New Zealand Immigration Officer Making Wild Claims

[Boatguy30]

Originally Posted by Bluewaters2812

Like I said, it isn't rocket science. Give him his boat and tell him to get out of there. If he doesn't they have full powers to detain him and have a judge issue an order to deport him.

Speculation that he might just move down the coast on your part. Even if he did, they can then detain him because he didn't take the opportunity to leave. Nothing changes the law. Immigration are NOT legally entitled to detain his boat or force him to have a survey done, full stop. It seems this is too difficult for some to understand so I'm out of here.

Anyone supporting officialdom that oversteps their powers and/or authority needs to sit back and get the grey matter working.

Seriously, you need to reconsider if the cruising life is right for you...
When you're in another country you're a guest and follow there rules.

[Factor]

Originally Posted by scoobert

i think i will take my 45' yacht there someday, and see all the sheep there is to see.... is there really anything else there?

As an Aussie it pains me deeply to say this. Nevertheless it has to be said:

NZ is one of the most stunningly beautiful places in the world, from the sheer beauty of the Bay of islands to Fiordland to the Nelson Lakes to Auckland harbour it is up there with anywhere else in the world for natural beauty. Stunning country great people, and best of all - cheap to visit.

There I have said it, nice things about the Kiwis, I will now be disowned from my birthright.

*btw I have lived in Canada and Australia and Visited most of USA, and Europe, and SE Asia but only been to Southern Africa, and no where at all in South America.


Oh and between us and the Kiwis we are supplying most of the sailors for the US americas cup team.

Im not a big fan of overzealous officials, I have written at length in maritime journals on matters of law enforcement in Australia and been critical. But honestly this self righteous dissing of my "cuz over the dutch" is unfair and unfounded.

And for the record, the US government will do nothing at all to assist this bloke to defeat his lawful obligations. Nothing. Indeed I can say in my personal experience that once a criminal offence is committed, the role of US embassy/consulate staff is minuscule.

Originally Posted by Boatguy30

Seriously, you need to reconsider if the cruising life is right for you...
When you're in another country you're a guest and follow there rules.

Indeed - and whenever I hear people get on their high horse like this I am reminded of the the Warship/Lighthouse joke.

Change Course 15 degrees

[Intuitive]

Originally Posted by Bluewaters2812

Unfortunately, the operative wording there is "an immigration officer and the person liable for arrest and detention may agree that the person will do all or any of the following things:


(e)undertake any other action for the purpose of facilitating the person’s deportation or departure from New Zealand.

If the OP does not agree then immigration don't have the right to detain his boat. They still then only have the right to either let him leave with the boat and if he does not do that, they can detain him (not his boat), and have a Judge issue an order to deport him. Once again, I repeat, a good attorney will put a case forward to a judge saying that his client wishes to leave but is being prevented illegally by Immigration themselves by detaining his boat. Nothing in what you have listed changes the fact that immigration have no rights to detain his boat and demand that he have a seaworthiness suryey.

No, but Immigration have sweeping rights to require anything they like in this situation... And they can invite Maritime NZ to have a Safety officer inspect the boat and detain it - a fact which seems to be lost on you.

In truth I doubt the Immigration officer would be pushing this unless the boat had already been inspected at some earlier point in its visit and found to be wanting.

As others have pointed out Immigration have no expertise to inspect or powers to detain a craft. And given how thin with the truth (the whole truth) the thread initiator has been it would not surprise that there was yet still more that we don't all know about this.

Regardless, what we do know tells us the thread initiator is entirely in the wrong here, and does deserve everything that comes his way, and given the leeway he's been granted probably a whole lot more besides.

[jeanathon]

According to this story.
'Missing' sailor unaware of search



JARED NICOLL Last updated 08:16 31/07/2012

He has been in the country for less than 12 months so.... Has he overstayed his visa as you people are saying?

[Intuitive]

Originally Posted by jeanathon

According to this story.
'Missing' sailor unaware of search

JARED NICOLL Last updated 08:16 31/07/2012

He has been in the country for less than 12 months so.... Has he overstayed his visa as you people are saying?

Refer back.... as follows.


Re: New Zealand Immigration Officer Making Wild Claims
He's been in New Zealand since at least January 2012

'http://www.bristol27.com/bristol-specific/hull-alexandra'

As a US citizen, he is entitled to a 3 month visa waiver on entry. If he actually applied for a visitor visa, that entitles him to a maximum of 9 months in the country, which may be extended by another 3 months in exceptional circumstances. So he has overstayed his visa by at least 6 months and probably 15 months. In the latter case he's liable to a 5 year ban.

[NoTies]

Originally Posted by jeanathon

According to this story.
'Missing' sailor unaware of search



JARED NICOLL Last updated 08:16 31/07/2012

He has been in the country for less than 12 months so.... Has he overstayed his visa as you people are saying?

Can't see a link in your post but Sean said in his own website post on the photo link that he was in NZ January 2012

[jeanathon]

Good to have that cleared up.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Wand

I've just come to this thread and what a hilarious thread it is. Some joker complains that he is being refused an exit visa from NZ. In a flash, all the 'no nanny state' ranters (usually the ones with their hands out) come out of the woodwork, shouting that it's illegal to detain a US citizen (how bluddy dare they!) and declare that they'll go see their congressman to knock some heads together, while others of that ilk cross NZ off their list and vow never to set foot in such a terrible place.

Of course, there's more to the story. Turns out that the joker is somewhat less than truthful (has overstayed his visa by a long, long way), admits to having acted unlawfully with respect to wi-fi access, and altogether has sponged on NZ's 'nanny state' provisions for a large part of his stay.

Then the authorities move on his deportation in an entirely reasonable way. They could put him on the first plane out; in doing this, the fact that his $200 boat would remain in the country is properly something of no concern to them at all. That's the way visa overstayers are treated in every country when they are located - first plane out. But no, they are giving him a chance to get his boat in order so that he can sail out. It's an magnanimous offer any fair reading of this case suggests that he doesn't deserve.

Yet there remains at least one poster who still seeks to defend his countryman, with the line of argument that the furnishing of this option is unlawful. And he takes this line despite the efforts of those who have posted the detail that provides clear refutation of his line. Can't read maybe?

As I said - hilarious...

Careful Wand. For the 'Nanny Staters' who will set their hair on fire rather than acknowledge that a sovereign state has every right to enact the laws it sees fit, especially ones that protect the lives of their own citizens (like SAR folks), your rational comments will not be welcomed. For them, common sense has no place in the conversation.

[David_Old_Jersey]

Originally Posted by Bluewaters2812

immigration have no rights to detain his boat and demand that he have a seaworthiness suryey.

I don't read that notice as saying that.

Immigration are just giving him that option, in addition to using a jumbo jet..........why the boat being unseaworthy has cropped up is a separate matter - my suspicion is that OP has used that argument previously with immigration to extend his stay in NZ (and has therefore self declared!). or the Immigration Officer has simply seen it! ..........or it has already been inspected by NZ officialdom who does have power to detain it, and OP is being economical with the facts.

Of course OP could argue the matter in court (a lawyer will take money off any fool!), but likely that would be when he is back in the US.

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Careful Wand. For the 'Nanny Staters' who will set their hair on fire rather than acknowledge that a sovereign state has every right to enact the laws it sees fit, especially ones that protect the lives of their own citizens (like SAR folks), your rational comments will not be welcomed. For them, common sense has no place in the conversation.

I don't think anyone disputes a countries right to set laws, but we also have a right to express our view when we think they are bad laws.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

I don't think anyone disputes a countries right to set laws, but we also have a right to express our view when we think they are bad laws.

Sorry a guy sails in on a POS boat , overstays his visa by a long shot, admits to other illegal acts. as in many many states he is prevented from leaving in a POS boat, until he fixes it, then he is treated quite compassionately by immigration giving him several options .

If this was the US all his attire would be orange by now.


I see it as a very humane and considerate response by a state to a person that has clearly freeloaded

The attacks on NZ are entirely , utterly unjustified. Not to mention the US " gun boat" style solutions , as if Americans are somehow except from other people's rules.

I'd impound the boat to pay for his airline ticket , put Him in cuffs and take him hot foot to the nearest international airport.

Dave

[deepblueln]

I'm no immigration expert, so I've a question for the legal eagles out there:
If he has overstayed his visa then Immigration would want him out, and quickly. But, if his boat, his apparent primary means of leaving, seems unseaworthy, then isn't it in THEIR best interest to make sure he clears up the issues and sails on?
I am wondering what the alternative is --- if they put him on the next plane to anywhere, aren't they then stuck with a supposedly decrepit boat (which now has no one around to care for it at all) stuck in their marina, or growing mold in a storage yard? What happens when it sinks/catches fire/breaks lines and drifts into something important?
OTOH, if they just put him back aboard, throw off the lines, and give him a shove, he's gone but what if he gets into trouble? If the boat is as unseaworthy as some think, it heads out into poor conditions, sinks out from under him, now NZ rescue services come and scoop him out ... and now he's stuck in NZ again. His home, possessions, everything have vanished; he has nowhere to go and no way to pay for it. So that doesn't seem like the ideal outcome, for them, either.
Like I said, don't know the legal details, but just wondering if perhaps Immigration might be looking after their own interests beyond just getting him off their territory ASAP.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

I don't think anyone disputes a countries right to set laws, but we also have a right to express our view when we think they are bad laws.

Really? Seemed like there was a fair amount of that sentiment expressed, or perhaps I was confusing it with the opinion that first responders like risking their lives rescuing morons, as opposed to doing it because it is their duty. And of course you have a right to express any point of view that seems rational to you. Just as it is everyone else's right to opine on the logical absurdities attached thereto.

Just to clarify, do you believe it is a bad law for NZ to insist a private vessel departing its shores meet minimum safety standards so they don't have to spend taxpayer money and risk first responders lives rescuing them?

[hellosailor]

There's almost an Orwellian Humor in the whole situation. Can't leave, can't stay, must be arrested, no, deported, or you can fix the boat and then leave with it, or leave now if it doesn't need fixing...Oh, right, it might not, someone will have to decide that...although you can't leave with it because it isn't...

Sounds like one of those cheap horror movies with some vacationers taking a turn down the wrong road in the deep south woods in the US.

I'd love to get the full unabridged version once it is over.

[pdf27]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

I'd impound the boat to pay for his airline ticket , put Him in cuffs and take him hot foot to the nearest international airport.

Part of me is suspecting that's exactly where he's going given how he's been bitching all over the internet about how badly he's been treated by NZ immigration. This looks very much like his last chance...