48 minutes ago, Salerno said:

Unfortunately we're not allowed to 

Then they’ve done their penance and why punish them again? 

Why risk them re-offending and impacting the lives of citizen and other law abiding residents when we don't need to?

1 hour ago, Salerno said:

Why risk them re-offending and impacting the lives of citizen and other law abiding residents when we don't need to?

But you are not, you are just dumping them somewhere else to do the same. Probably more so if they haven’t got any social network to rely on...

12 hours ago, samran said:

The thing that most people miss is that since feb 2001 changes to Australia’s immigration law means that there are limited pathways to becoming a citizen in Australia as a NZ citizen. 
 

Prior to that date NZers who landed in Oz were granted automatic PR, which then let’s you ride out the 4 year time frame you mention to get citizenship.

 

Following Feb 2001, NZers who land are free to live and work in Australia indefinitely, but have to go through the skilled migration route to first get PR. This rules out a lot of NZs who come to Australia from having a path to citizenship. 
 

For what it’s worth, NZ still puts Australians on the path to citizenship from the moment they land with automatic acquisition of residency rights after one year living there and citizenship an option 4 or 5 year later. 

        Why talk about being put on the path or not being put on the path to citizenship after 3,4,5 or 6 years in either country when Ahern is complaining about kiwis who have spent most of their lives in Aust  ? If you have lived in Australia for a long time and don't become a citizen , it's because you've done something wrong and can't put yourself in lights , or still consider yourself a Kiwi first and your allegiances are with NZ . In both of those scenarios you should be deported after jail for the serious offence you commited . I don't think there's anything wrong with living in another country and only wanting to stay a citizen of your original country , but you would have to accept deportation if you commit a serious crime . A lot of Aussie and Kiwis change countries after commiting crimes in their own country .

12 hours ago, Old Croc said:

You seem to be assuming I agree with all the policies now being utilized by the current government. Not so, I haven't voted conservative since the 1975 coup. Their current unbalanced and divisive policies are not likely to change this former national union official's mind. 

I'm just trying to give some context as to why it's not automatic for NZers to get citizenship in Australia. It's more about how easy they made it for people to get it in their country. People who would never be able to apply in Australia, have used that side door.  As is the way with unimaginative politicians, they've closed the door for all. 

The fact that The Agreement basically gives New Zealanders the right to live and work permanently, but precludes them from full PR and automatic citizenship, does seem unfair, particularly for the many good people living long term in Australia. (Still much better than my rights in Thailand!) The legislation should perhaps be amended to make it easier for those of good character to receive full benefits. However, many also believe the myth that Nzers are all wonderful, good people.  I've seen all sides, having  granted citizenship to hundreds and once headed up a criminal deportation branch. Guess which nationality were the biggest customers for the latter. 

(Note: my 2nd wife was from New Zealand)

Union officials grant citizenship?

Edited February 29, 20206 yr by emptypockets

11 hours ago, xylophone said:

I too hope that the UK initiates a points style system for immigrants, and in my opinion it is well overdue

 

As for NZ, there has been a type of points style system in operation since the early 1980s (or before?), however it was based on whether the skills of the potential immigrant were those which were required in NZ, or were likely to benefit the country in one way or another. If they weren't, then citizenship was denied.

 

In principle, I don't have a problem with Australia deporting criminals back to their countries, this especially after it has been stated here that migrants from NZ, residing in Australia, do have a chance to take up Australian citizenship; so they should have done this.

 

A difficult subject and I'm sure it's not as clear-cut as one would like, and something which springs to mind is the situation where a New Zealand family emigrates to Australia and has a child, which 18 years later commits a crime, so as he is still ostensibly a New Zealand citizen, does he get sent back to NZ??.

The case that made this an issue is about a man who was born in New Zealand but came to Australia at 3 months old. He is in his early forties now and has had a few convictions. Obviously he has no connections with NZ having been raised in Oz. 

The British paedophile who was deported after serving time was 14 when his family emigrated to Oz. I think he was in his late forties or early fifties so he probably had little connection with the UK either.

Tricky situations to make a judgement call. Nature or nurture.

7 hours ago, Phuket Stan said:

I don't know why all the Okkers are going on like feral mongrels...….the vast majority are all descendants of convicts sent out by Mother England in the early/mid 1800s.....hence the acronym POME.....Prisoner Of Mother England....if you look carefully you can still see the shackle marks on some Aussies ????....history tells us that when some had completed their sentences they fled to New Zealand

There was a NZ Prime Minister (I think it was Rob Muldoon)who often said that when a Kiwi left to live in Aus it rasied the IQ in both countries.....

Absolute nonsense. Over 50% of current Australians have one parent born overseas according to the Census. The convict myth died many decades ago.

Australia is a multi national country but unfortunately we have been forced down the leftie multi cultural experimental road with a pretty poor outcome in my opinion.

@dundee48. Have you nothing better to do with your time other than post sneering emotives next to my and other members posts? if you do not concur how about responding with credible content. 

Edited February 29, 20206 yr by simple1

8 hours ago, samran said:

But you are not, you are just dumping them somewhere else to do the same. Probably more so if they haven’t got any social network to rely on...

Fair enough. They get dumped where they are citizens. Kiwis who say bro every 2nd word are not aussies.

6 hours ago, emptypockets said:

The case that made this an issue is about a man who was born in New Zealand but came to Australia at 3 months old. He is in his early forties now and has had a few convictions. Obviously he has no connections with NZ having been raised in Oz. 

The British paedophile who was deported after serving time was 14 when his family emigrated to Oz. I think he was in his late forties or early fifties so he probably had little connection with the UK either.

Tricky situations to make a judgement call. Nature or nurture.

Easy decision. Pedo creeps out the door. The PM is simply protecting his people.

13 hours ago, samran said:

If that’s the case then keep them locked up...

Why should Aussie taxpayers foot the incarceration  bill ?

There's pretty much two opposing views on here really.

 

Those who think the offenders are Australia's problem

and we should deal with them or the if we can get rid of them, let's do it camp.

 

I may be biased, but my school friend was involved in a road rage incident with a

carload of Vietnamese guys many years ago. Truth be told, my friend was the aggressor

as he had just had a fight with his wife and was steamed up.

 

Having said that, he didn't deserve to get stabbed to death by 3 of them.

All three went to jail for murder and after 12 years in jail, were deported back

to Vietnam.

 

Same scenario, all came out whilst babies, didn't obtain citizenship and

had no ties to Vietnam.

 

I was happy to see them go.

 

The way I look at it is, they won't be able to kill another one of my mates

when they're back in Vietnam.

 

I can understand both sides of the argument though.

Edited March 1, 20206 yr by Will27

14 hours ago, samran said:

But you are not, you are just dumping them somewhere else to do the same. Probably more so if they haven’t got any social network to rely on...

That "somewhere else" being not Australia therefore, the government is doing its job - protecting Australian citizens in their own country.

 

I'll be honest with you, some of the cases disgust me (as in some of the reasons and the background of people being deported) but I am 100% for the concept. As always, it's the implementation that falls down and needs, IMHO, tweaking. 

Edited March 1, 20206 yr by Salerno

6 minutes ago, Salerno said:

That "somewhere else" being not Australia therefore, the government is doing its job - protecting Australian citizens in their own country.

 

I'll be honest with you, some of the cases disgust me (as in some of the reasons and the background of people being deported) but I am 100% for the concept. As always, it's the implementation that falls down and needs, IMHO, tweaking. 

A bit like the death penalty then?

27 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

A bit like the death penalty then?

OT but, similar to the policy in this topic, I have no issue with the death penalty as a concept and believe it should be on the table.

52 minutes ago, Salerno said:

That "somewhere else" being not Australia therefore, the government is doing its job - protecting Australian citizens in their own country.

 

I'll be honest with you, some of the cases disgust me (as in some of the reasons and the background of people being deported) but I am 100% for the concept. As always, it's the implementation that falls down and needs, IMHO, tweaking. 

Out of curiosity, in your opinion, what part/s of the policy implementation need fine tuning?

6 hours ago, simple1 said:

@dundee48. Have you nothing better to do with your time other than post sneering emotives next to my and other members posts? if you do not concur how about responding with credible content. 

I get a lot of confused emojis. Assuming he’s struggling to keep up. 

53 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Out of curiosity, in your opinion, what part/s of the policy implementation need fine tuning?

 

Without looking into it in detail I couldn't give you a 100% answer. And in all honestly, haven't looked at in detail as it doesn't really concern me from a personal (call me shallow if you wish) or moral perspective - as stated, fully on board with the concept.

 

That said, I think there should be "cut off dates" with respect to age - if someone moved here with parents and they where under a certain age then IMO we "made" them and our issue to deal with. What that age should be would require further investigation of relevant data. In my mind, less than a teenager.

 

I don't think there should be "cut off dates" with respect to time in country as the Kiwi's have and want us to have - I see no reason why, if at 18 a person came to Australia, committed multiple rapes but didn't get caught until he'd been in Australia for 11 years should preclude him from deportation on release which is the position Ardren would have us take.

 

Which leads us the next factor, IMO the nature of crimes resulting in deportation should be looked at. Rapists, murderers, violent offenders, members of organised crime not wanted. But some cases (obviously only going on information released) seem to be more than a little over the top e.g.

 

Quote

Jason Wereta also spent eight months on Christmas Island in 2014 after being convicted of driving without a licence on two occasions.

The New Zealander had called Australia home for more than 20 years.

The father-of-four, who also has a previous conviction of common assault, was eventually released from detention. But when he was caught driving without a licence a third time, he agreed to return to New Zealand, this time choosing not to fight the immigration laws.

 

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/what-it-s-like-to-be-a-new-zealander-deported-after-decades-of-living-in-australia

 

The details of the previous conviction are obviously unknown to me, as is if he has any further convictions or issues with the law, but to me he looks to have been harshly dealt with. (Couple of other cases in that link.)

Edited March 1, 20206 yr by Salerno

7 minutes ago, Salerno said:

 

Without looking into it in detail I couldn't give you a 100% answer. And in all honestly, haven't looked at in detail as it doesn't really concern me from a personal (call me shallow if you wish) or moral perspective - as stated, fully on board with the concept.

 

That said, I think there should be "cut off dates" with respect to age - if someone moved here with parents and they where under a certain age then IMO we "made" them and our issue to deal with. What that age should be would require further investigation of relevant data. In my mind, less than a teenager.

 

I don't think there should be "cut off dates" with respect to time in country as the Kiwi's have and want us to have - I see no reason why, if at 18 a person came to Australia, committed multiple rapes but didn't get caught until he'd been in Australia for 11 years should preclude him from deportation on release which is the position Ardren would have us take.

 

Which leads us the next factor, IMO the nature of crimes resulting in deportation should be looked at. Rapists, murderers, violent offenders, members of organised crime not wanted. But some cases (obviously only going on information released) seem to be more than a little over the top e.g.

 

 

The details of the previous conviction are obviously unknown to me, as is if he has any further convictions or issues with the law, but to me he looks to have been harshly dealt with. (Couple of other cases in that link.)

What you’ve stated isn’t too different to what the NZ PM has stated. 

5 minutes ago, Salerno said:

 

Without looking into it in detail I couldn't give you a 100% answer. And in all honestly, haven't looked at in detail as it doesn't really concern me from a personal (call me shallow if you wish) or moral perspective - as stated, fully on board with the concept.

 

That said, I think there should be "cut off dates" with respect to age - if someone moved here with parents and they where under a certain age then IMO we "made" them and our issue to deal with. What that age should be would require further investigation of relevant data. In my mind, less than a teenager.

 

I don't think there should be "cut off dates" with respect to time in country as the Kiwi's have and want us to have - I see no reason why, if at 18 a person came to Australia, committed multiple rapes but didn't get caught until he'd been in Australia for 11 years should preclude him from deportation on release which is the position Ardren would have us take.

 

Which leads us the next factor, IMO the nature of crimes resulting in deportation should be looked at. Rapists, murderers, violent offenders, members of organised crime not wanted. But some cases (obviously only going on information released) seem to be more than a little over the top e.g.

 

 

The details of the previous conviction are obviously unknown to me, as is if he has any further convictions or issues with the law, but to me he looks to have been harshly dealt with.

Fair enough. Just one point, I do not understand it is Adern's POV that a NZ citizen who is convicted for a serious crime who came to Australia later in life, say at 18, should not be deported back to NZ.

2 minutes ago, samran said:

What you’ve stated isn’t too different to what the NZ PM has stated. 

And there's the rub, issues are never black and white. The only sticking point between my thoughts and hers as far as I can see is the 10 year cut-off point.

 

Headlines and a lot of forum posts are made to be divisive, if you actually take time to talk to people who look to be so far from your viewpoint you tend to find it's only a small percentage of points that are totally opposite. That's why certain people make me sad with being so far left/right when the vast majority of (whatever the topic is) would the same goals for both sides of the debate. As I posted previously I wish Ardern was an Aussie to shake up the shower we get to choose from.

 

10 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Just one point, I do not understand it is Adern's POV that a NZ citizen who is convicted for a serious crime who came to Australia later in life, say at 18, should not be deported back to NZ.

Quote

In New Zealand, non-citizens cannot be deported if they have lived more than ten years in the country. Prime Minister Ardern has consistently argued that deportations of NZ citizens should only occur where the person has genuine links to New Zealand.

IMO I don't care how long they've been here, if not an Aussie citizen, and if the crimes warrant it - cancel their visa and off they go to wherever they actually have citizenship.

1 hour ago, samran said:

I get a lot of confused emojis. Assuming he’s struggling to keep up. 

Or it’s a bit beyond both your concepts that when opinions are being expressed that people are using emojis to support or disagree with the views given without doubling up on the narrative. Try and keep up.

2 hours ago, Roadman said:

Or it’s a bit beyond both your concepts that when opinions are being expressed that people are using emojis to support or disagree with the views given without doubling up on the narrative. Try and keep up.

Double up? The bloke doesn’t even front up...

On 2/29/2020 at 11:56 PM, emptypockets said:

Union officials grant citizenship?

You do have trouble understanding how basic thing can work don't you.

The old criminal deportation legislation had 3 main criteria which offenders had to fail to meet to be considered for deportation.

1. If they were citizens, even if they were dual citizens, they could not be considered (as long as they weren't naturalized after the crime and before conviction).

2. If they had been a PR for 10+ years (in the community) they couldn't be considered. No child migrants who had lived most of their life in the country would be eligible under that criteria.

3. They had to receive a sentence(s) of more than 12 months to be considered.  

 One conservative Immigration Minister became frustrated with virtually every case being sent to Federal Court and decided to dispense with that section of the Act and use the section relating to character instead. For a time this worked in much the same way, but with less court interference.

The current conservative government, starting with Abbott, upped the anti and started using the character test against anyone they deemed undesirable. They didn't consider their community ties or length of residence. They even resorted to cancelling resident return visas when some characters went overseas for holidays. (No way to return, no chance to appeal).

In my opinion they now use this legislation in a completely arbitrary and unfair way. 

Even if I personally feel career criminals probably deserve what they get, there are certain norms a civilized democracy should observe.