New Lynn knife attack
-
@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?
-
@aucklandwarlord 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.
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.
The minister's decision can also be appealed using the same process, it doesn't change the speed of anything.
The current ministerial powers are an artefact of the theory behind immigration which is that the Sovereign chooses their subjects, and the minister is their representative on immigration matters. It was debated quite a bit in the select committee process of the current legislation, so it features in the various reports.
I disagree that the judiciary wanted Sroubek deported, they could have caused that by convicting him, but the High Court instead discharged him without conviction.
-
@frank said in New Lynn knife attack:
@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?
I doubt it, but there would have been others in that situation. 15 years later, now that something else has happened in the opposite direction, no doubt we'll write more bad legislation which either doesn't work or is too broad and gets misapplied later.
-
@godder said in New Lynn knife attack:
@frank said in New Lynn knife attack:
@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?
I doubt it, but there would have been others in that situation. 15 years later, now that something else has happened in the opposite direction, no doubt we'll write more bad legislation which either doesn't work or is too broad and gets misapplied later.
Out of interest, if you had to apply a solution to this sort of "radicalised non-citizen lone wolf" based on your knowledge and experience from your side of the fence (which is clearly strong and well thought out based on your above comments and answers), what would it be?
Having an enforcement background, my default is always fairly blunt-force and tends to favour the public right to safety over the rights of offenders, but I'm also cognizant and generally supportive of the rights to due process, natural justice and the inherent rights of every person within our system.
I don't even think it's with the benefit of hindsight to say that this guy was a known ticking time bomb, and it just seems wrong to me that the only avenue the Police and spooks had was to covertly follow him around 24/7.
-
@aucklandwarlord I guess no system is perfect and no mater what changes, there will always be someone who slips through.
I expect most of the public would go with your default too!
-
@aucklandwarlord To have to go to that extreme to watch him, it is pretty clear that the authorities knew he would do something bad, it was only a question of where and when. Hard to make rules for every situation but you would think in this instance the police should have the power to something more
-
Auckland mall terrorist forged medical documents, boasted about duping immigration officials
The New Lynn mall terrorist forged medical records and statements from his family to bolster his claim for refugee status, which was revoked later when the bogus documents were discovered by police investigating his support for Islamic State.
And a former workmate of the 32-year-old, who stabbed and wounded several shoppers at a New Lynn supermarket on Friday, says he would boast about duping immigration officials.
"New Zealand Government don't know about my visa," the ex-colleague said the would-be terrorist told him.
"He was trying to say he was ripping off the New Zealand system. I think he was just bragging."
-
Australia has specific criminal offences against ‘foreign fighters’ and also laws against those going to a ‘declared area’.
https://www.nationalsecurity.gov.au/WhatAustraliaisdoing/Pages/DeclaredAreaOffence.aspx
119.2 Entering, or remaining in, declared areas
(1) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person enters, or remains in, an area in a foreign country; and
(b) the area is an area declared by the Foreign Affairs Minister under section 119.3; and
(c) when the person enters the area, or at any time when the person is in the area, the person:
(i) is an Australian citizen; or
(ii) is a resident of Australia; or
(iii) is a holder under the Migration Act 1958 of a visa; or
(iv) has voluntarily put himself or herself under the protection of Australia.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 10 years. -
@act-crusader said in New Lynn knife attack:
Australia has specific criminal offences against ‘foreign fighters’ and also laws against those going to a ‘declared area’.
https://www.nationalsecurity.gov.au/WhatAustraliaisdoing/Pages/DeclaredAreaOffence.aspx
119.2 Entering, or remaining in, declared areas
(1) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person enters, or remains in, an area in a foreign country; and
(b) the area is an area declared by the Foreign Affairs Minister under section 119.3; and
(c) when the person enters the area, or at any time when the person is in the area, the person:
(i) is an Australian citizen; or
(ii) is a resident of Australia; or
(iii) is a holder under the Migration Act 1958 of a visa; or
(iv) has voluntarily put himself or herself under the protection of Australia.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 10 years.So, send him to jail for 10 years then kick him out. WTF are we doing in NZ?
-
Samsudeen arrived in New Zealand in October 2011, aged 22, on a student visa. Shortly after arriving he made a claim for refugee status. Immigration New Zealand declined this claim in 2012, but he appealed to the Immigration and Protection Tribunal and was successful. He was granted refugee status in December 2013.
(Source: The Guardian.)
The appellant is labelled as "BA", but I can only see one Immigration and Protection Tribunal decision for a Sri Lankan national made in December 2013: this one
-
@donsteppa said in New Lynn knife attack:
Samsudeen arrived in New Zealand in October 2011, aged 22, on a student visa. Shortly after arriving he made a claim for refugee status. Immigration New Zealand declined this claim in 2012, but he appealed to the Immigration and Protection Tribunal and was successful. He was granted refugee status in December 2013.
(Source: The Guardian.)
The appellant is labelled as "BA", but I can only see one Immigration and Protection Tribunal decision for a Sri Lankan national made in December 2013: this one
I hope there are a number of people who are sleeping uneasily right now, and so they should.
-
This post is deleted!
-
@donsteppa apparently there was also an order to deport him but was currently under appeal, which meant NZ were not able to deport him until the appeal was concluded (assuming it was successful)