- +64 20 445 6884
- info@asst.org.nz
- A Guide Book For New Asylum Seekers
The border is not a line on a map; it is a thrumming wire pulled tight across the chest of the world. On one side, the soil has become a bed of glass and embers, a place where the sky no longer promises rain, only the whistling descent of things that shatter. On the other, there is the word: Asylum.
To seek it is not an act of desertion. It is the most primal instinct of the living. It is the seedling pushing through concrete toward the sun; it is the lung gasping for air when the water rises.
Seeking asylum is the heavy geometry of carrying one’s entire history in a plastic bag. It is the courage to trade the known, even when the known is a house on fire for the terrifying unknown.
We often speak of “rights” as if they are dusty scrolls kept in glass cases, but the right to safety is written in the marrow. It is the silent treaty between a human being and the earth: If I am hunted, I may run. If I am broken, I may seek a place to mend.
When we look at the figures huddling at the gates, we see “cases,” “claims,” and “quotas.” But if you look closer, you see:
The father who wants his daughter to know the sound of a library instead of a siren.
The poet whose ink became too dangerous for the regime’s comfort.
The dreamer who simply wants to wake up without checking the locks three times.
A society is not measured by its monuments, but by the length of its shadows and the height of its walls. When we recognize that seeking asylum is a human right, we aren’t just granting a favour; we are reaffirming our own humanity. We are admitting that “neighbour” is a word that doesn’t stop at a fence.
To turn away a person fleeing for their life is to tell the world that life itself is a luxury, a prize for the lucky few born on the “correct” side of the wire. But rights are not prizes. They are the floorboards of civilization.
“Seeking asylum is the ultimate prayer for peace. It is the belief that somewhere, under the same sun, there is a patch of earth where a person can finally breathe without permission.”
Mr. Question
This sounds emotional, but it ignores the real concerns many New Zealanders have.
No one is saying people fleeing danger shouldn’t be treated with dignity. But a country also has the right to protect its borders, manage who enters, and make sure the system is not abused.
Calling asylum a “human right” should not mean unlimited entry, automatic support, or putting pressure on taxpayers who are already struggling with rent, food, healthcare, and housing.
New Zealanders are compassionate people, but compassion without proper checks becomes unfair to citizens, legal migrants, and genuine refugees waiting through the correct process.
A strong country can help vulnerable people while still having firm immigration rules. Wanting secure borders and accountability is not cruelty. It is common sense.
Gerald, thank you for sharing your perspective.
As someone who has worked in this area for over 20 years, I fully agree that every country has both the right and the responsibility to maintain secure borders, assess immigration applications carefully, and ensure that public resources are managed responsibly. A fair and effective asylum system depends on proper checks, accountability, and full compliance with the law.
At the same time, the right to seek asylum is a long-established principle of international law and humanitarian practice. Seeking asylum does not mean automatic approval, unlimited entry, or exemption from assessment. Each claim is considered individually, and only those who meet the legal criteria are granted protection.
This discussion should not be framed as a choice between compassion and security. A strong asylum system can uphold both—protecting people fleeing persecution while maintaining robust screening processes and respecting the concerns of local communities.
In general, most people regardless of their views on immigration levels, support a system that is fair, lawful, and humane. The real challenge is maintaining the right balance between protecting vulnerable people and ensuring public confidence in the integrity of the system.
DTA, I’m struggling to understand what your actual point is here.
I already said people fleeing danger should be treated with dignity. I also said New Zealand has the right to protect its borders, manage who enters, and make sure the system is not abused.
Your reply sounds reasonable, but it mostly repeats the same broad idea: compassion and security can both exist. I agree with that. But what does that mean in practice?
Do you support faster decisions on asylum claims?
Do you support stronger identity, security, and character checks?
Do you support quicker removal for people whose claims are declined after a fair process?
Do you support being open with the public about the cost, housing pressure, healthcare pressure, and impact on local communities?
Because that is the part people are concerned about.
My point is not anti-refugee or anti-humanitarian. My point is that compassion needs structure. New Zealand cannot run an asylum system based only on good intentions and emotional language.
A fair system should protect genuine asylum seekers, but it should also protect public trust, taxpayers, and local communities.
So I’ll ask directly: what firm safeguards do you actually support to stop abuse of the system and keep public confidence?
In reply to Gerald.
Gerald, it’s true that we are expressing a very similar sentiment, and I acknowledge that. However, my concern is that the reality on the ground does not always reflect those principles in practice. At the same time, I must acknowledge the hard work of our Immigration RSU team. Their efforts and the outcomes achieved demonstrate that New Zealand is not a “soft” country when it comes to managing its immigration and asylum systems.
Yes, I support faster decisions on asylum claims so that genuine asylum seekers are not left in uncertainty for extended periods and public resources are not tied up unnecessarily. However, when delays occur because of workload or system capacity, that is not the fault of the asylum seekers. During that period, they need to be adequately supported.
I believe work visas should remain valid for the duration of an asylum claim until a final decision is made. This benefits everyone involved. Asylum seekers can work, support themselves and their families, contribute taxes, and reduce reliance on public assistance. They also have the opportunity to interact with New Zealanders, learn about our way of life, workplace culture, and community values.
Many asylum seekers come from countries where there is little or no social welfare system. Being able to work gives them dignity, independence, and a sense of purpose. Most want to contribute rather than depend on support.
Unfortunately, some aspects of the current system do not facilitate this. For example, when an asylum-seeking family receives WINZ benefit they receive Working for Families Tax Credits, but they lose eligibility once one parent starts working. In some cases, this creates a situation where the family cannot realistically survive on a single income and is pushed back towards dependence on support through WINZ.
By failing to address these barriers, we create unnecessary pressure on the welfare system, waste valuable human potential, and unintentionally discourage people with skills, experience, and a genuine desire to contribute. Rather than empowering people to become self-sufficient, we risk keeping them dependent.
Gerald, please have a look at the attached fact sheet, which provides further information.
The Facts: People seeking asylum in Aotearoa New Zealand
In Aotearoa New Zealand, we have a very small cohort of people seeking asylum representing a tiny proportion of our population – irrespective of the recent increase in numbers.
Given the current global picture, this increase should not be the shock or surprise it has been portrayed:
117million People forcibly displaced by persecution, war, conflict and climate change.
30.5 million Refugees under the mandate of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)iii
71 Percentage hosted by low-mid income countries.
1 Percent resettled in other countries
0.04 Percent of NZ population who are people seeking asylum each year
NZ specific: Increase also due to our policy of “trade agreements that include visa pathways with countries that have problematic human rights records”. Inevitable some migrants might seek refugee or protected status on arrival or at some stage. Not a problem of the people seeking asylum or the law. This is the system working as intended.
Most asylum claims have merit
25- 35 Percent of successful claims at first instance decision, last 10 yrs
40 Percent of initially declined claims overturned on appeal
55-61 Percent overall of successful claims after appeal, over half
74 Percent of claims remaining declined on appeal that have credible harm, but do not meet threshold for refugee recognition,
Sources:
UNHCR Mid-Yr Report 2025
UNCHR Mid Year Report 2025
UNHCR Mid-Year Report 2025
UNHCR Mid-Year Report 2025
INZ Refugee and Protected People Statistics Pack, February 2026
Trade Deals and Asylum Claims; The Connection New Zealand Refuses to Make” Deborah Manning (Barrister, Landmark Chambers) and Dr Tim Fagden (Auckland University), The Good Practice Company, 23 April 2026
INZ Refugee and Protected People Statistics Pack, Feb 2026
Immigration and Protection Tribunal Annual Report 2024-2025
Review of 50 latest refugee and protection decisions of Immigration and Protection Tribunal – the appeal tribunal for asylum claims