DeusVult

Meanwhile in Auckland the MoE has just approved Al Madinah near Māngere - another taxpayer funded sharia school for 500 students 🙄

A group in Brampton keeps trying to put out these PSA’s to change the attitude of the residents who live in the City who treat Canada like a garbage dump. Think of what this City will look like in another 10 years if they can’t keep up with the endless littering and illegal dumping right now.

Go to France, everyone is brown Go to Spain, everyone is brown Go to the UK, everyone is brown Go to Sweden, everyone is brown Why go to Europe at all?

This is what I would imagine a self defense class in California looks like with a vegan instructor.

Deport the lot of them!

Top 3 fraudulent visa decline rates for NZ by nation: India: 39% – 49% Tonga ~5% China ~1% – 3% Who in the government saw this and thought, you know what would be really smart? a zero scrutiny Indian immigration pipeline This is intentional sabotage, not "free trade".

Absolutel disgrace tonight at the circus that is Karate Combat. Stasiuk was 0-0 (1-1 amateur) coming in while Pacheco was 23-5 and the only woman in the world to beat Kayla Harrison. This is some of the most irresponsible matchmaking I’ve ever seen…

They are locusts everywhere they go

🚩 It starts. The NZ Police are going full Keir Starmer, intimidating people for opinions on ridiculous high Indian immigration. A kiwi lady who posted the below picture and caption was called into the Police station for a non threatening post highlighting the enforced demographic change in NZ. She says “I was called into the police station for a senior Sergeant to tell me my post was unkind and “racist”, unwelcoming to the Indian community” She stated that the Sergeant became frustrated when she held her ground, walking away from the interview twice when Renee Rosé refused to accept she had done anything wrong or bow down to Police intimidation. She added : “This is what happens when you live under a soft tyranny of the offended people’s . I won’t silence my views to accommodate your feelings” Remember that National will soon be introducing a 16 year old social media ban to keep kids safe. In reality it will be the adoption of the EU’s internet control to throttle back dissenting views. This is all heading to one destination. Listen to the phone call here:

Asian guy says the replacement of Whites by Asians in New Zealand is "now LOCKED IN". x.com/TruthFairy131/… I happen to be writing an article now about how the great replacement is now locked in; but I offer a theoretical explanation. Here's an indirect hint to my explanation: The white liberal female wonders in a complacent manner if this might "provoke a little bit of fear" among whites. The Asian guys replies that this is why we need start educating Whites into accepting their replacement as a good thing.

A grumpy man can control a family without ever raising his voice. He just has to make his displeasure expensive enough. A long silence at dinner. A ruined car ride. Soon, everyone starts pre-adjusting. The kids are told “not now” before they can ask. She chooses the restaurant he likes, the movie he won’t complain through, the route that avoids traffic because traffic makes him unbearable. This is how a household becomes organized around one person’s refusal to regulate themselves.

@grok @kirstyiso @shouldveknown11 You can vote on a residence class visa, as long as you have lived here 1 year You don't need a pr or citizenship It's on the electoral website

No, temporary visa holders like work visa holders cannot vote. NZ law requires you to be 18+, a citizen *or* permanent resident ("resident for electoral purposes" - not required to leave by a set date), and have lived here 12+ months continuously at some point. Temporary visa holders are explicitly ineligible. Source: vote.nz / Electoral Act 1993.

We need it so only people with New Zealand citizenship can vote. Indians & Chinese can't have dual citizenship and they rarely give up the citizenship of their birth country.

@PronouncedHare That's wrong, anyone with a residence visa, who has been here for a year, can also vote

No additional voters will be added to the electoral roll as a result of this FTA, as only permanent residents and citizens can vote. That said I know that it’s fun to, like, imagine American or maybe British political stuff is happening here (just like on TV!)

Try harder @damienmgrant Claim 1 — "That's 5000 in total. This isn't 5000 a year. It is 5000 at any one time." This is the central factual error of the article. Grant treats Annex 8L (the Temporary Employment Entry schedule) as if it were the full ceiling on Indian migrant entry under the FTA. It is not. Annex 8L is one of five separate immigration pathways opened by Chapter 8 and its Annexes. The other four have no numerical cap at all. The FTA's actual commitments on movement of natural persons are spread across these instruments: 1. Annex 8K — Specific Commitments on Temporary 2. Movement of Natural Persons (uncapped categories) 3. Annex 8L — Temporary Employment Entry (the capped 5,000) 4. Annex 8F — Students' Mobility and Post-Study Work Visas (uncapped) 5. Annex 8C Article 8C.3.4(a) — the prohibition on numerical caps Working Holiday Side Letter — 1,000/year Article 8C.3.4(a) is unambiguous: "neither Party shall… adopt or maintain any limitations on the total number of each category of natural persons of the other Party to be granted temporary entry." That prohibition applies to every category in Annex 8K, which includes: - Intra-Corporate Transferees (Executives, Managers, Specialists) — no cap, 3-year initial stay (Annex 8K Section B) - Contractual Services Suppliers across 22 listed sectors (legal, accounting, engineering, IT, healthcare advisory, telecommunications, etc.) — no cap, 12 months (Annex 8K Section D) - Independent Professionals in business, computer, education, and environmental services — no cap, 12 months (Annex 8K Section E) - Partners and dependent children of any of the above whose principal stayed >12 months — same duration as principal (Annex 8K Section F) Annex 8F (Students) is also explicitly uncapped: "Neither Party shall impose any numerical limits on the admission and entry of students from the other Party to recognised education institutions." And those students get post-study work rights of 2 years (bachelor's), 3 years (master's or STEM honours), or 4 years (doctoral) — that's Annex 8F paragraphs 4–5. So Grant's reassuring "5,000 at any one time" figure covers only Annex 8L. The Intra-Corporate Transferee, Contractual Services Supplier, Independent Professional, Business Visitor, Installer/Servicer, partner/dependent, and student pathways are all separate, all numerically uncapped, and all locked in by treaty. Claim 2 — "And then they have to go home." This is true for Annex 8L (which has explicit 3-year stand-down requirements between visas) and for the Annex 8K Intra-Corporate Transferee category if read in isolation. It is not true of the FTA's total immigration architecture. The FTA does not block transition to residence — it just doesn't grant it. What it does is open multi-year temporary pathways that, under existing NZ immigration law, often interact with the AEWV-to-residence pipeline, the Skilled Migrant Category, and the Green List. Annex 8C Article 8C.2.2 explicitly says the Annex "shall not apply to measures regarding citizenship, nationality, residence or employment on a permanent basis" — meaning the FTA neither protects nor prevents NZ's domestic residence settings. So whether someone "has to go home" depends entirely on what NZ's domestic residence policy is at the time their visa expires, not on the FTA. The Annex 8F students pathway is the clearest example. A student does a bachelor's (3+ years) → 2-year post-study work visa → 5+ years of NZ time, during which NZ residence pathways under domestic law are accessible. Grant presents the FTA as a closed-loop temporary system. It isn't. Claim 3 — "There is nothing in the agreement that prevents Wellington throttling or expanding these numbers to respond to either a skills shortage or sluggish property prices." This is incorrect for almost every category Grant has just listed. Annex 8C.3.4(a) explicitly prohibits NZ from adopting or maintaining any numerical limits on the categories scheduled in Annex 8K. Once the FTA is in force, "Wellington throttling" the Intra-Corporate Transferee, Contractual Services Supplier, Independent Professional, Business Visitor, or partner/dependent pathways is a treaty breach. For Annex 8L, Grant's own claim is also wrong in a different direction. Section B of Annex 8L states the skilled-occupation entries "shall be reviewed every five years" and that "until agreement is reached, or as otherwise mutually agreed, the five-year arrangement applying immediately prior to the review shall remain in place." So the numbers are floors that persist through review — NZ cannot unilaterally throttle them. The only category where Grant's "throttle" claim approaches truth is Annex 8F students, where domestic eligibility settings still apply — but even there, Article 2 prohibits numerical limits. Modification of any scheduled commitment requires going through Article 8.11 — three months' notice, mandatory consultations on compensatory adjustment, and if no agreement is reached, the matter goes to a Chapter 19 dispute panel. This is the opposite of unilateral Wellington control. Claim 4 — "The other nonsense being peddled by NZ First is the obligation to invest US$20bn into India; this is not what the document says… This is an aspiration, not a commitment." Grant is half right and half wrong, and the half he's wrong about is the more important half. He correctly identifies that Article 9.2 says NZ shall "promote FDI… with the aim to increase such investment by US Dollars 20 billion within 15 years." The verb is "promote," not "deliver." So far, fine. What he omits is that Article 9.2 is enforced by Articles 9.9 and 9.10, which together make this far more than aspiration: - Art 9.9.6: If the target is missed by year 15 and "India considers that New Zealand has not fulfilled its commitment," India can trigger formal consultations. - Art 9.10.1: If consultations fail, India "may, notwithstanding any other provision under this Agreement, undertake proportionate remedial measures to rebalance the concessions provided to New Zealand by India pursuant to Annex 2A (Schedules of Tariff Commitments)." - Art 9.11: NZ has no recourse to Chapter 19 dispute settlement on this. In other words, India can unilaterally claw back the tariff concessions NZ traded for if it decides NZ hasn't promoted enough investment, with no neutral arbitration available to NZ. The "notwithstanding any other provision" wording overrides the rest of the agreement. That is not how aspirational language is enforced. Aspirations don't get backed by retaliatory tariff clauses. Grant's framing — "This is an aspiration… included to give New Delhi cover to justify the internal political cost of reducing tariffs" — is a guess about negotiating intent that the text contradicts. If it were merely cover, you wouldn't need Article 9.10. Claim 5 — "Most export tariffs will be reduced or eliminated." This is misleadingly framed. The MFAT summary itself states that under the FTA, "the average tariff applied to our current exports will drop sharply to just 3%" and that "over 80% will enter India tariff-free once the FTA is fully phased in." So roughly 20% of NZ's current exports remain subject to tariffs even after full phase-in, and the average residual is 3% — not zero. "Reduced or eliminated" reads as if these are roughly equivalent outcomes; they aren't. And the headline 95% figure refers to lines that are tariff-free or benefit from a reduction — which folds reductions and eliminations together rhetorically. This is a relatively minor point, but it sits in a paragraph framed as "what we get." Claim 6 — "Currently New Zealand exports just $2 billion to India, predominantly tourism." This understates the asymmetry of the deal. According to the Indian government's own factsheet on the same FTA, India's merchandise exports to NZ rose to USD 711 million in 2024–25 with 32% positive growth, and India's services exports to NZ grew 13% to USD 634 million in 2024. India's exports to NZ are growing markedly faster than NZ's exports to India. Grant cites the NZ-side number to characterise the deal's stakes but doesn't mention that the FTA grants duty-free access for 100% of India's tariff lines into NZ from day one (per the Indian Ministry of Commerce factsheet), while NZ gets phased reductions across only ~80% of its lines and no dairy. The reciprocity is asymmetric on day one — Grant doesn't engage with this. Claim 7 — "Nor is the claim that we have bound ourselves to the Paris climate change accord accurate. There are vague words of intention that I would prefer were not there, but to focus on empty statements of intent is to ignore the binding obligations." This claim is plausible on the Paris-specific point (Chapter 12 generally uses softer wording than Chapter 9), but Grant's broader framing — that vague intentions can be safely ignored relative to "binding obligations" — is selectively applied. He uses this rule to dismiss climate concerns, but he uses the opposite rule to dismiss investment concerns (treating Article 9.2's "with the aim to increase" as merely aspirational while ignoring the binding enforcement mechanisms in 9.9 and 9.10). You can't have it both ways. Claim 8 — "It opens a bilateral economic engagement that will improve the quality of life for residents of both countries." This is a conclusion, not a fact, and it sits unsupported in the column. Whether it improves quality of life for NZ residents depends entirely on (a) whether the dairy gap closes via the side letter consultation process — which is non-binding (the dairy side letter only commits India to "consult" if it grants comparable countries dairy access in future), (b) whether the uncapped temporary entry pathways net out positively against wage and housing pressure, and (c) whether the Article 9.10 remedial-measures risk crystallises. Grant doesn't engage with any of these mechanisms before reaching his conclusion. What the article gets right (worth acknowledging) The 5,000 TEE figure in Annex 8L is correct as a description of that schedule. Grant misreads its scope, not its content. The 600 "iconic occupation" sub-cap and the 3-year stand-down rules in Annex 8L are correctly described. The dairy gap is correctly identified as a major omission, and the comparison to the China FTA is fair. Grant correctly identifies the Forest Owners Association's positive position. The "promote… with the aim" language in Article 9.2 is quoted accurately as far as it goes. Summary of the demonstrable errors stuff.co.nz/politics/36097…

Why do black teens in every country organize into huge mobs and then fight/do crime? Literally every western country with a large Black population has these "teen takeovers" with gunfights, stabbings, drugs, etc...

British police have reached a new low. 30 officers were sent to arrest a mannequin, because it hurt Muslim feelings. This is not satire. The police have completely lost the plot.

He is a delusional AGP male Everything he says should be disregarded And he should be kept away from children

you had ONE job

I have never seen a more accurate description of my husband's personality 🤣

‘NEW’ New Zealand 🇳🇿 The majority of new births in New Zealand are now ASIAN- Mostly Indian then Chinese. New Zealand has been conquered by India. Now that India (largest) & China will hold the future majority, NZ will change to cater for these cultures. Europeans & natives will become the new minority, only these minority groups won’t get special funding or privileges like other groups had. “Not only do we have the diversity that's already here but the future diversity of New Zealand is locked in. All the babies are going to look different". Without Remigration, NZ is gone forever.