New Zealand Immigration Officer Making Wild Claims

[sctpc]

Originally Posted by boatman61

And now we get closer to the truth of the matter... being a US person does not make you special... any more than anyone entering/leaving the states...
If your a US citizen.. you aint got a clue what we have to put op with.
Personally... this is gonna be my last visit here... its just not worth the insults... and if you say go fug yourself... that's fine..
I'll just sit n laugh my tits off when you guys get screwed by Schengin... coz you think your so clever...
If you want Allies... don't stick us... coz u can be damn sure when you ask for help we are gonna say.... FOA....

Oh Boatman please tell us why you sound soo happy in your last 3 posts?
What have the yanks done to you?

[Bluewaters2812]

[QUOTE=ternmarine;1276764]Now we get to the crux of the problem.

The Op has been detained by Immigration because he has to leave the country as his visa has expired , not because his vessel is "unseaworthy".

This does not explain what "immigration" have to do with the seaworthiness of his yacht. What powers are they acting under bearing in mind this is not a commercial vessel? If they allow him to leave with his yacht his violation of immigration laws will cease. There are two sides to this story methinks, one of which may well be an Immigration Officer stepping outside of his legal jurisdiction by demanding a seaworthiness survey be done on an Immigration document. I am sure a good attorney will successfully tackle that.

[NoTies]

Read the form again.

[Bluewaters2812]

Originally Posted by NoTies

Read the form again.

I did ... what am I missing? Its an Immigration Officer making it a requirement that he has a seaworthiness Survey? Immigration Officers don't have that authority do they?

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Bluewaters2812

I did ... what am I missing? Its an Immigration Officer making it a requirement that he has a seaworthiness Survey? Immigration Officers don't have that authority do they?

Don't come to Europe then mate... you'd be amazed at the power of a simple Harbourmaster...

[NoTies]

Originally Posted by Bluewaters2812

I did ... what am I missing? Its an Immigration Officer making it a requirement that he has a seaworthiness Survey? Immigration Officers don't have that authority do they?

It's essentially telling him he is under house detention until he leaves either by air or sea (if he has a sea worthy boat). He is obviously in violation of his visa conditions for this to happen and NZ authorities appear to be cutting him some slack by allowing him a bit of extra time before deportation.

[Bluewaters2812]

Originally Posted by NoTies

It's essentially telling him he is under house detention until he leaves either by air or sea (if he has a sea worthy boat). He is obviously in violation of his visa conditions for this to happen and NZ authorities appear to be cutting him some slack by allowing him a bit of extra time before deportation.

Immigration have no legal authority to demand a seaworthy inspection, and that is the point here. They are overstepping their jurisdiction and abusing their powers. Let him leave with his yacht and he will no longer be in violation. Like I said, a good attorney will successfully tackle their breach of authority, which I would suggest, is tantamount an illegal act on the part of the Immigration Officer.

Notwithstanding what the Immigration Officer might think of the boat's condition, they have no legal authority to demand a seaworthy survey. It isn't rocket science. Nobody should ever stand for a government official overstepping the boundaries of authority. It appears that this is the case here.

[NoTies]

Originally Posted by Bluewaters2812

Immigration have no legal authority to demand a seaworthy inspection, and that is the point here. They are overstepping their jurisdiction and abusing their powers. Let him leave with his yacht and he will no longer be in violation. Like I said, a good attorney will successfully tackle their breach of authority, which I would suggest, is tantamount an illegal act on the part of the Immigration Officer.

Notwithstanding what the Immigration Officer might think of the boat's condition, they have no legal authority to demand a seaworthy survey. It isn't rocket science. Nobody should ever stand for a government official overstepping the boundaries of authority. It appears that this is the case here.

Who made you an expert on NZ immigration customs and maritime regulations? You appear to be confusing misguided opinion for facts and are being very selective in what you interpret from what is written.

[pdf27]

Originally Posted by sctpc

Oh Boatman please tell us why you sound soo happy in your last 3 posts?
What have the yanks done to you?

He's at Newark. I go there regularly as it's the nearest airport to my in-laws and get treated like scum every time.

Originally Posted by Bluewaters2812

Immigration have no legal authority to demand a seaworthy inspection, and that is the point here. They are overstepping their jurisdiction and abusing their powers. Let him leave with his yacht and he will no longer be in violation. Like I said, a good attorney will successfully tackle their breach of authority, which I would suggest, is tantamount an illegal act on the part of the Immigration Officer.

Notwithstanding what the Immigration Officer might think of the boat's condition, they have no legal authority to demand a seaworthy survey. It isn't rocket science. Nobody should ever stand for a government official overstepping the boundaries of authority. It appears that this is the case here.

My reading of that is that rather than arresting him and putting him on the first plane out if the country (which is the usual response in most counries), they've given him a week to get the boat seaworthy before heading out into some really dodgy seas in the middle of winter.
Read section (c) again - he is being given permission to stay longer in New Zealand if his yacht needs repair, otherwise if it's OK or beyond economical repair he has to sail away/get a plane out within a week.

Given what we now know about the OP (breaking visa rules and hacking into other people's wi-fi have been admitted so far in this thread), that seems an exceedingly reasonable response.

Incidentally, I think he is extremely ill-advised putting his real name in the thread. I deal with immigration a fair bit (my wife is a US citizen, in the UK on a visa) and he's just put up evidence that he has little regard for the immigration system in NZ/may be using deception in regard to it. If they catch you doing that in many other countries (the US and UK for certain) you can be denied entry and banned for up to 10 years. This is something they take very, very seriously.

[Bluewaters2812]

Originally Posted by NoTies

Who made you an expert on NZ immigration customs and maritime regulations? You appear to be confusing misguided opinion for facts and are being very selective in what you interpret from what is written.

No, I am not an expert on it but you imply that you are. Show us on this thread, the law that empowers this Immigration official to demand a seaworthy survey on that document in the manner he has done. I'm guessing you can't but if you can produce such a law then I will be the first to agree that the OP has no choice but to comply.

I suggested to the OP a long time back to demand that the Immigration Officer provide him with a reference to the law upon which he is acting. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. You have made a number of sweeping assumptions on this thread. Perhaps you can show us the law you have been basing your statements on?

[downunder]

Originally Posted by Bluewaters2812

No, I am not an expert on it but you imply that you are. Show us on this thread, the law that empowers this Immigration official to demand a seaworthy survey on that document in the manner he has done. I'm guessing you can't but if you can produce such a law then I will be the first to agree that the OP has no choice but to comply.

I suggested to the OP a long time back to demand that the Immigration Officer provide him with a reference to the law upon which he is acting. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. You have made a number of sweeping assumptions on this thread. Perhaps you can show us the law you have been basing your statements on?

I can just imagine an NZer or Aussie trying that on with officials in USA or anywhere in South America or Asia for that matter.

[Bluewaters2812]

Originally Posted by pdf27

He's at Newark. I go there regularly as it's the nearest airport to my in-laws and get treated like scum every time.


My reading of that is that rather than arresting him and putting him on the first plane out if the country (which is the usual response in most counries), they've given him a week to get the boat seaworthy before heading out into some really dodgy seas in the middle of winter.
Read section (c) again - he is being given permission to stay longer in New Zealand if his yacht needs repair, otherwise if it's OK or beyond economical repair he has to sail away/get a plane out within a week.

Given what we now know about the OP (breaking visa rules and hacking into other people's wi-fi have been admitted so far in this thread), that seems an exceedingly reasonable response.

Incidentally, I think he is extremely ill-advised putting his real name in the thread. I deal with immigration a fair bit (my wife is a US citizen, in the UK on a visa) and he's just put up evidence that he has little regard for the immigration system in NZ/may be using deception in regard to it. If they catch you doing that in many other countries (the US and UK for certain) you can be denied entry and banned for up to 10 years. This is something they take very, very seriously.

I have already agreed that if he has overstayed his welcome he has to leave. Immigration seem to have taken charge of his boat, demanding a seaworthy survey before he can sail away. If they simply let him sail away he will take away his illegal presence in the country. I will never condone anyone overstaying their welcome in any country but similarly, immigration are now contributing to his illegal presence and they appear to not be acting within the law. 2 wrongs will never make a right.

[LJH]

Originally Posted by Delfin

So, if you're an FAA inspector with authority to ground airplanes, and someone wants to take off in an airplane with potted plants attached to the wings in a hurricane over a populated area, you'd wish them bon voyage rather than succumb to nanny statism and presume that the crash scene would be investigated and mopped up by people getting paid to do that job anyway? An besides, the chances of the fool crashing on a school are minimal.....

I'll leave off now, but one of the reasons why the nanny state is taking over our lives is that the spokespeople for freedom so often resort to arguments that only would be put forward by people who can't differentiate reasonable from reprehensible, so no one pays any attention to their arguments.

Neither will they stop the airworthy plane form heading off shore in uncontrolled airspace. After a crash at sea there are countless hours spent searching over a wide area with a huge public expense...

[Bluewaters2812]

Originally Posted by downunder

I can just imagine an NZer or Aussie trying that on in USA or anywhere in South America or Asia for that matter.

Yip, but that isn't the point. It is unacceptable anywhere in the world for an official to act outside of his legal authority and we should ALWAYS stand against it.

I speak from experience, having been a cop. I hated seeing any of my fellow cops overstepping their legal authority and believe me I saw it plenty. It will never be right.

[NoTies]

Originally Posted by Bluewaters2812

No, I am not an expert on it but you imply that you are. Show us on this thread, the law that empowers this Immigration official to demand a seaworthy survey on that document in the manner he has done. I'm guessing you can't but if you can produce such a law then I will be the first to agree that the OP has no choice but to comply.

I suggested to the OP a long time back to demand that the Immigration Officer provide him with a reference to the law upon which he is acting. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. You have made a number of sweeping assumptions on this thread. Perhaps you can show us the law you have been basing your statements on?

He is presenting seaworthiness inspection as an option to being immediately deported. Read the document he posted and the relevant section of the act posted by ternmarine. NZ doesn't make a habit of violating peoples rights. We don't have get convenience of Guantanomo.
Carry on supporting a law breaker if you like, NZ is not a country of dumb hicks (we caught the French agents in 1985 afterall.