Immigration

On TV3 last night, there was an item about a family; I think from Iran, but it doesn't matter which country - both parents are engineers but one child is blind. They were refused Residency because the child might become dependent on the state. Apparently that decision has been reversed; as it should have been because this family has much to contribute here!

I have been dealing with Immigration Officials for some time now but I will give no details here - you know big brother and the chance of jeopardizing what I am doing.
I do intend to write about it sometime but this is a good forum to vent my frustration.

The first thing is that there once was New Zealand Immigration Service. But now it is called Immigration New Zealand - the item that has been dropped seems not in name only!
But it is not only New Zealand's Immigration officials that are difficult!

To be fair, things have changed in the world and the threat of terrorism is blamed. It is the responsibility of Immigration Officials to protect their respective countries and for sure their are plenty of weirdos out there. So I guess they are working in a no win situation. The law of the land though is to 'treat as innocent until proven guilty' but Immigration Services seem to treat all as guilty.

I don't know who sets the rules, but it usually works that the laws are made by governments and officials interpret them. But sometimes, I have experienced tough interpretation when it is not necessary - well when I reckon it is not necessary. That's the crux though. How do they know what I'm like?
This does not mean though they should be above scrutiny and there are a few things that I would question. After all I am a taxpayer and they are public servants.
I deal with the public a lot and that is indeed trying and if I were in the shoes of these officials I know very well my patience would be tried!
You get some good ones and you get some bad ones and I guess, that is the human side of things.

The rules are getting tougher and tougher and with that more expensive - much more expensive because more things are required.

What am I saying here? Well the rules make application frustrating! The cost is high! The officials do not see things from the applicant's point of view and that is why it is hard. It seems and I repeat seems most of them have hearts of stone!

So I have voiced my frustration and it won't change anything but that's my Soap Box!

Wildling trees in Otago

Central Otago (and other areas) are being invaded by exotic trees and there is a war going on to get rid of them. Yes I have written about this before.
However, in life there are always differing points of view, and my personal on is that the wildling trees should be looked on as an opportunity!

This idea does not have universal approval, but in Friday's Otago Daily Times, I did read a letter to the editor that goes along with my thinking.
The key really is evolution. The letter says that at this point of time, the area is grassland (well tussock). But only at this point of time. Previously there was other vegetation, and fires changed that.
The Department of Conservation and others have and are spending a lot of money to get rid of the trees in order to retain the tussock land. As the letter to the editor points out; it is nature's way to colonise. I have seen for myself that if grasslands are left, very slowly indigenous plants will colonise the area. The first species being Manuka. Once Manuka establishes itself, birds will carry in all the other species make up our dryland indigenous forest.

There are those who look at Central Otago as being 'pristine grassland', but it is only so at this time. It will change as time goes on. Shutting up grassland increases fire risk and when that happens things change.

So no matter what, the area will change and now exotic tree species encroach. We have the Department of Conservation spending large amounts of money to get rid of these trees - a battle that cannot be won. They are throwing away the opportunity for a natural resource to be created at no cost. Sure, there are farmers who will be adversely effected, but farmers change their land use at the drop of a hat - if the can sell to DoC for a fortune, they do; if they can go into tourism, they do; if they can go into dairying, they do; so it follows,if they see forestry as being lucrative, they will.

Just thought I should share that!