# From USA to Brazil to NZ and finally South Africa??



## Moyes (Nov 3, 2011)

I have been browsing through this forum quite often lately thanks to Google. Im a SA citizen and currently living and working in New Zeaalnd. My wife who is from Brazil/Chile has temp residency permit for SA and we have been married for 4 years and been cohabiting for over 5 years. According to the Wellington Embassy she can apply for permanent residency as long as she can prove that 1 year we were living together etc. I hope that is the case as I will apply for it early next year.

We are both permanent residents here in New Zealand and would like to return to SA(Cape Town or Garden Route). Before we make this move and even though we are well travelled I would like to hear what other members on this site have to say? Our biggest reason for returning is being close to family. We are a young married couple and the way we see things, is that we should try and enjoy SA for what it has to offer as who knows what it will be like in 5 years time with all the political issues with Malema becoming president- I hope not!  If things turn pear shaped in SA we can always come back to NZ 

Is it worth it go back to Cape Town and give it a try and enjoy it while its still relatively stable or should we just stick it out in NZ for 3 more years and get Citizenship and then we can go to Aus and forget about SA?

I would appreciate any feedback and would like to hear your views of SA in 5years time. Thank you.


----------



## Daxk (Jan 20, 2008)

if you leave NZ and then later return will you then have to restart Citizenship ?
if things DID go pear shaped in SA is it likely that other Countries would get stricter on Citizenship and immigration?


----------



## Johanna (Apr 13, 2009)

Daxk said:


> if you leave NZ and then later return will you then have to restart Citizenship ?
> if things DID go pear shaped in SA is it likely that other Countries would get stricter on Citizenship and immigration?


You have a good point there Daxk, most countries revoke your ILR if you are absent for a certain period of time.


----------



## Moyes (Nov 3, 2011)

*Citizenship....*



Daxk said:


> if you leave NZ and then later return will you then have to restart Citizenship ?
> if things DID go pear shaped in SA is it likely that other Countries would get stricter on Citizenship and immigration?


Hi Daxk,

According to New Zealand immigration law, it states that once once a person becomes a permanent resident in the country he/she can come and go as many times as they like. I would have to keep an 'eye' out in case they changed that law and return asap. With regards to citizenship , it just says that you have to be in NZ for 5 years once you get PR. I will have to ask NZ immigration to find out more. Cheers


----------



## Saartjie (Mar 1, 2010)

Moyes said:


> I have been browsing through this forum quite often lately thanks to Google. Im a SA citizen and currently living and working in New Zeaalnd. My wife who is from Brazil/Chile has temp residency permit for SA and we have been married for 4 years and been cohabiting for over 5 years. According to the Wellington Embassy she can apply for permanent residency as long as she can prove that 1 year we were living together etc. I hope that is the case as I will apply for it early next year.
> 
> We are both permanent residents here in New Zealand and would like to return to SA(Cape Town or Garden Route). Before we make this move and even though we are well travelled I would like to hear what other members on this site have to say? Our biggest reason for returning is being close to family. We are a young married couple and the way we see things, is that we should try and enjoy SA for what it has to offer as who knows what it will be like in 5 years time with all the political issues with Malema becoming president- I hope not!  If things turn pear shaped in SA we can always come back to NZ
> 
> ...


Regarding the Permanent Residency, the law is quite clear on this point. Under section 26(b) of the Immigration Act it states that a person who has been the spouse of a citizen or a SA permanent resident for a period of 5 years is eligible for permanent residency. At the moment, Home Affairs does not take mere cohabitation into account. When I arrived in SA, my husband and I had been married for 4 years and 8 months (or so), and I was not allowed to apply for Permanent Residency then but had to wait until the we had reached the 5 year mark.


----------



## Halo (May 8, 2008)

Bing : Family


----------



## bokbabe (Nov 28, 2010)

Moyes said:


> I have been browsing through this forum quite often lately thanks to Google. Im a SA citizen and currently living and working in New Zeaalnd. My wife who is from Brazil/Chile has temp residency permit for SA and we have been married for 4 years and been cohabiting for over 5 years. According to the Wellington Embassy she can apply for permanent residency as long as she can prove that 1 year we were living together etc. I hope that is the case as I will apply for it early next year.
> 
> We are both permanent residents here in New Zealand and would like to return to SA(Cape Town or Garden Route). Before we make this move and even though we are well travelled I would like to hear what other members on this site have to say? Our biggest reason for returning is being close to family. We are a young married couple and the way we see things, is that we should try and enjoy SA for what it has to offer as who knows what it will be like in 5 years time with all the political issues with Malema becoming president- I hope not!  If things turn pear shaped in SA we can always come back to NZ
> 
> ...




Ooooh Moyes, you're asking for it with this one :behindsofa: 

My 2 pennies worth is, if you have an out....take a chance! We did (moved back in April) and we have loved every minute! In fact, yesterday was my birthday and it was my first one at home in 12 years and with my family and I really can't express how amazing it was to be back and spending it with them! Good luck and remember to use your judgements with some of the comments coming your way...


----------



## bokbabe (Nov 28, 2010)

Halo said:


> Bing : Family


Did you perhaps mean BING*O* Halo??  

Anyway, he said BIGGEST reason....not ONLY reason!


----------



## Halo (May 8, 2008)

Nah, Just Bing..... This is not rocket science stuff.


----------



## Johanna (Apr 13, 2009)

bokbabe said:


> Did you perhaps mean BING*O* Halo??
> 
> Anyway, he said BIGGEST reason....not ONLY reason!


Think it was a reply to Bing on the closed thread.


----------



## bokbabe (Nov 28, 2010)

Johanna said:


> Think it was a reply to Bing on the closed thread.


I thought maybe that was the case but then I thought....NAH, surely he'd rather rile ALL of us, up by trying to make the point that people do indeed move for family, when we have been arguing that they don't!!


----------



## Halo (May 8, 2008)

;-) - Its was just another proved theory.


----------



## kiwifruity (Dec 5, 2010)

Halo said:


> Nah, Just Bing..... This is not rocket science stuff.



Have not been on in months......

Heaven's above - is this dweeb still around? lol, think he has run out of housework. Go and find another load of :washing: to do.

@Moyes - follow your heart, weigh up pro's and con's and go with your gut. Here's wishing you all the best. 


Roxanna


----------



## Chris Green (Jul 20, 2010)

bokbabe said:


> Ooooh Moyes, you're asking for it with this one :behindsofa:
> 
> My 2 pennies worth is, if you have an out....take a chance! We did (moved back in April) and we have loved every minute! In fact, yesterday was my birthday and it was my first one at home in 12 years and with my family and I really can't express how amazing it was to be back and spending it with them! Good luck and remember to use your judgements with some of the comments coming your way...


Moyes I cannot take real credit for this article but ut reflects my thinking - forget about Malema and come home, we welcome you like your family would
Julius Malema was quite correct when he stated after his disciplinary hearing that he had seen to it that he would be remembered in the history books. 

Cynics would say he would be remembered because he was a dangerous, divisive demagogue and rich playboy – Robert Mugabe also made sure history would remember him, they would add.
That may be so, but I bel...ieve we might one day look back and say we owe Malema some gratitude because he forcefully put what he calls economic liberation of the un-liberated majority on top of the national agenda. His motives might have been suspect, but he has seen to it that dealing with poverty and inequality has become our first priority.

I am convinced that with Malema not dominating this debate (or is that wishful thinking?) we will find it easier to make progress with the project of establishing a new economic order in South Africa. It will demand significant sacrifices from the business sector and the middle classes, but they would have been very reluctant to come to the table if there was a perception that they’re doing it because they’re threatened by a thug like Malema.

The Director of the Centre for the Study of Democracy, Stephen Friedman, related a fascinating experience recently. He was part of a research exercise shortly after 1994 where they tested the attitudes of mainly white middle-class people to a proposal that they pay more for water because they had benefited from apartheid and so they should subsidise black households. The interviewees reacted with abuse, says Friedman, with many accusing black people of wanting to sponge off minorities. In a later survey, the same people were asked whether they would be prepared to pay more for water so poorer people would be able to afford to use more water. This time everyone agreed that it was a good idea. Friedman concludes: “So, if proposals for a fairer distribution of our resources are framed in terms of racial guilt, they are fiercely resisted. When they appeal to values most of us claim to share, such as justice and fairness, not only are they taken seriously, people who reject the racial argument may even accept them. … Racial minorities who refused to pay more to atone for apartheid did not resist when they were asked to conserve a scarce resource or to reduce poverty.” Human beings generally don’t respond well to pleas based on their sense of guilt, regardless how valid that guilt is.

I think this also applies to the emotive issue of land reform, another pressing issue and one that will be hard to proceed with if the present owners of agricultural land refuse to be a part of it. If one declares, as Malema has, that all whites are criminals because they stole black people’s land and that land should now be taken away without compensation, landowners will dig in their heels and fight to the last drop. If one goes to the same people with a plan to help more aspirant agriculturalists to be settled on land, I have no doubt that most farmers would enthusiastically cooperate. Simple sometimes.

Now you may say, why should we molly-coddle these people who were beneficiaries of an evil system? My response is: well, do you want to score a few political points or do you want to create a fundamentally new social order in as short a time as possible? What is more important, venting your anger or getting results, punishing whites or helping the poor?

I’m not saying that we should hold our tongues on burning issues or start sugar-coating the truth. But black anger for the sake of black anger is not very productive – black anger will remain forever if we don’t remove its roots.

I have a friend and associate who spent two years researching the life and times of Nelson Mandela for a book with a new take on the man, recently published internationally as the Rough Guide to Nelson Mandela. He was struck by his extraordinary talent for strategy and tactics and his gift of counter-intuitive leadership, some of which we witnessed after his release from prison in 1990. When Prisoner 466/64, the undisputed leader of most South Africans, sat at a table in a prison uniform to meet with the head of the apartheid regime’s feared National Intelligence Service, Niel Barnard, in 1987 he did NOT make a show of his bitterness, anger and frustration. Instead he seduced Barnard and his political masters into accepting that a new order was urgently necessary and that they had to start negotiating with him and his constituency. If he grandstanded his anger and cursed and insulted, history would have taken a very different course.

As a rugby coach would say: let’s keep our eye on the ball, not the man. It's what’s on the scoreboard is what counts.


----------



## Daxk (Jan 20, 2008)

Chris, I would like to correct you on a few misconceptions if I may.
when nelson sat down with barnard and later with de klerk, he did it as a figurehead.
a spokesperson for a group of people who orchestrated every thing Mandela did and said.
you do not sound naive, so i will ask you to consider wether the Ruling Committee of the ANC,well educated men who had been in exile, really said, there you go, Nelson, we have kept your seat warm for you,tell us what to do.
In the negotiations in Switzerland and with Wimpie in the UK, the ANC had to walk a concialitory let bygones be bygones line as that was what was agreed to get support for the ANC from the Western Powers.
The nats had to curb their hawks, so did the ANC.
In the midst of the negotiations, a second faction of which JZ, the Shaiks and Maharaj were part,planned to overthrow the exiles at the negotiating table and deemand immediate and full restitution.
A removal of all land and mineral rights with immediate effect to be shared equally under Govt control.
theyalso imported truckloads of arms and ammunition which were delivered via Chinese Submarine off the Inhambane Coast in Mocambique, these were stashed in arms caches and some have still not been declared to fuel a civil war if the exiles remained inpower.
The ANC NEC advised security forces who locked the whole lot up.
our little Juiliaaaas was 9 years old at the time, being taught how to fire a weapon and plant explosives.
its all History. its there. in the ANC public record.

Now its fine to say, share, land, resources....
the land rstitution process has failed, not because of a lack of willing seller willing Govt buyer, but becauuse most of the farms that were earmarked for claims, the deals were struck, agreed, but transfer of money has not happened.
read up on it and tell me.
those that did get transferred, very few are productive, there was no assistance, no training...
The largest Landowner in SA is the SA Govt.
they own large tracts of land amongst what are and were viable farms.
but the land needs to be cleared. prepared, 
someone has to work at it.
easier to go for the one next door which is already working, not so?

I agree that there has to be some sacrifices.
charity begins at home.
no govt vehicle, including the President down larger or more expensive than the cheapest 1.6 cylinder car available in SA right now.
No Govt Housing or perks for Public servants.
anyone needs to fly? economy class on SAA, they need the business.
no 100 million rand parties, no WC 2010, sell off all the arms deal except for the subs and ships, we need to protect our fishing waters.....

get my drift??
set an example.
but start at the top.
down.
what say you?
Pigs will fly?hippos will write pulitzer prize novels first?


----------

