Alejandra and Paul interview Katy Armstrong, New Zealand Immigration Advisor.
Katy Armstrong is a licensed immigration advisor with a consultancy, Into NZ. The consultancy had always advocated for migrants trying to enter New Zealand or to remain there. And family reunification has been a strong focus. On the 19th March 2020, New Zealand closed its borders to everyone but New Zealanders. The government immediately made a provision that if someone was a partner or dependent child of a New Zealander and they were travelling together, they could also enter, even though the border was closed. Many people didn't fit into this category, especially migrants, and were forced apart from their families or other-halves. Armstrong has been working with myriad clients to reunite them. Below, she discusses immigration issues in the context of a globalised world. And how the pandemic has brought these to the fore.
Katy Armstrong is a licensed immigration advisor with a consultancy, Into NZ. The consultancy had always advocated for migrants trying to enter New Zealand or to remain there. And family reunification has been a strong focus. On the 19th March 2020, New Zealand closed its borders to everyone but New Zealanders. The government immediately made a provision that if someone was a partner or dependent child of a New Zealander and they were travelling together, they could also enter, even though the border was closed. Many people didn't fit into this category, especially migrants, and were forced apart from their families or other-halves. Armstrong has been working with myriad clients to reunite them. Below, she discusses immigration issues in the context of a globalised world. And how the pandemic has brought these to the fore.
Alejandra and Paul interview Katy Armstrong, New Zealand Immigration Advisor.
Katy Armstrong is a licensed immigration advisor with a consultancy, Into NZ. The consultancy had always advocated for migrants trying to enter New Zealand or to remain there. And family reunification has been a strong focus. On the 19th March 2020, New Zealand closed its borders to everyone but New Zealanders. The government immediately made a provision that if someone was a partner or dependent child of a New Zealander and they were travelling together, they could also enter, even though the border was closed. Many people didn't fit into this category, especially migrants, and were forced apart from their families or other-halves. Armstrong has been working with myriad clients to reunite them. Below, she discusses immigration issues in the context of a globalised world. And how the pandemic has brought these to the fore.
Katy Armstrong is a licensed immigration advisor with a consultancy, Into NZ. The consultancy had always advocated for migrants trying to enter New Zealand or to remain there. And family reunification has been a strong focus. On the 19th March 2020, New Zealand closed its borders to everyone but New Zealanders. The government immediately made a provision that if someone was a partner or dependent child of a New Zealander and they were travelling together, they could also enter, even though the border was closed. Many people didn't fit into this category, especially migrants, and were forced apart from their families or other-halves. Armstrong has been working with myriad clients to reunite them. Below, she discusses immigration issues in the context of a globalised world. And how the pandemic has brought these to the fore.
A&P:
How has your job been affected by Covid travel bans?
K:
Part of my job dealing with migrants is to help them manage the stress. We are lobbying continuously to get families reunited. We need a response that takes the health, economic, and humanitarian elements into account.
At the worst end, we’ve got families, especially temporary migrants, who have not seen their children. They’ve had two Christmases on their own in New Zealand because they are the lowest end of priority. There’s nothing they can do to get their families in, apart from applying through strict humanitarian criteria where you’ve got about a 1 in 100 chance of getting through.
At the worst end, we’ve got families, especially temporary migrants, who have not seen their children. They’ve had two Christmases on their own in New Zealand because they are the lowest end of priority. There’s nothing they can do to get their families in, apart from applying through strict humanitarian criteria where you’ve got about a 1 in 100 chance of getting through.
A&P:
Could you tell us about the visa application process?
K:
The majority of the people have to make a border request, which is very brutal. You have these different categories that you can tick, and partnership is one of them, you get 3000 characters, not words, to explain your situation, you pay $45, you submit, then immigration case officers review it. But there’s all this criteria behind it that makes it virtually impossible for a large number of people to even qualify.
We’ve got so many issues with partners because they have to prove certain criteria, such as living together, and I think one of the big frustrations is that some of them have been maintaining relationships for a long time but they don’t necessarily meet the living together criteria, maybe they’ve lived between countries. People’s relationships don’t always fit into tight little boxes and so they’re falling by the wayside.
We’ve got so many issues with partners because they have to prove certain criteria, such as living together, and I think one of the big frustrations is that some of them have been maintaining relationships for a long time but they don’t necessarily meet the living together criteria, maybe they’ve lived between countries. People’s relationships don’t always fit into tight little boxes and so they’re falling by the wayside.
“The problem there is that you’ve got to show that your humanitarian circumstances are exceptional. And when you’ve got a pandemic, if the new norm is to be split, being split then doesn’t meet the exceptional anymore, so you’ve got to have something over and above, and that’s what people have been banging their heads against all this time.”
“The problem there is that you’ve got to show that your humanitarian circumstances are exceptional. And when you’ve got a pandemic, if the new norm is to be split, being split then doesn’t meet the exceptional anymore, so you’ve got to have something over and above, and that’s what people have been banging their heads against all this time.”
A&P:
And what happens when you don’t fit into their criteria?
K:
When you don’t fit the strict criteria, the only one that is more general is called humanitarian and that’s where you get to set out that you have humanitarian circumstances. The problem there is that you’ve got to show that your humanitarian circumstances are exceptional. And when you’ve got a pandemic, if the new norm is to be split, being split then doesn’t meet the exceptional anymore, so you’ve got to have something over and above, and that’s what people have been banging their heads against all this time.
Then they get this really brutal response saying that you don’t qualify, they don’t consider their circumstances exceptional. The way the instructions were written you’re not entitled to reasons, you’re not entitled to any appeal, you’re not entitled to any review, you basically have nowhere to go.
Then they get this really brutal response saying that you don’t qualify, they don’t consider their circumstances exceptional. The way the instructions were written you’re not entitled to reasons, you’re not entitled to any appeal, you’re not entitled to any review, you basically have nowhere to go.
A&P:
What would your advice be for couples to mention in their application, what is the most important thing for them to discuss and what is the government looking for?
K:
Our starting point is always, which category are you applying for? What are you? Do you fit the criteria? So my advice around what you write is obviously geared towards that.
One of the big things is “what’s the impact of not giving you the border exception?” A lot of the people are in serious counselling at this stage, I think that point needs to be made. There’s a mental health concern. This isn’t frivolous, we’re not trying to endanger people, we’re trying to make sure that the government understands the plight and gives a balanced response.
Some of the response has been out of kilter. We'll write saying that there are children who are depressed, or receiving counselling, and we get an assessment back saying that the impact of not giving a border exception is that “they will continue to be separated”. That’s what they say, that’s what they write in file after file after file, the impact is “they will continue to be separated”. Imagine that. That’s not an impact statement, they have not engaged with the true level of the impact, there hasn’t been a political will to do so and it really does need to change.
One of the big things is “what’s the impact of not giving you the border exception?” A lot of the people are in serious counselling at this stage, I think that point needs to be made. There’s a mental health concern. This isn’t frivolous, we’re not trying to endanger people, we’re trying to make sure that the government understands the plight and gives a balanced response.
Some of the response has been out of kilter. We'll write saying that there are children who are depressed, or receiving counselling, and we get an assessment back saying that the impact of not giving a border exception is that “they will continue to be separated”. That’s what they say, that’s what they write in file after file after file, the impact is “they will continue to be separated”. Imagine that. That’s not an impact statement, they have not engaged with the true level of the impact, there hasn’t been a political will to do so and it really does need to change.
A&P:
Do you have a chance to make your case later in the application process?
K:
If you get through the first stage they will invite you to go to stage two and you have to upload other materials. That’s where you have a chance to argue your case, but where couples are falling down is with the “living together” aspect.
Living together is this loaded term where we don’t know what is meant, but we know what it doesn’t mean. It says in the instructions that it is not spending time on holiday together, it is not going to visit one another while you maintain separate homes, it’s not flatting, which means that you’re flat mates living under the same roof. And that’s caused a lot of pain because immigration officers are also inconsistent on how they determine living together.
Living together is this loaded term where we don’t know what is meant, but we know what it doesn’t mean. It says in the instructions that it is not spending time on holiday together, it is not going to visit one another while you maintain separate homes, it’s not flatting, which means that you’re flat mates living under the same roof. And that’s caused a lot of pain because immigration officers are also inconsistent on how they determine living together.
A&P:
What sort of cases have you seen that have been approved?
K:
We've seen huge inconsistencies. I’ve called it a lottery because you don’t know when you’re suddenly going to get a breakthrough.
With the border it really has been so brutal for a lot of other people because there is nowhere for them to go, and they often don’t get reasons. I’ve spent ten months explaining to people what I think is going on in the absence of official reasons.
Every week in our papers we see B-grade Netflix movie stars arrive, or Warner Brothers deciding to produce a new show, or Bay Dreams festival - there were 12 international acts there and the government’s justification was that they were critical workers, they brought in revenue, Bay Dreams festival is big, it created employment.
It’s sad. The government needs to move quickly now to address some of the worst anomalies that it’s created. I have a big concern for the families that haven’t seen their children. When I have a father that says I haven’t seen my baby since that baby was four days old. That is heartbreaking. You cannot get that time back.
They don’t understand what it means for that family. That family has given up everything they had and resigned from jobs that they can’t get back and therefore might face destitution if they leave.
With the border it really has been so brutal for a lot of other people because there is nowhere for them to go, and they often don’t get reasons. I’ve spent ten months explaining to people what I think is going on in the absence of official reasons.
Every week in our papers we see B-grade Netflix movie stars arrive, or Warner Brothers deciding to produce a new show, or Bay Dreams festival - there were 12 international acts there and the government’s justification was that they were critical workers, they brought in revenue, Bay Dreams festival is big, it created employment.
It’s sad. The government needs to move quickly now to address some of the worst anomalies that it’s created. I have a big concern for the families that haven’t seen their children. When I have a father that says I haven’t seen my baby since that baby was four days old. That is heartbreaking. You cannot get that time back.
They don’t understand what it means for that family. That family has given up everything they had and resigned from jobs that they can’t get back and therefore might face destitution if they leave.
“ It feels like they are tone death and avoiding and deflecting with generic emails. They don’t necessarily realise how much damage one single email can do to a family whose mental health is on the line or a couple who haven’t seen each other for 18 months.”
“ It feels like they are tone death and avoiding and deflecting with generic emails. They don’t necessarily realise how much damage one single email can do to a family whose mental health is on the line or a couple who haven’t seen each other for 18 months.”
A&P:
And how has the government reacted to migration beyond the concern of couples separated by travel bans?
K:
Every week in our papers, we see B-grade Netflix movie stars arrive, or Warner Brothers decided to produce a new show or Bay Dreams festival with 12 international acts. The government’s justification is that they were critical workers, they brought in revenue; the Bay Dreams festival is huge, it created employment.
So, what is one to make of all of this? I have personally experienced a lack of listening. It feels like they are tone death and avoiding and deflecting with generic emails. They don’t necessarily realise how much damage one single email can do to a family whose mental health is on the line or a couple who haven’t seen each other for 18 months.
We have a chance to fix it. It will take time. Most people say that they just want to know if they will be allowed in. “Tell us now, put us out of our misery if you’re never going to let us in, we will go now, we will cut our losses”. But what if they go, and in three weeks the government says there’s a chance. I think that's cruel.
The government doesn’t communicate. It’s not always about the actual solution it’s sometimes about communicating that you are working on something, that you commit to finding a solution. That is what’s been cruel, not necessarily the thing itself.
So, what is one to make of all of this? I have personally experienced a lack of listening. It feels like they are tone death and avoiding and deflecting with generic emails. They don’t necessarily realise how much damage one single email can do to a family whose mental health is on the line or a couple who haven’t seen each other for 18 months.
We have a chance to fix it. It will take time. Most people say that they just want to know if they will be allowed in. “Tell us now, put us out of our misery if you’re never going to let us in, we will go now, we will cut our losses”. But what if they go, and in three weeks the government says there’s a chance. I think that's cruel.
The government doesn’t communicate. It’s not always about the actual solution it’s sometimes about communicating that you are working on something, that you commit to finding a solution. That is what’s been cruel, not necessarily the thing itself.
“Every relationship is on a spectrum. Some people commit to being together all their lives without ever having met because it is an arranged marriage. Others take 18 months to decide that they want to be together. So this is what’s problematic with immigration instructions: they struggle to cope with all these different scenarios.”
“Every relationship is on a spectrum. Some people commit to being together all their lives without ever having met because it is an arranged marriage. Others take 18 months to decide that they want to be together. So this is what’s problematic with immigration instructions: they struggle to cope with all these different scenarios.”
A&P:
Could we talk about the value of love or being in a relationship in the government's eyes?
K:
There are two realities about a partnership. There is real life, and then there are immigration instructions. They don’t always line up. And then, between those, you have the immigration case officers. And immigration officers cannot always distinguish between cases that have merit and those that don’t. They can be very formulaic.
One of the frustrations is that some of the most disingenuous cases will have the most evidence to support them. And some of the most genuine cases have almost nothing. I’ve had couples who have lived together for 20 years and have children, and they don't have a joint-anything. Immigration officers are supposed to judge the genuineness of relationships and partnerships on how stable they are, whatever that means, and that they are living together.
So you can immediately see the problem. One of the top immigration managers famously reflected that this is one of the most subjective policy areas. And when you have something subjective you are going to have inconsistency.
Every relationship is on a spectrum. Some people commit to being together all their lives without ever having met because it is an arranged marriage. Others take 18 months to decide that they want to be together. So this is what’s problematic with immigration instructions: they struggle to cope with all these different scenarios.
One of the frustrations is that some of the most disingenuous cases will have the most evidence to support them. And some of the most genuine cases have almost nothing. I’ve had couples who have lived together for 20 years and have children, and they don't have a joint-anything. Immigration officers are supposed to judge the genuineness of relationships and partnerships on how stable they are, whatever that means, and that they are living together.
So you can immediately see the problem. One of the top immigration managers famously reflected that this is one of the most subjective policy areas. And when you have something subjective you are going to have inconsistency.
Every relationship is on a spectrum. Some people commit to being together all their lives without ever having met because it is an arranged marriage. Others take 18 months to decide that they want to be together. So this is what’s problematic with immigration instructions: they struggle to cope with all these different scenarios.
A&P:
How do you think we can change immigration policies to reflect the nuances in how we define relationships or family?
K:
They need to throw away everything that we know and start again. Start using some other form of criteria that meets modern-day values or balances people's rights to choose a partner no matter where they are from, but not hinge it necessarily to these very formulaic concepts that don’t actually ever match anything. What Covid-19 has done is shine a light on all of our negative perceptions. It has allowed some negative perceptions about immigration to surface. And it all happened through a border closure.
A&P:
And what changes have you felt because of the Pandemic?
K:
One of the positives I think is interesting, is I think there has been some empathy building through Covid. Those of us who are very entitled have lived feeling that we can go anywhere and live anywhere in the world, but now, through Covid, we have had to face border closures in New Zealand, what some couples have been facing for many years. That’s what is potentially good about Covid for me, if it leads to some action, if it leads to some genuine political will to look at these issues and get them out on the table and reformulate everything. If it builds some empathy where people suddenly understand what migrants have gone through because they have had to go through it themselves for the first time.
This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
