He tripped over a child's plastic bike in Auckland in May 2006, crashing on to a concrete surface and injuring his spine, leaving him without the use of his limbs.

He has been declined New Zealand residency. In a letter dated December 3, Immigration New Zealand technical officer Terri Bentley informed Samiu's daughter and primary carer Laumanu Ma'afu there was no alternative but to deport him. All appeals have been dismissed.

Last month, Samiu agreed to obey a directive from Immigration NZ and return to Tonga, but when he discovered ACC's equipment would have to stay he called it off. Some of his medicines were also not available in Tonga.

Immigration NZ said the Removal Review Authority concluded living in Tonga would be sufficient. Samiu would have a reduced life expectancy but the cost of his disability on the health system meant it was in the public interest for him to return.

Source

• The New Zealand Herald
• Image: Sydney Morning Herald

Did the visit of the US Secretary for Homeland Security (1-3 May) have anything to do with this hasty amendment to the 2009 Immigration Law?

An immediate reaction from the Council for Refugees states that ‘New Zealand is better than that: proposed Immigration Amendment unneeded, will not deter potential boat arrivals, and risks breach of International Refugee Law.' That seems to sum it up for me!

Or is this a resurgence of the ‘Yellow Peril'? Did the 10 Chinese refugees arriving in Darwin trigger a knee-jerk reaction? An axe to smash a non-existent problem, as one advocate for refugees called it.

With the proposed amendment, refugees will no longer be able to apply to bring in extended family - such as parents or siblings - only spouses or children would qualify. How can we expect refugees to settle here, knowing that close family members are left for years in camps, without hope of a better life? The Government pays nothing for them in any case, so why this restriction - is it to prove that we are tough on anything that might threaten our way of life?

New Zealand's percentage of refugees accepted through the UN is a poorer ratio than Australia's, although we have not generally locked up new arrivals, at least not till this new amendment, with its mass warrant for more than 10 people arriving together.

In fact, we accept only about 40% of our annual quota of 750 people, for a population of about 4 million. Would that statistic suggest that NZ is a ‘soft touch'? The rejected 60% is deported, so there is no ‘queue' to jump if refugees arriving by aeroplane are given residency.

For 99% of the huge numbers of displaced people in our world, a tiny 1% is resettled through the UN quota system. How can we live with our conscience if we strive to keep out God's children in need, when we have space to spare!

That is shameful, in my view. God created the world out of love for us - every single one of us. It is heartening to know of the untiring work of a small group of people, motivated by a sense of justice and fair play, who have set up a trust for family reunification. If you share these concerns, and would like to know more, or help the Trust, contact the site www.refugeefamilyreunificationtrust.org.nz or send cheques to P.O. Box 27342, Marion Square, Wellington 6141

Tricia Kane is a retired librarian and a grandmother.