📧 Email Template

Tēnā koe [INSERT NAME OF YOUR MP]

I am one of your constituents and I oppose the Immigration (Enhanced Risk Management) Amendment Bill. I urge you not to support it passing in Parliament when it comes back for its Second Reading.

Why? It is clear that the effect of the changes proposed in the Bill will have a significant, negative impact on everyone, all visa holders, but especially people seeking asylum, refugees and the broader refugee protection framework in Aotearoa New Zealand. It will affect their rights to appeal on humanitarian grounds, their right to stay if they find love or are offered a job and their right to live free from inspection by Immigration Officers to provide ID on request in the community or at work.

I oppose this Bill because:

Our commitment to human rights

1. I consider the changes in the Bill erode Aotearoa New Zealand’s longstanding commitment to refugee protection, fundamental human rights and humanitarian principles.

New Powers for Immigration Officers to Request ID on suspicion

2. I am alarmed by the new powers proposed for Immigration Officers to request identification documents from people they suspect could be liable to deportation or in breach of visa conditions because:
   1. In practice, it is clear that these powers are likely to extend to people who are in Aotearoa New Zealand legally, such as people seeking asylum and refugees but also residents or citizens, and will be used disproportionally against people based on their race, ethnicity or country of origin.
   2. It will be particularly harmful to people seeking asylum and refugees, many of whom have experienced heightened and harmful government monitoring in their countries of origin.
   3. Rather than fostering a sense of safety and belonging, these provisions risk increasing existing vulnerabilities and erode trust in public institutions.
   4. It risks vulnerable populations going further into the shadows. Individuals may avoid seeking medical care or even reporting crimes, like workplace exploitation or domestic violence, for fear of immigration enforcement and deportation.

Ban on alternative visa pathways for people who withdraw their asylum claim

3. It is cruel to ban people seeking asylum who withdraw their claim, because they have fallen in love, married or are in a settled relationship with a New Zealand partner, from being eligible for an alternative visa such as a Partnership Visa
4. It is cruel to ban people seeking asylum who withdraw their claim from being eligible for an alternative visa such as a Skills or Job specific Work to Residence Visa because they have been offered employment.

Limitation on humanitarian appeal rights

5. The limitation on humanitarian appeal rights will reduce access to independent, experienced oversight at a critical point in the immigration system.
6. These oversight and appeal rights are an important safeguard, particularly for individuals with complex or evolving humanitarian needs, including those facing serious harm if returned.
7. Limiting appeal rights could also be unduly harsh on the children of those liable for deportation. Currently, many deportation cases regarding temporary visa holders involve families with children in school who have spent the majority of their lives in Aotearoa New Zealand. Deportation can have major, adverse impacts on children’s health and well-being, notably through family separation, disrupted education, and being returned to an unfamiliar country where they may not speak the language. Retaining the right to appeal deportation is an important avenue for protecting children’s rights and upholding New Zealand’s obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

For all these reasons, please do not support this Bill and do not vote for it to be passed at its Second Reading.

Thank you
Ngā mihi
[INSERT YOUR NAME]