or the mistress will say "Sorry. You have to choose. Make up your mind".
Tangata motu are saying to the vast numbers of immigrants who have flooded into the country in recent years "If you want the benefits of New Zealand citizenship, you will have to make up your mind which country you really want to belong to. It is up to you".
It is not a question of what one contributes. That is an important personal consideration, but it is irrelevant to the right of citizenship. "Total commitment" is subjective. What does it mean? I can believe that you are an upstanding member of the community but that is not the point. The question is whether anyone should be allowed to simultaneously be a citizen of two countries. I say they should not be, even if if dual citizenship may be convenient for them.
By the way, Winston Peters is not proposing to disallow dual citizenship, which is a privilege enjoyed by western peoples, from the US, UK, Australia, Canada, South Africa etc.
He is proposing to take away the voting rights of those permanent residents who cannot have dual citizenship, in particular those from India and China.
I am comfortable with that providing that at the same time he disallows dual citizenship and removes the discriminatory requirement for an oath of allegiance to the British monarch.
However Peters is unlikely to reach for a fair and non-discriminatory solution by disallowing dual citizenship. He will instead seek to preserve the privileged status of European immigrants and withdraw those same privileges from non-European immigrants.
So the "divide and rule" that Peters is proposing is one that privileges you over Chinese or Indian immigrants. Up to you how you deal with that.
Exactly, thank you.
The only good thing for a NZ immigrant, if you still have citizenship from the country you left, you can be deported from NZ if you break a serious law.