November 19, 2025 • 24 mins
The United Kingdom is vowing to ‘restore order and control’ - through controversial, sweeping reform on the country’s asylum system.
The new interpretations of human rights laws will make the UK less attractive for asylum seekers and make it easier to deport them.
The tougher rules on refugee statuses mean people would need to reapply, and it would take 20 years for permanent settlement.
Human rights lawyer and activist, Rêz Gardî, is a co-director and co-founder of the University of Auckland’s Centre for Asia Pacific Refugee Studies - Tāwharau Whakaumu.
She joins The Front Page to discuss the landscape behind The UK's policy overhaul and whether New Zealand should be reconsidering its own approach to refugee status.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
Kiota.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
I'm Chelsea Daniels and This is the Front Page, a
daily podcast presented by The New Zealand Herald. The United
Kingdom is vowing to restore order and control through controversial
sweeping reform on the country's asylum system. The new interpretations
(00:27):
of human rights laws will make the UK less attractive
for asylum seekers and make it easier to deport them.
The tougher rules on refugee statuses means that people would
need to reapply and it would take twenty years for
permanent settlement. Immigration has become one of the UK's most
(00:48):
contentious subjects. This year, we saw thousands march in vicious
anti immigration rallies and protests across the country. So at
a time when on one hand we're seeing prolonged devastation
in places like Ukraine, Mianma, Gaza, Sudan, we're also seeing
growing animosity towards those seeking asylum from those wars. Today
(01:12):
on the Front Page, human rights lawyer and activists Res
Ghadi is with us to discuss the growing worldwide negative
sentiment towards those seeking asylum. So, first off, rees, what
was your first reaction when you saw the latest announcement
from the UK's Shamana Mahmud.
Speaker 3 (01:36):
For me, as someone who was born as a refugee,
I think the right to seek asylum is a matter
of survival, and so when I see politicians and news
articles like this one, it's really concerning because it feels
like the issue that should be a matter of human
rights and protection is manipulated and used in in these
(02:00):
kind of politicized ways. I mean, especially when we're talking
about systems that are supposed to be protecting and upholding
human rights, then using this kind of way to deter
and to talk about illegal migration and all these kinds
of narratives that I just I think are not accurate.
(02:20):
It's really frustrating, and especially for those of us working
on the ground with people on a daily basis, it.
Speaker 2 (02:26):
Is incredibly frustrating actually, and because of the analysis that
I've read in the last couple of days is that
they're facing increasing pressure from the far right factions of
the UK government. This is a labor party that's actually
brought these this is Salem Seeker system reforms in and
(02:47):
it is political because they are taking that because the
popularity of Nigel Faraga's party and they've decided to go
ahead with this reform, the biggest reform in decades, and
some of the things I mean, if we look through
what it will actually mean for asylum seekers and refugees,
having to get your status renewed, only being able to
(03:11):
become a permanent resident after twenty years, and that's if
your original country is deemed still deemed unsafe. What would
you say to someone who is looking at these reforms
and thinking, oh, New Zealand should do the same.
Speaker 1 (03:33):
Yeah. Absolutely.
Speaker 3 (03:35):
As you've mentioned, some of these reforms that they're proposing
are really inconsistent with the protections that both the UK
and New Zealand's have signed up to. They're inconsistent with
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, They're inconsistent with the
Refugee Convention, both of these that clearly set out the
(03:58):
right to seek and enjoy asylum from persecution, which set
out clear definitions of who illegally are considered refugees. These
instruments are designed to protect people and from the time
that they were ratified up until today, they are still
relevant and so putting forward these kind of reforms that
(04:22):
are inconsistent with the law I think is hugely concerning
and what I would say, is this idea of like
a war on illegal migration or the asylum system being
abused is something that we're hearing in different parts of
the world, mainly coming from from the rights but it
(04:44):
has in some way in some countries been able to
trigger fair from people that don't necessarily understand the systems
or the processes. And unfortunately that's where we're most at risk,
when people don't understand and then fall for these kind
of lines about we need we need to control the
asylum system or illegal migration has gone out of control.
(05:08):
What we need to do is kind of fight back
with the data and the evidence. In particular, in a
place like New Zealand's, there isn't this concern of overwhelming
numbers of people arriving on our shores.
Speaker 1 (05:21):
I mean, we're an.
Speaker 3 (05:22):
Island like the UK, but our geographic location is a
is a really important factor and not a lot of
people can physically access New Zealand. And then also the
laws and the administrative processes that are required to arrive
in New Zealand shores in the first place are much
more cumbersome, and so the risk of illegal migration in
(05:47):
New Zealand is really really almost non existent, and if
it does exist, it is such an inconsiderable number, and
it is a number that our authorities and system can
process and handle.
Speaker 1 (06:02):
And it's actually.
Speaker 3 (06:03):
Inconsistent with what a lot of the research and studies
say around the number of people arriving in New Zealand
to seek asylum in the first place. So the kind
of rhetoric that we're seeing in other parts of the
world don't apply to New Zealand. But also on top
of that, I think the way New Zealand has considered
(06:25):
refugee and asylum claims is also at a much much
smaller scale than the UK and the US and other
European countries also grapple.
Speaker 4 (06:34):
With the Interior Minister Shabana Machmunt outlined what the Labor
government calls the most sweeping reforms in decades, which include
tougher rules on refugee status and new interpretations of human
rights laws aimed at accelerating deportations. There has been growing
public concern over immigration and a surge in support for
(06:55):
the populist Reform UK Party, which is putting pressure on
the government to take a tougher stance. Ministers say the
changes will restore control while critics, including some in the
Labor Party, warn that they risk deepening divisions and weakening
human rights protections. Let's take a listen to some of
(07:17):
what the Interior Minister and Shabanah Mackmud said earlier in
the British Parliament.
Speaker 5 (07:22):
What I have said already on these matters is that
we have a proper problem, that it is our moral
duty to fix. Our asylum system is broken. The breaking
of that asylum system is causing huge division across our
whole country. It is a moral mission for me to
resolve that division across our country. I know that the
reforms I will be setting out later on today can
(07:44):
fix this system and in doing so can unite what
is today a divided country.
Speaker 2 (07:50):
Yeah, I saw that in the UK Britain's report, widespread
satisfaction with the government the cost of living. Obviously, many
people believe their local areas are housing more asylum seekers
than is quote unquote fair. What do you think it
will take for a kind of Does there need to
be a shift of consciousness here? Will we ever be
(08:12):
rid of the term us versus them?
Speaker 3 (08:16):
I think there are a number of difference I guess
factors that are relevant in this regard to it, because
I think it's the same in the US and the UK.
There are populations of people that do have these really
strong beliefs about the numbers of refugees, or what's fair
(08:37):
and what's not fair, or what's being done that aren't
really consistent with the data and evidence. Again, but what
we've seen, especially in the US, and I would argue
probably similar trends in the UK based on the large
number of people that we saw show up to protest
the UK Rwanda deal, is that the majority of people
(09:00):
actually do not think that there is a massive problem
with migration or asylum seekers to the extent that the
media or perhaps the politicians make it out to be.
We saw, for example, in the US and studies done
around the number of people that actually think that the
(09:21):
US refugee settlement program was a good thing more than
fifty percent. I think the statistics were in the late
sixty something to seventy percent of people thought that it
was a good program. And similarly, the number of people
that have consistently shown up in.
Speaker 1 (09:38):
The UK.
Speaker 3 (09:41):
Do outnumber the people who I think think very negatively
about asylum.
Speaker 1 (09:47):
Seekers and refugees.
Speaker 3 (09:48):
I think the issue here is also the conflation. So
we have a lot of people that perhaps if you
frame the question in a way around protection and fleeing
persecution and war and you know mass atrocities, are very
you know, humane in their response and sympathetic, empathetic. It's
(10:09):
that there is this con you know, conflation of migrants
and refugees. People believe that refugees who who can show
a genuine fear of persecution from their countries, and then
people who may not have the best circumstances or you know,
opportunities but are not at risk of harm or persecution
(10:34):
or you know, torture or death as the extreme cases
may be for refugees in their own countries. And these
are the migrants. And so there is a different approach
for people's reactions based on.
Speaker 1 (10:44):
Who those groups of people are.
Speaker 3 (10:46):
But like I mentioned, there is a confusion and not
all people understand the difference categories. And I think this
in turn then also I think impacts the policies and
the responses governments take. There are many governments who now
believe that's migration or.
Speaker 1 (11:06):
Movements of people is out.
Speaker 3 (11:08):
Of control, and that's something we should think about, you know,
very carefully. It's true that there are a number of
you know, a lot, a lot of people that move
for opportunities who are not refugees, but also that the
migration system and the opportunities, the visa systems, the pathways
(11:29):
for legal migration has not necessarily kept pace with the trends.
You know, we live in a very different world just
when some of these agreements and documents were created, and
maybe movement for opportunities and for work wasn't as you know,
as major, but movement of people has always happened. People
(11:53):
have always moved for you know, for opportunities, for new lives,
for better lives, for all sorts of different reasons. Is
one of the oldest facts of human history. So it's
something that countries need to grapple with. But it's not
a matter of stopping, you know, asylum systems or reforming
asylum systems to address migration, which is something you know,
(12:15):
quite different and requires different responses.
Speaker 2 (12:19):
And I see all of this talk about asylum seekers,
and I mean, obviously we live in a time where
there are multiple wars happening in the world. We've got
South Sudan, mianmar Gaza, and of course Ukraine just to
name a few do you think it's I mean, it
seems hypocritical when when there is such an influx of
hatred towards those seeking asylum and then at the same
(12:43):
time cuts to worldwide humanitarian aid on huge scales from
some of the world's largest powers.
Speaker 1 (12:54):
Absolutely.
Speaker 3 (12:56):
I was in Geneva recently at a un eh CR
events and they're the High Commissioner for Refugees was talking
about the Dyer need for funding because they were ending
this year with a one point three billion shortfall compared
(13:16):
to last year, a thirty percent workforce reduction, one hundred
and eighty five officers consolidated or closed. And so what
we see is in the last two years, global humanitarian
funding has collapsed more than fifty three percent, and alone
just from the US's commitments from fourteen billion plus to
(13:37):
somewhere around three billion. So it's a major drop in
the global humanitarian funding and what's needed to respond to
these crises in a lot of these countries actually prioritizing
funding into defense and deterrence policies. Unfortunately, the problem there
is what we've seen over many years is that stopping
(14:02):
people from accessing safety or accessing borders to seek asylum
does not stop people from moving. It just means that
they end up in more dangerous routes or taking more
dangerous risks to try to seek safety. It doesn't stop
people from trying. It just means that more people die
(14:22):
in this attempt. So the deterrence policies unfortunately don't have
the effect that maybe these states policies intend them to have,
and actually just really really dire.
Speaker 1 (14:34):
Consequences such as we saw recently there.
Speaker 3 (14:37):
We're hangar drowning at sea, you know, the number of
people that are killed in the process, or in the
Darian jungle in Latin America, Central America.
Speaker 1 (14:47):
Accessing these paths.
Speaker 3 (14:48):
People don't stop taking these risks to get their families
to safety. But unfortunately it does mean that more people die.
And so what I would say then is, on the
one hand, we know that global humanitarian funding has reached
you know, probably the lowest point at least in my
recent memory and perhaps for those even working in the
(15:10):
field longer than I have. And then on the other
hand hand, we're reaching unprecedented numbers of people who are
seeking safety from persecution from these wars that you've mentioned.
Saddan Mia mah Gazda and there are countless others that
are not covered by the media in as much detail,
but they're definitely impacting millions of people.
Speaker 1 (15:33):
People's responses on the grounds, aren't.
Speaker 3 (15:37):
I think for the most part positive when it comes
to certain certain movements of people or the suffering of
certain groups of people. But I think again it comes
down to exposure. There are just you know, some atrocities
that don't get the same kind of media attention to
(15:57):
people aren't to where what's happening in those regions or
what kind of atrocities people are subjected to, and so
there is like a mismatch I think the reality and
what people are aware of and then on and I
think the other end is.
Speaker 1 (16:09):
There can be this kind of.
Speaker 3 (16:12):
You know, people are also facing still very high cost
of living challenges of affordability, housing crises in their own
parts of the world and their own backyards, and so
there can be this kind of us against them mentality
that again I think it's not helpful because really it's
(16:33):
not an either or or.
Speaker 1 (16:36):
Mutually exclusive considerations.
Speaker 3 (16:39):
But actually, when we're trying to make systems more ethical,
more just more fair for all, it's about all of
these because I think they all have impacts on another.
If we've got good policies in our own countries, but
then also our foreign policies are positive and focused on
development and supporting and global responsibility sharing, then we're going
(17:02):
to have bitter outcomes across the globe.
Speaker 1 (17:04):
They're not mutually exclusive.
Speaker 3 (17:06):
What happens in one country, whether on the other side
of the world, still impacts us, whether we're in New Zealand,
whether we're in the UK, whether we're in the US.
Speaker 1 (17:15):
We just have to, I.
Speaker 3 (17:17):
Think, be a bit more conscious of how interconnected our
world really is.
Speaker 6 (17:23):
I want to start before we go on to this
speech from Shibonna my mood and how significant it is,
Let's look at what came before, because ultimately the proof
of the pudding is in the eating. Tell us about
the Danish system, and this is a system that was
counter to Scandinavian neighbors. It was seen as deeply tough,
some suggested critics that it was racist. Now appears to
(17:44):
be amongst some, at least the Golden Boy, the Golden
Way forward for migration.
Speaker 7 (17:50):
Yeah, thanks for having me.
Speaker 3 (17:52):
So.
Speaker 7 (17:52):
Denmark has had for some time now a sort of
temporary by default approach to refugee protection it.
Speaker 1 (17:59):
Also does a number of other things. It has departure.
Speaker 7 (18:02):
Centers to encourage voluntary return or failed asylum seekers.
Speaker 1 (18:06):
It has really.
Speaker 7 (18:07):
Strict rules on which refugees can bring in family members.
They have to be self sufficient twenty four years old.
And it's also had some very symbolic laws, including most
famously the jewelry Law, which was brought to in twenty sixteen,
which means please can confiscate asylum seekers cash or valuables
to help pay for their stay in the country.
Speaker 2 (18:26):
You experienced actually living in a refugee camp when you
were younger. Tell me about that and how that's shaped
who you were today and what you're in your work.
Speaker 3 (18:34):
Obviously, yes, so exactly as you mentioned, people would not
be putting their families at such great risk if the
reality of staying home were not more dangerous. And I
can speak to this from personal experience. My family fled
at the time of the Kurdish genocide and then faced
(18:59):
more humans violations and risks to their lives when there
were refugees in Iran as Kurdish minorities. And then so
we're forced to flee again, and then this time crossing
the border into Pakistan. A really unpredictable, uncertain journey, not
(19:19):
knowing what could come next, but just knowing that remaining
where they were was far more dangerous than attempting to
find safety elsewhere. And so my family arrived in Pakistan
and sought asylum, and they were granted asylum quite quickly
because of the strong evidence in their case as Kurdish
minorities who were subject to persecution by not just one
(19:42):
regime but multiple regimes in the region.
Speaker 1 (19:45):
But unfortunately what was challenging.
Speaker 3 (19:47):
Was the process, so from being recognized as genuine refugees
with a risk of persecution to then the process of
actually finding a durable solution or a safety in a
pathway to somewhere safe. And so my family ended up
being in Pakistan for ten years, not knowing during that
entire decade whether they would be there a day longer
(20:10):
or a year longer, for ten years longer, just unpredictable waiting.
And so you have these people living in limbo, not
knowing whether they should settle down and build you know,
routes and start kind of living as if they were
going to be there forever, or living temporarily thinking that
they will be resettled very shortly afterwards. So what you
(20:31):
get is the people that kind of in between, not
fully settled but not fully ready to leave either and
creating these kind of challenges for me. I was born
in Pakistan when my family had already arrived there. So
my brother and sister older than me, were already with
my parents when they arrived in Pakistan. I was born
in Pakistan, and so you know, lived and experienced life
(20:54):
as a refugee, not knowing anything different, and so the
kind of circumstances that I was raised in, not having
access to school until you know, a lot of protests
and people in our community were fighting for the right
for their children to go to school, not having proper
access to food, water, shelter, clean water on a regular basis,
(21:19):
the kind of really just limited access to what a
lot of Kiwis would think is normal or you know,
something that they would expect to have, not having access
to those things.
Speaker 1 (21:32):
And then on top of that, the daily protests that.
Speaker 3 (21:35):
Our family and communities would go to because they just
wanted some sort of clarity on their process and what
was happening and how long would they be waiting, just
some sort of certainty. And then in addition, to that
people dying from hunger strikes because they were just finding
that it was just too unbearable for them to sit
(21:56):
and wait, and then taking on these hunger strikes to
just urge the when and countries to respond to the
dire circumstances, Seeing children die from preventable diseases just because
we didn't have the healthcare that we needed, and all
sorts of really, you know, things that children just should
(22:17):
should not find is what their daily life looks like.
I thought those things were normal until I came to
New Zealand and saw a completely different world. And it
was only then that I realized the life that we'd
been living as refugees was not normal and that it
was extremely difficult compared to the life that many others
(22:40):
lived around the world. And so that really shaped my
journey from a very young age, because I had knowledge
of the denial of rights and basic human needs, the
unpredictability of life, and also on top of that, you know,
coming from a Kurdish background, to the genocide and human
rights violations that my family had directly suffered from not
(23:04):
having these kind of rights to exist and to just
be who we are already shaped a lot of my thinking,
and so I wanted to take advantage of these opportunities
that I had in New Zealand, a place where I
grew up, where we had it. You know, when I
first arrived in New Zealand, we had a female Prime
Minister who was talking about about things that I had
(23:27):
never heard before, about the kind of rights that people had,
and about the kind of you know, the access that
I had at school and the teachers and the attention
that gave people.
Speaker 1 (23:36):
So I was mind blown.
Speaker 3 (23:37):
I was like just thinking about what life I had
and what I had now, and how could I not
take advantage of it?
Speaker 2 (23:44):
Beautiful, Thank you so much for joining us, Rez.
Speaker 1 (23:47):
Thank you so much. It's been a pleasure to talk
to here.
Speaker 2 (23:52):
That's it for this episode of The Front Page. You
can read more about today's stories and extensive news coverage
a Herald dot co dot Nz. The Front Page is
produced by Jane Yee and Richard Martin, who is also
our editor.
Speaker 1 (24:08):
I'm Chelsea Daniels.
Speaker 2 (24:10):
Subscribe to the Front Page on iHeartRadio or wherever you
get your podcasts, and tune in tomorrow for another look
behind the headlines.
Kiota.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
I'm Chelsea Daniels and This is the Front Page, a
daily podcast presented by The New Zealand Herald. The United
Kingdom is vowing to restore order and control through controversial
sweeping reform on the country's asylum system. The new interpretations
(00:27):
of human rights laws will make the UK less attractive
for asylum seekers and make it easier to deport them.
The tougher rules on refugee statuses means that people would
need to reapply and it would take twenty years for
permanent settlement. Immigration has become one of the UK's most
(00:48):
contentious subjects. This year, we saw thousands march in vicious
anti immigration rallies and protests across the country. So at
a time when on one hand we're seeing prolonged devastation
in places like Ukraine, Mianma, Gaza, Sudan, we're also seeing
growing animosity towards those seeking asylum from those wars. Today
(01:12):
on the Front Page, human rights lawyer and activists Res
Ghadi is with us to discuss the growing worldwide negative
sentiment towards those seeking asylum. So, first off, rees, what
was your first reaction when you saw the latest announcement
from the UK's Shamana Mahmud.
Speaker 3 (01:36):
For me, as someone who was born as a refugee,
I think the right to seek asylum is a matter
of survival, and so when I see politicians and news
articles like this one, it's really concerning because it feels
like the issue that should be a matter of human
rights and protection is manipulated and used in in these
(02:00):
kind of politicized ways. I mean, especially when we're talking
about systems that are supposed to be protecting and upholding
human rights, then using this kind of way to deter
and to talk about illegal migration and all these kinds
of narratives that I just I think are not accurate.
(02:20):
It's really frustrating, and especially for those of us working
on the ground with people on a daily basis, it.
Speaker 2 (02:26):
Is incredibly frustrating actually, and because of the analysis that
I've read in the last couple of days is that
they're facing increasing pressure from the far right factions of
the UK government. This is a labor party that's actually
brought these this is Salem Seeker system reforms in and
(02:47):
it is political because they are taking that because the
popularity of Nigel Faraga's party and they've decided to go
ahead with this reform, the biggest reform in decades, and
some of the things I mean, if we look through
what it will actually mean for asylum seekers and refugees,
having to get your status renewed, only being able to
(03:11):
become a permanent resident after twenty years, and that's if
your original country is deemed still deemed unsafe. What would
you say to someone who is looking at these reforms
and thinking, oh, New Zealand should do the same.
Speaker 1 (03:33):
Yeah. Absolutely.
Speaker 3 (03:35):
As you've mentioned, some of these reforms that they're proposing
are really inconsistent with the protections that both the UK
and New Zealand's have signed up to. They're inconsistent with
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, They're inconsistent with the
Refugee Convention, both of these that clearly set out the
(03:58):
right to seek and enjoy asylum from persecution, which set
out clear definitions of who illegally are considered refugees. These
instruments are designed to protect people and from the time
that they were ratified up until today, they are still
relevant and so putting forward these kind of reforms that
(04:22):
are inconsistent with the law I think is hugely concerning
and what I would say, is this idea of like
a war on illegal migration or the asylum system being
abused is something that we're hearing in different parts of
the world, mainly coming from from the rights but it
(04:44):
has in some way in some countries been able to
trigger fair from people that don't necessarily understand the systems
or the processes. And unfortunately that's where we're most at risk,
when people don't understand and then fall for these kind
of lines about we need we need to control the
asylum system or illegal migration has gone out of control.
(05:08):
What we need to do is kind of fight back
with the data and the evidence. In particular, in a
place like New Zealand's, there isn't this concern of overwhelming
numbers of people arriving on our shores.
Speaker 1 (05:21):
I mean, we're an.
Speaker 3 (05:22):
Island like the UK, but our geographic location is a
is a really important factor and not a lot of
people can physically access New Zealand. And then also the
laws and the administrative processes that are required to arrive
in New Zealand shores in the first place are much
more cumbersome, and so the risk of illegal migration in
(05:47):
New Zealand is really really almost non existent, and if
it does exist, it is such an inconsiderable number, and
it is a number that our authorities and system can
process and handle.
Speaker 1 (06:02):
And it's actually.
Speaker 3 (06:03):
Inconsistent with what a lot of the research and studies
say around the number of people arriving in New Zealand
to seek asylum in the first place. So the kind
of rhetoric that we're seeing in other parts of the
world don't apply to New Zealand. But also on top
of that, I think the way New Zealand has considered
(06:25):
refugee and asylum claims is also at a much much
smaller scale than the UK and the US and other
European countries also grapple.
Speaker 4 (06:34):
With the Interior Minister Shabana Machmunt outlined what the Labor
government calls the most sweeping reforms in decades, which include
tougher rules on refugee status and new interpretations of human
rights laws aimed at accelerating deportations. There has been growing
public concern over immigration and a surge in support for
(06:55):
the populist Reform UK Party, which is putting pressure on
the government to take a tougher stance. Ministers say the
changes will restore control while critics, including some in the
Labor Party, warn that they risk deepening divisions and weakening
human rights protections. Let's take a listen to some of
(07:17):
what the Interior Minister and Shabanah Mackmud said earlier in
the British Parliament.
Speaker 5 (07:22):
What I have said already on these matters is that
we have a proper problem, that it is our moral
duty to fix. Our asylum system is broken. The breaking
of that asylum system is causing huge division across our
whole country. It is a moral mission for me to
resolve that division across our country. I know that the
reforms I will be setting out later on today can
(07:44):
fix this system and in doing so can unite what
is today a divided country.
Speaker 2 (07:50):
Yeah, I saw that in the UK Britain's report, widespread
satisfaction with the government the cost of living. Obviously, many
people believe their local areas are housing more asylum seekers
than is quote unquote fair. What do you think it
will take for a kind of Does there need to
be a shift of consciousness here? Will we ever be
(08:12):
rid of the term us versus them?
Speaker 3 (08:16):
I think there are a number of difference I guess
factors that are relevant in this regard to it, because
I think it's the same in the US and the UK.
There are populations of people that do have these really
strong beliefs about the numbers of refugees, or what's fair
(08:37):
and what's not fair, or what's being done that aren't
really consistent with the data and evidence. Again, but what
we've seen, especially in the US, and I would argue
probably similar trends in the UK based on the large
number of people that we saw show up to protest
the UK Rwanda deal, is that the majority of people
(09:00):
actually do not think that there is a massive problem
with migration or asylum seekers to the extent that the
media or perhaps the politicians make it out to be.
We saw, for example, in the US and studies done
around the number of people that actually think that the
(09:21):
US refugee settlement program was a good thing more than
fifty percent. I think the statistics were in the late
sixty something to seventy percent of people thought that it
was a good program. And similarly, the number of people
that have consistently shown up in.
Speaker 1 (09:38):
The UK.
Speaker 3 (09:41):
Do outnumber the people who I think think very negatively
about asylum.
Speaker 1 (09:47):
Seekers and refugees.
Speaker 3 (09:48):
I think the issue here is also the conflation. So
we have a lot of people that perhaps if you
frame the question in a way around protection and fleeing
persecution and war and you know mass atrocities, are very
you know, humane in their response and sympathetic, empathetic. It's
(10:09):
that there is this con you know, conflation of migrants
and refugees. People believe that refugees who who can show
a genuine fear of persecution from their countries, and then
people who may not have the best circumstances or you know,
opportunities but are not at risk of harm or persecution
(10:34):
or you know, torture or death as the extreme cases
may be for refugees in their own countries. And these
are the migrants. And so there is a different approach
for people's reactions based on.
Speaker 1 (10:44):
Who those groups of people are.
Speaker 3 (10:46):
But like I mentioned, there is a confusion and not
all people understand the difference categories. And I think this
in turn then also I think impacts the policies and
the responses governments take. There are many governments who now
believe that's migration or.
Speaker 1 (11:06):
Movements of people is out.
Speaker 3 (11:08):
Of control, and that's something we should think about, you know,
very carefully. It's true that there are a number of
you know, a lot, a lot of people that move
for opportunities who are not refugees, but also that the
migration system and the opportunities, the visa systems, the pathways
(11:29):
for legal migration has not necessarily kept pace with the trends.
You know, we live in a very different world just
when some of these agreements and documents were created, and
maybe movement for opportunities and for work wasn't as you know,
as major, but movement of people has always happened. People
(11:53):
have always moved for you know, for opportunities, for new lives,
for better lives, for all sorts of different reasons. Is
one of the oldest facts of human history. So it's
something that countries need to grapple with. But it's not
a matter of stopping, you know, asylum systems or reforming
asylum systems to address migration, which is something you know,
(12:15):
quite different and requires different responses.
Speaker 2 (12:19):
And I see all of this talk about asylum seekers,
and I mean, obviously we live in a time where
there are multiple wars happening in the world. We've got
South Sudan, mianmar Gaza, and of course Ukraine just to
name a few do you think it's I mean, it
seems hypocritical when when there is such an influx of
hatred towards those seeking asylum and then at the same
(12:43):
time cuts to worldwide humanitarian aid on huge scales from
some of the world's largest powers.
Speaker 1 (12:54):
Absolutely.
Speaker 3 (12:56):
I was in Geneva recently at a un eh CR
events and they're the High Commissioner for Refugees was talking
about the Dyer need for funding because they were ending
this year with a one point three billion shortfall compared
(13:16):
to last year, a thirty percent workforce reduction, one hundred
and eighty five officers consolidated or closed. And so what
we see is in the last two years, global humanitarian
funding has collapsed more than fifty three percent, and alone
just from the US's commitments from fourteen billion plus to
(13:37):
somewhere around three billion. So it's a major drop in
the global humanitarian funding and what's needed to respond to
these crises in a lot of these countries actually prioritizing
funding into defense and deterrence policies. Unfortunately, the problem there
is what we've seen over many years is that stopping
(14:02):
people from accessing safety or accessing borders to seek asylum
does not stop people from moving. It just means that
they end up in more dangerous routes or taking more
dangerous risks to try to seek safety. It doesn't stop
people from trying. It just means that more people die
(14:22):
in this attempt. So the deterrence policies unfortunately don't have
the effect that maybe these states policies intend them to have,
and actually just really really dire.
Speaker 1 (14:34):
Consequences such as we saw recently there.
Speaker 3 (14:37):
We're hangar drowning at sea, you know, the number of
people that are killed in the process, or in the
Darian jungle in Latin America, Central America.
Speaker 1 (14:47):
Accessing these paths.
Speaker 3 (14:48):
People don't stop taking these risks to get their families
to safety. But unfortunately it does mean that more people die.
And so what I would say then is, on the
one hand, we know that global humanitarian funding has reached
you know, probably the lowest point at least in my
recent memory and perhaps for those even working in the
(15:10):
field longer than I have. And then on the other
hand hand, we're reaching unprecedented numbers of people who are
seeking safety from persecution from these wars that you've mentioned.
Saddan Mia mah Gazda and there are countless others that
are not covered by the media in as much detail,
but they're definitely impacting millions of people.
Speaker 1 (15:33):
People's responses on the grounds, aren't.
Speaker 3 (15:37):
I think for the most part positive when it comes
to certain certain movements of people or the suffering of
certain groups of people. But I think again it comes
down to exposure. There are just you know, some atrocities
that don't get the same kind of media attention to
(15:57):
people aren't to where what's happening in those regions or
what kind of atrocities people are subjected to, and so
there is like a mismatch I think the reality and
what people are aware of and then on and I
think the other end is.
Speaker 1 (16:09):
There can be this kind of.
Speaker 3 (16:12):
You know, people are also facing still very high cost
of living challenges of affordability, housing crises in their own
parts of the world and their own backyards, and so
there can be this kind of us against them mentality
that again I think it's not helpful because really it's
(16:33):
not an either or or.
Speaker 1 (16:36):
Mutually exclusive considerations.
Speaker 3 (16:39):
But actually, when we're trying to make systems more ethical,
more just more fair for all, it's about all of
these because I think they all have impacts on another.
If we've got good policies in our own countries, but
then also our foreign policies are positive and focused on
development and supporting and global responsibility sharing, then we're going
(17:02):
to have bitter outcomes across the globe.
Speaker 1 (17:04):
They're not mutually exclusive.
Speaker 3 (17:06):
What happens in one country, whether on the other side
of the world, still impacts us, whether we're in New Zealand,
whether we're in the UK, whether we're in the US.
Speaker 1 (17:15):
We just have to, I.
Speaker 3 (17:17):
Think, be a bit more conscious of how interconnected our
world really is.
Speaker 6 (17:23):
I want to start before we go on to this
speech from Shibonna my mood and how significant it is,
Let's look at what came before, because ultimately the proof
of the pudding is in the eating. Tell us about
the Danish system, and this is a system that was
counter to Scandinavian neighbors. It was seen as deeply tough,
some suggested critics that it was racist. Now appears to
(17:44):
be amongst some, at least the Golden Boy, the Golden
Way forward for migration.
Speaker 7 (17:50):
Yeah, thanks for having me.
Speaker 3 (17:52):
So.
Speaker 7 (17:52):
Denmark has had for some time now a sort of
temporary by default approach to refugee protection it.
Speaker 1 (17:59):
Also does a number of other things. It has departure.
Speaker 7 (18:02):
Centers to encourage voluntary return or failed asylum seekers.
Speaker 1 (18:06):
It has really.
Speaker 7 (18:07):
Strict rules on which refugees can bring in family members.
They have to be self sufficient twenty four years old.
And it's also had some very symbolic laws, including most
famously the jewelry Law, which was brought to in twenty sixteen,
which means please can confiscate asylum seekers cash or valuables
to help pay for their stay in the country.
Speaker 2 (18:26):
You experienced actually living in a refugee camp when you
were younger. Tell me about that and how that's shaped
who you were today and what you're in your work.
Speaker 3 (18:34):
Obviously, yes, so exactly as you mentioned, people would not
be putting their families at such great risk if the
reality of staying home were not more dangerous. And I
can speak to this from personal experience. My family fled
at the time of the Kurdish genocide and then faced
(18:59):
more humans violations and risks to their lives when there
were refugees in Iran as Kurdish minorities. And then so
we're forced to flee again, and then this time crossing
the border into Pakistan. A really unpredictable, uncertain journey, not
(19:19):
knowing what could come next, but just knowing that remaining
where they were was far more dangerous than attempting to
find safety elsewhere. And so my family arrived in Pakistan
and sought asylum, and they were granted asylum quite quickly
because of the strong evidence in their case as Kurdish
minorities who were subject to persecution by not just one
(19:42):
regime but multiple regimes in the region.
Speaker 1 (19:45):
But unfortunately what was challenging.
Speaker 3 (19:47):
Was the process, so from being recognized as genuine refugees
with a risk of persecution to then the process of
actually finding a durable solution or a safety in a
pathway to somewhere safe. And so my family ended up
being in Pakistan for ten years, not knowing during that
entire decade whether they would be there a day longer
(20:10):
or a year longer, for ten years longer, just unpredictable waiting.
And so you have these people living in limbo, not
knowing whether they should settle down and build you know,
routes and start kind of living as if they were
going to be there forever, or living temporarily thinking that
they will be resettled very shortly afterwards. So what you
(20:31):
get is the people that kind of in between, not
fully settled but not fully ready to leave either and
creating these kind of challenges for me. I was born
in Pakistan when my family had already arrived there. So
my brother and sister older than me, were already with
my parents when they arrived in Pakistan. I was born
in Pakistan, and so you know, lived and experienced life
(20:54):
as a refugee, not knowing anything different, and so the
kind of circumstances that I was raised in, not having
access to school until you know, a lot of protests
and people in our community were fighting for the right
for their children to go to school, not having proper
access to food, water, shelter, clean water on a regular basis,
(21:19):
the kind of really just limited access to what a
lot of Kiwis would think is normal or you know,
something that they would expect to have, not having access
to those things.
Speaker 1 (21:32):
And then on top of that, the daily protests that.
Speaker 3 (21:35):
Our family and communities would go to because they just
wanted some sort of clarity on their process and what
was happening and how long would they be waiting, just
some sort of certainty. And then in addition, to that
people dying from hunger strikes because they were just finding
that it was just too unbearable for them to sit
(21:56):
and wait, and then taking on these hunger strikes to
just urge the when and countries to respond to the
dire circumstances, Seeing children die from preventable diseases just because
we didn't have the healthcare that we needed, and all
sorts of really, you know, things that children just should
(22:17):
should not find is what their daily life looks like.
I thought those things were normal until I came to
New Zealand and saw a completely different world. And it
was only then that I realized the life that we'd
been living as refugees was not normal and that it
was extremely difficult compared to the life that many others
(22:40):
lived around the world. And so that really shaped my
journey from a very young age, because I had knowledge
of the denial of rights and basic human needs, the
unpredictability of life, and also on top of that, you know,
coming from a Kurdish background, to the genocide and human
rights violations that my family had directly suffered from not
(23:04):
having these kind of rights to exist and to just
be who we are already shaped a lot of my thinking,
and so I wanted to take advantage of these opportunities
that I had in New Zealand, a place where I
grew up, where we had it. You know, when I
first arrived in New Zealand, we had a female Prime
Minister who was talking about about things that I had
(23:27):
never heard before, about the kind of rights that people had,
and about the kind of you know, the access that
I had at school and the teachers and the attention
that gave people.
Speaker 1 (23:36):
So I was mind blown.
Speaker 3 (23:37):
I was like just thinking about what life I had
and what I had now, and how could I not
take advantage of it?
Speaker 2 (23:44):
Beautiful, Thank you so much for joining us, Rez.
Speaker 1 (23:47):
Thank you so much. It's been a pleasure to talk
to here.
Speaker 2 (23:52):
That's it for this episode of The Front Page. You
can read more about today's stories and extensive news coverage
a Herald dot co dot Nz. The Front Page is
produced by Jane Yee and Richard Martin, who is also
our editor.
Speaker 1 (24:08):
I'm Chelsea Daniels.
Speaker 2 (24:10):
Subscribe to the Front Page on iHeartRadio or wherever you
get your podcasts, and tune in tomorrow for another look
behind the headlines.
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.