New Lynn knife attack
-
@kirwan said in New Lynn knife attack:
So basically our system is set up to look after everyone but the people living in this country.
Once he wasn’t a real refugee he should have been deported, no matter how dangerous the source country is.
It's incredible, isn't it. Due process shouldn't allow this shit to happen.
Those who went against the original decision to give this fluffybunny refugee status must be sleeping well tonight.
-
@higgins there was a protest this year and still action in the courts
https://www.openglobalrights.org/a-step-towards-justice-for-tamils-in-sri-lanka/ -
-
@mick-gold-coast-qld said in New Lynn knife attack:
snip snip
Am I the only one who thinks this, or is she kinda hot?
-
@kirwan said in New Lynn knife attack:
he should have been deported, no matter how dangerous the source country is.
human rights bro!
-
The current law was passed under urgency, and it didn't cover this. It's also fundamental to civil liberties that criminal offences are not made retrospective, so current changes to the law wouldn't fix the previous situation, so why put amendments through under urgency when urgency was one of the potential causes of the problem in the first place? Select committee processes are like crowd sourcing, and have fixed potential drafting issues in the past because of submissions from the law society and other experts.
Refugee status is difficult to revoke and claims of potential violence/murders are taken seriously because we've had experience in the past of deporting refugees and others claiming refugee status to their murders. It's not a theoretical problem, it has actually happened, including to Sri Lanka. The Immigration Act is written with those failures in mind, so it is deliberately difficult to deport a refugee. If the Tribunal process took a long time, resource them better so appeals are heard faster.
I'm sure the Immigration Act will be amended, but do we want people deported for spewing hate speech? For hate speech and buying a knife or sports equipment? What about gun licensing? Where should that line be drawn?
In this particular case, we stopped him leaving the country to join Isis which is standard international practice. How do we reconcile deporting him with that? Is it acceptable to deport someone if you know that's where they will go?
-
@godder said in New Lynn knife attack:
Refugee status is difficult to revoke and claims of potential violence/murders are taken seriously because we've had experience in the past of deporting refugees and others claiming refugee status to their murders. It's not a theoretical problem, it has actually happened, including to Sri Lanka. The Immigration Act is written with those failures in mind, so it is deliberately difficult to deport a refugee. If the Tribunal process took a long time, resource them better so appeals are heard faster.
I'm sure the Immigration Act will be amended, but do we want people deported for spewing hate speech? For hate speech and buying a knife or sports equipment? What about gun licensing? Where should that line be drawn?
Spot on re the difficulties with refugee status. From what I understand, there were some fairly atrocious rights abuses leveled at the Tamils during, and in the aftermath of the civil war. It's definitely not as simple as sending them home, and we can't export them to be a third party country's problem either (although Syria may not have been a bad option...).
As someone who has had a fair bit to do with the Immigration system, personally I think a deliberate and ongoing pattern of spewing hate speech, coupled with purchasing hunting knives, having ISIS propaganda and telling people you're going to do a lone wolf attack is enough of a perfect storm to send someone back, even if it does put them in danger. Terrorist ideologies from a refugee (or any other non-citizen) are dangerous, polarizing and shouldn't be something we have to wear.
Ultimately, despite all of our commitments to various conventions, our governments priority should be protecting its citizens from this sort of behaviour, even if it comes at the expense of the safety of the offender when they're sent back home. I think our refugee programme is amazing, and refugees bring incredible value to New Zealand and generally work harder than the person next to them to make something of their new chance, but there has to be a killswitch at some point where we can saying that a particular bad apple isn't a financial, resource and safety burden we should bear as a country. Something about biting the hand that feeds etc.
There is no one size fits all approach, but it could also be something that is approved at a very high level. If the Immigration Minister (who in any given parliament has no relevant training or qualifications in the matter) can overturn any immigration-related decision made my an Immigration Officer, Judge or tribunal, surely someone at his level or higher should be able to immediately revoke refugee status in critical situations on a case-by-case basis with the same lack of due process. It's not like this guy was unknown to the governments for the past five years.
-
Don't get me wrong, I completely appreciate that many refugees who arrive come from war-torn backgrounds or have had atrocities perpetrated against them in the past, which have significantly damaged them psychologically and which result in anti-social behavioural traits being shown. And as a default, I truly believe we should aim to heal and rehabilitate them instead of deporting them as a default.
But when it is shown that it hasn't worked to the point that they're an uncontrolled danger to those around them, or that their behaviour isn't strictly related to their experiences, I just don't see why it should be our burden as a nation. It's not like this guy had settled into New Zealand, put down roots or had a family here. All of his family were back in Sri Lanka, judging by news reports today.
The cost and resource drain of constant surveillance on this terrorist would have been astronomical and unsustainable in an already stretched thin blue line.
-
@aucklandwarlord said in New Lynn knife attack:
@godder said in New Lynn knife attack:
Refugee status is difficult to revoke and claims of potential violence/murders are taken seriously because we've had experience in the past of deporting refugees and others claiming refugee status to their murders. It's not a theoretical problem, it has actually happened, including to Sri Lanka. The Immigration Act is written with those failures in mind, so it is deliberately difficult to deport a refugee. If the Tribunal process took a long time, resource them better so appeals are heard faster.
I'm sure the Immigration Act will be amended, but do we want people deported for spewing hate speech? For hate speech and buying a knife or sports equipment? What about gun licensing? Where should that line be drawn?
Spot on re the difficulties with refugee status. From what I understand, there were some fairly atrocious rights abuses leveled at the Tamils during, and in the aftermath of the civil war. It's definitely not as simple as sending them home, and we can't export them to be a third party country's problem either (although Syria may not have been a bad option...).
As someone who has had a fair bit to do with the Immigration system, personally I think a deliberate and ongoing pattern of spewing hate speech, coupled with purchasing hunting knives, having ISIS propaganda and telling people you're going to do a lone wolf attack is enough of a perfect storm to send someone back, even if it does put them in danger. Terrorist ideologies from a refugee (or any other non-citizen) are dangerous, polarizing and shouldn't be something we have to wear.
Ultimately, despite all of our commitments to various conventions, our governments priority should be protecting its citizens from this sort of behaviour, even if it comes at the expense of the safety of the offender when they're sent back home. I think our refugee programme is amazing, and refugees bring incredible value to New Zealand and generally work harder than the person next to them to make something of their new chance, but there has to be a killswitch at some point where we can saying that a particular bad apple isn't a financial, resource and safety burden we should bear as a country. Something about biting the hand that feeds etc.
There is no one size fits all approach, but it could also be something that is approved at a very high level. If the Immigration Minister (who in any given parliament has no relevant training or qualifications in the matter) can overturn any immigration-related decision made my an Immigration Officer, Judge or tribunal, surely someone at his level or higher should be able to immediately revoke refugee status in critical situations on a case-by-case basis with the same lack of due process. It's not like this guy was unknown to the governments for the past five years.
I'd upvote this twice if I could.
I also think that there should be a difference between letting citizens go to warzones to flight versus residents. In such a situation, the resident should be leaving either way, and if you are a refugee you should know that in doing so, you are giving up your refugee status.
-
if someone flees thier homeland claiming refugee status, and then are granted citizenship in the adopted country, is thier previous citizenship dissolved?
I know not exactly the same, but was the case with that IS women who Aus revoked her Aus citizenship, but cos she held a KIwi passport, she comes back here; therefore if these people have NZ citizenship, can we legally deport them anyway?
Not saying this was the case, just curious.
-
@gt12 said in New Lynn knife attack:
@aucklandwarlord said in New Lynn knife attack:
@godder said in New Lynn knife attack:
Refugee status is difficult to revoke and claims of potential violence/murders are taken seriously because we've had experience in the past of deporting refugees and others claiming refugee status to their murders. It's not a theoretical problem, it has actually happened, including to Sri Lanka. The Immigration Act is written with those failures in mind, so it is deliberately difficult to deport a refugee. If the Tribunal process took a long time, resource them better so appeals are heard faster.
I'm sure the Immigration Act will be amended, but do we want people deported for spewing hate speech? For hate speech and buying a knife or sports equipment? What about gun licensing? Where should that line be drawn?
Spot on re the difficulties with refugee status. From what I understand, there were some fairly atrocious rights abuses leveled at the Tamils during, and in the aftermath of the civil war. It's definitely not as simple as sending them home, and we can't export them to be a third party country's problem either (although Syria may not have been a bad option...).
As someone who has had a fair bit to do with the Immigration system, personally I think a deliberate and ongoing pattern of spewing hate speech, coupled with purchasing hunting knives, having ISIS propaganda and telling people you're going to do a lone wolf attack is enough of a perfect storm to send someone back, even if it does put them in danger. Terrorist ideologies from a refugee (or any other non-citizen) are dangerous, polarizing and shouldn't be something we have to wear.
Ultimately, despite all of our commitments to various conventions, our governments priority should be protecting its citizens from this sort of behaviour, even if it comes at the expense of the safety of the offender when they're sent back home. I think our refugee programme is amazing, and refugees bring incredible value to New Zealand and generally work harder than the person next to them to make something of their new chance, but there has to be a killswitch at some point where we can saying that a particular bad apple isn't a financial, resource and safety burden we should bear as a country. Something about biting the hand that feeds etc.
There is no one size fits all approach, but it could also be something that is approved at a very high level. If the Immigration Minister (who in any given parliament has no relevant training or qualifications in the matter) can overturn any immigration-related decision made my an Immigration Officer, Judge or tribunal, surely someone at his level or higher should be able to immediately revoke refugee status in critical situations on a case-by-case basis with the same lack of due process. It's not like this guy was unknown to the governments for the past five years.
I'd upvote this twice if I could.
I also think that there should be a difference between letting citizens go to warzones to flight versus residents. In such a situation, the resident should be leaving either way, and if you are a refugee you should know that in doing so, you are giving up your refugee status.
Ultimately when a resident goes offshore to fight, you can (in theory) strip the residency, and they will still have citizenship of another country where they could return to live. The issue with stripping citizenship, is that you potentially leave someone stateless, which is far less tidy and breaches at least one international convention.
The problem with just letting people go to fight in warzones is also around the damage they cause. If you let that guy go to fight for ISIL, there is every chance he gets demolished in a drone strike or gunfight. But if he perpetrates a suicide attack which kills 10 marines, there is the very relevant question to be asked about why they were allowed to go in the first place. The last thing you want is another "Jihadi John" becoming a terrorist icon for wannabe ISIL members in western countries.
-
@taniwharugby said in New Lynn knife attack:
if someone flees thier homeland claiming refugee status, and then are granted citizenship in the adopted country, is thier previous citizenship dissolved?
I don't think it is. Effectively you're just given them a safe haven. It's not uncommon for many refugees to return to their homeland to live once things settle down. I read about a few who returned to Afghanistan and then ended up caught out over there when the Taliban took power back.
In countries like China where dual citizenship isn't allowed, their Chinese citizenship would be dissolved. Not refugee related, but the Chinese government were pretty happy to deport their ex-citizen back in this instance, where a drug dealer wanted to have his cake and eat it too.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/china-deports-drug-suspect/EKSHGCBDIARP7UTKUCQ6N4XVO4/
-
@aucklandwarlord said in New Lynn knife attack:
@gt12 said in New Lynn knife attack:
@aucklandwarlord said in New Lynn knife attack:
@godder said in New Lynn knife attack:
Refugee status is difficult to revoke and claims of potential violence/murders are taken seriously because we've had experience in the past of deporting refugees and others claiming refugee status to their murders. It's not a theoretical problem, it has actually happened, including to Sri Lanka. The Immigration Act is written with those failures in mind, so it is deliberately difficult to deport a refugee. If the Tribunal process took a long time, resource them better so appeals are heard faster.
I'm sure the Immigration Act will be amended, but do we want people deported for spewing hate speech? For hate speech and buying a knife or sports equipment? What about gun licensing? Where should that line be drawn?
Spot on re the difficulties with refugee status. From what I understand, there were some fairly atrocious rights abuses leveled at the Tamils during, and in the aftermath of the civil war. It's definitely not as simple as sending them home, and we can't export them to be a third party country's problem either (although Syria may not have been a bad option...).
As someone who has had a fair bit to do with the Immigration system, personally I think a deliberate and ongoing pattern of spewing hate speech, coupled with purchasing hunting knives, having ISIS propaganda and telling people you're going to do a lone wolf attack is enough of a perfect storm to send someone back, even if it does put them in danger. Terrorist ideologies from a refugee (or any other non-citizen) are dangerous, polarizing and shouldn't be something we have to wear.
Ultimately, despite all of our commitments to various conventions, our governments priority should be protecting its citizens from this sort of behaviour, even if it comes at the expense of the safety of the offender when they're sent back home. I think our refugee programme is amazing, and refugees bring incredible value to New Zealand and generally work harder than the person next to them to make something of their new chance, but there has to be a killswitch at some point where we can saying that a particular bad apple isn't a financial, resource and safety burden we should bear as a country. Something about biting the hand that feeds etc.
There is no one size fits all approach, but it could also be something that is approved at a very high level. If the Immigration Minister (who in any given parliament has no relevant training or qualifications in the matter) can overturn any immigration-related decision made my an Immigration Officer, Judge or tribunal, surely someone at his level or higher should be able to immediately revoke refugee status in critical situations on a case-by-case basis with the same lack of due process. It's not like this guy was unknown to the governments for the past five years.
I'd upvote this twice if I could.
I also think that there should be a difference between letting citizens go to warzones to flight versus residents. In such a situation, the resident should be leaving either way, and if you are a refugee you should know that in doing so, you are giving up your refugee status.
Ultimately when a resident goes offshore to fight, you can (in theory) strip the residency, and they will still have citizenship of another country where they could return to live. The issue with stripping citizenship, is that you potentially leave someone stateless, which is far less tidy and breaches at least one international convention.
The problem with just letting people go to fight in warzones is also around the damage they cause. If you let that guy go to fight for ISIL, there is every chance he gets demolished in a drone strike or gunfight. But if he perpetrates a suicide attack which kills 10 marines, there is the very relevant question to be asked about why they were allowed to go in the first place. The last thing you want is another "Jihadi John" becoming a terrorist icon for wannabe ISIL members in western countries.
I don't disagree, my point was not letting them go, but rather that in such a situation you'd be stripped of your right to live in NZ and would be shipped off home.
-
Parliament stripped the minister of the ability to revoke refugee status (it lies now with refugee and protection officers) with the passage of the Immigration Act 2009. The old act (1987) had the ability to deport people for terrorism, but that was removed as well - I haven't read the departmental or select committee reports recently, but I think that was because it either comes under deportation for security (Governor-general can do that on recommendation of the minister) or for criminal offending.
-
@godder said in New Lynn knife attack:
Parliament stripped the minister of the ability to revoke refugee status (it lies now with refugee and protection officers) with the passage of the Immigration Act 2009. The old act (1987) had the ability to deport people for terrorism, but that was removed as well - I haven't read the departmental or select committee reports recently, but I think that was because it either comes under deportation for security (Governor-general can do that on recommendation of the minister) or for criminal offending.
That was dumb, it seems.
-
@gt12 said in New Lynn knife attack:
@godder said in New Lynn knife attack:
Parliament stripped the minister of the ability to revoke refugee status (it lies now with refugee and protection officers) with the passage of the Immigration Act 2009. The old act (1987) had the ability to deport people for terrorism, but that was removed as well - I haven't read the departmental or select committee reports recently, but I think that was because it either comes under deportation for security (Governor-general can do that on recommendation of the minister) or for criminal offending.
That was dumb, it seems.
Assuming that the minister would have sent the guy packing....
-
@godder said in New Lynn knife attack:
Parliament stripped the minister of the ability to revoke refugee status (it lies now with refugee and protection officers) with the passage of the Immigration Act 2009. The old act (1987) had the ability to deport people for terrorism, but that was removed as well - I haven't read the departmental or select committee reports recently, but I think that was because it either comes under deportation for security (Governor-general can do that on recommendation of the minister) or for criminal offending.
It has always sat strangely with me the sweeping powers that the Immigration Minister has. For example, Iain Lees Galloway was a Nurses Union head prior to entering parliament, but he was able to overturn the deportation of European drug dealer and general POS Karel Sroubek against the wishes of the much more qualified Immigration, Police and judiciary officials. After then seeing the incredibly untidy exchange between Jason Kerrison and Kris Faafoi (https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/kris-faafoi-apologises-over-immigration-allegations-linked-to-friend-jason-kerrison/CPZGSFJQ6MRD4ANKIW4XBVSOMI/), it seems a system prone to abuse and incompetency. I realise there are now delegated decision makers which helps a little bit, but you could perhaps put it at the Prime Ministerial level (with legal advice) for something more consequential and potentially urgent like revocation of refugee status.
While RPOs are best qualified to make the decisions, their decisions can also be appealed, which then drag out for years, as they did in this instance by all accounts.
-
@canefan said in New Lynn knife attack:
@gt12 said in New Lynn knife attack:
@godder said in New Lynn knife attack:
Parliament stripped the minister of the ability to revoke refugee status (it lies now with refugee and protection officers) with the passage of the Immigration Act 2009. The old act (1987) had the ability to deport people for terrorism, but that was removed as well - I haven't read the departmental or select committee reports recently, but I think that was because it either comes under deportation for security (Governor-general can do that on recommendation of the minister) or for criminal offending.
That was dumb, it seems.
Assuming that the minister would have sent the guy packing....
Excellent point.
-
@gt12 said in New Lynn knife attack:
@godder said in New Lynn knife attack:
Parliament stripped the minister of the ability to revoke refugee status (it lies now with refugee and protection officers) with the passage of the Immigration Act 2009. The old act (1987) had the ability to deport people for terrorism, but that was removed as well - I haven't read the departmental or select committee reports recently, but I think that was because it either comes under deportation for security (Governor-general can do that on recommendation of the minister) or for criminal offending.
That was dumb, it seems.
There was a highly-publicised case in the mid-2000s of a Sri Lankan girl who was deported despite her attempt to claim asylum, and later recognised by the UN as a refugee after a harrowing time, so the conclusion (I think) was that decisions about how the UN conventions apply was best left to the expert officials rather than the amateur minister.
-
@godder said in New Lynn knife attack:
@gt12 said in New Lynn knife attack:
@godder said in New Lynn knife attack:
Parliament stripped the minister of the ability to revoke refugee status (it lies now with refugee and protection officers) with the passage of the Immigration Act 2009. The old act (1987) had the ability to deport people for terrorism, but that was removed as well - I haven't read the departmental or select committee reports recently, but I think that was because it either comes under deportation for security (Governor-general can do that on recommendation of the minister) or for criminal offending.
That was dumb, it seems.
There was a highly-publicised case in the mid-2000s of a Sri Lankan girl who was deported despite her attempt to claim asylum, and later recognised by the UN as a refugee after a harrowing time, so the conclusion (I think) was that decisions about how the UN conventions apply was best left to the expert officials rather than the amateur minister.
Was she also under around the clock surveillance and considered potentially dangerous to the NZ public?