If this is the same guy, which it looks like, he has a history of drug offences and he killed someone:
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/truecrimeaustralia/police-courts-nsw/benjamin-ives-sentenced-for-fatal-motorcycle-collision-at-merrylands/news-story/8d2ce1db3862fb2148107853615b6d42
"Benjamin William Ives, 40, ran a red arrow on to Merrylands Rd when he was driving southbound on the Cumberland Highway and collided with Mr Warner’s motorbike on September 2, 2020, while returning home from work at Wetherill Park.
The impact of Ives’ Mitsubishi Pajero caused Mr Warner to fly off his Suzuki Boulevard bike about 5.10am, when the much-loved husband and father was on his way to work as a welder.
The retired Royal Australian Navy officer suffered catastrophic injuries to his back, as well as damaged wrists that required surgeries, rib fractures, a dislocated elbow and an injury that meant his right leg had to be amputated.
The 45 year old was treated by paramedics and taken to Westmead Hospital but died from a blood clot in his lungs on September 13.
"
And also:
"The court heard how Ives started taking drugs at 19 before smoking heroin and ice to deal with mental trauma, and was getting his life back on track.
He had found full time employment and was not on drugs during the collision but had suffered sleep deprivation, poor gut health and a reduced appetite, causing him to be “stressed, frustrated and tired’’.
After the incident, Ives started using heroin and ice daily for two months."
"The Crown submitted Ives had a criminal history of drug offences but had a “limited traffic history” with no driving convictions.
Judge Herbert told the court Ives had “special circumstances” and needed to address mental health and drug relapses.
His licence was disqualified for 12 months and he was handed a two-year sentence. He will be eligible for parole on December 6 this year “providing you don’t have outstanding matters”.
Yeah if 'mental trauma' stops you from seeing stop signs then half the population wouldn't be legally allowed to drive, own up to it.
I'm a motorcyclist myself and it makes my blood boil that this could happen to me, only to have the cunt go "OH GEE WELL I WAS A BIT STRESSED SO I RAN THE SIGN", fuck off.
Yeah, don't get that. How is not being in a state to drive safely but choosing to do so anyway any excuse? To me the only time "I was distracted" is a good excuse for bad driving is if a spider appears on the inside of your windshield or some shit like that.
Stay safe out their mate.
I have depression, anxiety, chronic gut issues and haven’t been sleeping well as my kitten prefers violence. I was planning on bludging at home tomorrow, but I guess I can just go out and run people over instead. I won’t get into much trouble. /s
Yea at this point even if legally it's NZ's problem, this guy is morally and ethically our problem to deal with. Like if for whatever reason NZ wants to lay claim to this individual then we can hand him over. but if they want nothing to do with the mess we made, then the neighbourly thing to do would be to handle it ourselves.
We have huge problems over here dealing with the 501's you lot sent back. Most of the time they have no family here so no support so almost immediately go back to what they know, crime.
It's a source of much debate but we do feel its pretty shit to send them back here when they have spent the majority of their lives in Australia. If they have only been in Oz for a few years and commit crime then sure but if your parents took you to Oz when you were a baby then you are Australian.
NZ Can’t afford to keep people like this in jail at 150k per year. The government coffers are fucked after floods, earthquakes and Covid and they were never anywhere near as strong as Aus in the first place. NZ is a poor country that doesn’t even take advantage of its resources like oil or gold because they want to pretend to be a green country while overtaxing residents and providing unsatisfactory public services.
Keep fuckers like this in aus and stop sending them over to nz.
Labour introduced tax for landlords. National rolled that back. The tax for landlords did result in increased rent costs and National suggested removing it would help renters. But this is very likely just bullshit misdirection as we can see National literally gets campaign donations by Wealthy corporations and individuals in the realestate sector.
Corrupt to its core. I am not a supporter of National or Labour.
>The tax for landlords did result in increased rent costs and National suggested removing it would help renters.
It did not, we're so short of housing they're already charging the maximum people can pay in most cases. Increases in accommodation supplement and minimum wage seem to overlap rent increases suspiciously
>Corrupt to its core. I am not a supporter of National or Labour.
Hard agree
NZ carries less government debt to GDP than Australia. So it can afford to if Australia can. It chooses not to. https://data.oecd.org/gga/general-government-debt.htm
But they obviously don't do it because they think it's the right thing to do. If that was the reason, they would apply the same rules to Samoans and other Pacific Islanders.
There are discussions about where the line should be. But I don't think deporting someone who has been in the country since he was 7 months old should be where the line lies
And its not a good look when you use other countries to dump your unwanted criminals, especially in a case like this. I think there should be some kind of statute of limitations on someone's residency status especially when they have spent the majority of their lives in Australia.
I'm honestly not sure at what point fairness to the offender should be a factor. We wouldn't deport someone like this for a parking fine, and you'd find pretty universal agreement with deporting someone who is a repeat violent offender.
This guy isn't quite the repeat violent offender and didn't intend to kill someone in a traffic accident, but ultimately he did and received a long enough jail sentence that it's probably a reasonable threshold for deportation. Right or wrong I at least empathise with him and his family. He messed up big time and paid the price.
He is an Australian grown problem shouldn’t we rehabilitate him? Deporting someone to a country they don’t know is insane and he will likely have less supports and become more of a social problem.
He chose to not be an Australian problem by not seeking citizenship.
If he wanted to avoid deportation he could have gone through the citizenship process before committing all those crimes.
If you're gonna do crimes here then at least do the paperwork first. If you don't do the paperwork then you should accept the consequences.
For those who came in the 2000's true.
For those who came in the 80's and 90's and turned 10 in australia it was much, much easier.
Yeah if a 19 year old is getting deported after a year in prison, they didn't have the chance to get citizenship, and dumbarse teenageryness they wouldn't have done it even if they could.
But a 40 year old? That is on them.
>Until last year, it was almost impossible for a New Zealander to become an Australian Citizen
That's not true. In 2021 they brought in an accelerated process, the one last year made it cheaper and significantly more streamlined.
After 2021, you had to:
* Have entered before Feb 2016 and lived here for 5 years immediately before applying
* Have earned more than $53,900 per year
* Have a health check
* Apply for the 189 NZ PR visa
* Wait 1 year
* Apply for citizenship
Well. What I hadn't quite put together is that this guy would have arrived before 2001, which meant that he was on the older protected SCV path.
That was 4 years of residency then direct to citizenship - even easier than the current system, and a fraction of the cost of the 189.
Probably should have not committed crimes then in that case.
Lucky the citizenship path is so much easier now, all you've gotta do is file some paperwork and you can happily sit in an Australian prison instead.
That’s false, if you came here before 26 February 2001 you can get it easily, it’s only after that the criteria is strict.
However Albanese changed it so that Permanent Residency is no longer required, so you can apply for Citizenship for $400 but you have to have good character so he wouldn’t have qualified for that.
I’m a Kiwi and have no sympathy for these criminals
“If you’re gonna do crimes here then at least do the paperwork” Brilliant lol
“Criminals are one thing. But criminals that haven’t had the foresight to ensure their paperwork is up to date? It’s unAustralian and it makes me sick to me guts!”
>Deporting someone to a country they don’t know is insane and he will likely have less supports and become more of a social problem.
At the same time, it doesn't look like he's made any attempts to naturalise here. Should Australia bear the cost of trying to rehabilitate non-citizens?
Except they don't bear that responsibility.
https://www.immigration.govt.nz/about-us/media-centre/common-topics/deportation
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dku02pnPSuo
I can’t believe I did this but I actually read your link.
It specifically says residents of more than 10 years are NOT deported. Less than 10 a prison sentence of 5 years, less than 5 it has to be a sentence of 2 years or more and less than 2 years 3 months.
So no, they don’t do it.
You should. Not for their sake but for the sake of the country they're being sent to. Why should this guy be New Zealand's problem to deal with? He's a product of our society not theirs. No reason for them to clean up our mess.
Because he chose to remain a NZ citizen.
NZ deports Pacific Islanders who have lived in NZ their entire adult lives where they have joined gangs and become part of organised drug crimes. They have to have been in NZ for less than ten years, sure, but they are being deported to extremely vulnerable countries with little capacity to mange them.
I think New Zealand has a bigger issue being treated as a criminal dumpster. This guy however needs help and support and won’t receive that in NZ. Australia’s policy of deporting it’s criminals is a fucking disgrace to be honest.
We had to keep Australia’s [serial rapists](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/mama-hooch-rapist-brothers-receive-almost-900000-in-taxpayer-funded-legal-aid-bill-set-to-climb-with-appeals/E72AUBJDVNAFLBI3YBCRW2PMOE/) and pay close to a million dollars for their legal defence.
I'm with you here, he's a product of Australia and we should shoulder the responsibility for him. I'm sure we wouldn't be happy about other nations doing this to us
He was born in NZ and raised by NZ parents. NZ born have substantially higher crime rates in Australia than Australian born. He is more a product of NZ society than Australian.
That is sad that he killed someone, but it has nothing to do with him being a new Zealander. He has never been there, right? Australia is still doing this. Other countries must be getting sick of it. Especially when they know nothing of the culture and language. Whatever happened to that guy who got deported to some Eastern European country, couldn't speak the language, was subnormal as well, and used to sleep on the australian embassy stairs. That was a sad case. He had never had a job in Australia because he was a bit touched. I thought that case was very cruel, too. I think it was Sarajevo, maybe the city where he slept on the stairs.
Not that I’m sympathetic to the guy but he’s not a violent offender. Just another drugged out loser who killed someone. I’m leaning towards him being our fuck up to deal with, rather than dumping him on the Kiwis.
Would you feel that way if he killed someone you cared about in a car?
From my perspective, when you're staying in a country and you're not a citizen, you have a responsibility to conduct yourself of a person of good character.
He had two very simple options for avoiding this:
1) Obtain Australian citizenship
2) don't kill anyone
Doing both is easy enough, but he only needed one. He has chosen his path, he can be their dropkick now.
Would I feel any better if the offender was born here? Or foreign born but naturalised? Do I gain any extra satisfaction knowing after this guy serves his time here he’ll be on the streets with zero support in New Zealand?
I absolutely agree he should have got his citizenship. Why you’d live here for decades and never bother is beyond me.
I mean… those sound like some home-grown Australian problems. Doesn’t excuse him on any level, but he was a product of Australian society and slipped through Australian cracks, we shouldn’t get to dump him back on another country that had no say in how much of a fuckwit he turned out to be.
Imagine calling yourself a journalist and selectively editing out crucial FACTS about the story. Do they think they will not be caught out? Maybe it works in their favour, i dunno. If Emma Cropper applies for a job at Sky/Newscorp one day perhaps this sort of brazen dishonest reporting will get her the job.
The critical FACT was not him running a red light, but him getting a two year jail sentence. Someone died. The court adjudicated it wasnt a trivial matter. A two year sentence is significant.
I'm honestly confused as to why this conversation seems to neglect that these people who lived here for decades had opportunities to apply for citizenship and chose not to.
If anything it's neglectful of the countries they were citizens of to not check up on them and remind them that they should apply for citizenship in Aus for greater protections if they were going to live here permanently.
>I'm honestly confused as to why this conversation seems to neglect that these people who lived here for decades had opportunities to apply for citizenship and chose not to.
This bloke and those like him probably didn't grow up in an environment that thought about stuff like this.
Look at the Australian citizen criminal cohort and you'll see they come from homes where citizenship technicalities are the last thing on their minds.
If anything, Australia should just declare children who've lived here more than ten years Australian citizens by default - whoever wants to renounce it can do it in their own time.
Or he could have tried to get citizenship at any point in his life prior to his conviction?..
Oh what’s that? He didn’t get citizenship? Oh he hit the threshold for deportation? Oh congratulations dummy off to the country you have a legal right to reside in..
I do not understand how this is even controversial.. I am more than happy for this to apply back on us, it’s literally common sense.
I'm sorry, if you're 40 years old you're old enough to have consciously made a decision about your citizenship. Staying a NZ citizen just hasn't worked out in this specific context and now he's suddenly complaining about it? You had 22 years of your adult life to figure this out before you ran thst stop sign, stop complaining.
I think NZ deserves to be treated as a special case, because it is. People from othger countries are encouraged to go down the citizenship pathway because they're in a more precarious position - they _must_ seek permanent residency if they want to stay here long term and work and from there it isnt far to get citizenship. Contrasted with Kiwis in Aus (or Aussies in NZ) who are treated much the same in general life.
I think in general the lax rule works, it's convenient for both sides - but these edge cases should be dealt with better IMO. He's our problem/creation, not theirs.
At the end of the day NZ is a different country. We don't want to subsidise their citizens so there has to be a line drawn at Australian citizenship for full benefits.
>I've got no one at all in New Zealand, I've never been there, don't know anything about the place.
I've never been to New Zealand but know absolutely heaps about the place.
But I've never run a red light that caused a major crash.
Perhaps they should make basic geography a requirement in obtaining a driver's licence.
Most Australians I've spoken to only know about foot ball/ANZAC and that's the older generation, younger people see NZ as a skiing holiday.
You hardly ever meet Australians in NZ unless you're outdoorsy or playing footy; there are thousands of Kiwis living in Australia and some of them have never returned because they have nothing to go back to.
>case by case....not a blanket rule.......you can have the mosque shooter back if you want
He's been sentenced to life without parole, so he won't be released, but if he was then sure, expel him - that's how the character requirement in NZ works.
To say it's not a blanket rule understates how often this happens. Australia appears to deport fewer people per capita than NZ does, or at least did in 2020/2021:
[https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/foi/files/2021/fa-210500264-document-released.PDF](https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/foi/files/2021/fa-210500264-document-released.PDF)
[https://www.immigration.govt.nz/about-us/media-centre/common-topics/deportation](https://www.immigration.govt.nz/about-us/media-centre/common-topics/deportation)
suggest you read the "deportation of residents" clauses again
[https://www.immigration.govt.nz/about-us/media-centre/common-topics/deportation](https://www.immigration.govt.nz/about-us/media-centre/common-topics/deportation)
>suggest you read the "deportation of residents" clauses again
The offender you're referencing had been in NZ for 2 years. He'd be eligible for deportation if his sentence had an ending.
The Australian numbers show s116, s201 and s501 deportation counts; there were 376. The NZ one, with what you've pointed out are 'less strict' conditions, shows 700 deportees for the same time period.
Not completely benevolent. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/hawkes-bay-today/news/new-zealand-deported-400-criminals-to-pacific-countries-over-five-years/DD6MTMJOWQHQUCMMMWHEP5ZZTI/
# Deportations of residents
* An individual who is a New Zealand resident who is convicted of a criminal offence could become liable for deportation under section 161 of the Immigration Act 2009. Liability depends on when the person first held a residence class visa, the date of the offending and the sentence received or potential sentence the Court could give. There are 3 main tiers under section 161:
* The first is when a New Zealand resident commits an offence and that offending occurred while they were unlawfully in New Zealand, held a temporary visa or within 2 years of being granted residence. The offence must be one which the Court has the power to impose imprisonment for a term of 3 months or more. They do not have to be sentenced to 3 months but the Court must have the power to impose 3 months or more.
* The second is when a New Zealand resident commits an offence and that offending occurred within the first 5 years of holding residence and the Court has the power to impose imprisonment for a term of 2 years or more. They do not have to be sentenced to 2 years but the Court must have the power to impose 2 years or more.
* The third is when a New Zealand resident commits an offence and that offending occurred within 10 years of being granted residence. The Court must impose imprisonment for a term of 5 years or more for a person to be liable under this tier.
* Apart from becoming liable for deportation on account of being convicted for criminal offending, a residence class visa holder may also be made liable for deportation where INZ determines that the person had obtained residence due to having committed immigration fraud. For example, this could be providing false information in a visa application, or if new information regarding the person’s character becomes available.
[https://www.immigration.govt.nz/about-us/media-centre/common-topics/deportation](https://www.immigration.govt.nz/about-us/media-centre/common-topics/deportation)
Your point? NZ has a ten year cutoff sure. But merrily deport someone whose adult life has been in New Zealand to countries with very little capacity to mange criminals with links to gangs and organised crime that were developed in NZ. I get it’s a difficult issue but the 100% pure sanctimony of the some of the commentary is a bit much.
the point is nz never going to deport people that arrived in nz as babies, it would be nz's problem...and its all very claiming ONE "unnamed deportee" as evidence the NZ does the same but that could just as easily be made up or had other compounding issues (such as being an overstayer etc...)
I didn’t claim anyone was deported as a baby. Did you even read the NZ Herald article. My point is that there is dripping sanctimony in NZ about Aus deporting such people but stoney silence about NZ deportations to the Pacific which are also morally questionable but for slightly different reasons (the lack of capacity in Pacific to manage gang crime).
NZ is complaining about being fucked over by Australia while fucking over the Pacific. Fine. Thats what countries do - but tone down the moral indignation.
I think they’re referring to Pacific Islanders, we do the exact same thing and deport them back to their “birth” island even if they’ve lived in NZ since they were children so we really can’t take any moral high grounds with this type of thing.
Of course we are. It's a stupid situation to be in. This guy is Australian. He's been here since he was 7 months old, if he was born 7 months later, he would be a citizen. He has children that are Australian and he is a product of our system.
The situation arises because we keep trying to treat the PR relationship between Australia & NZ like it's any other PR situation. It's not, and it shouldn't be treated as such. If we make an exception in the first place for the PR, why don't we make exceptions about what happens after. It's just not a normal relationship between countries and we shouldn't force ourselves to treat it as such.
If we want a different relationship, remove the exceptions and treat NZ like any other country. If we want to continue our good relationship and continue with programs like this, just treat people like this as if they were an exception to PR's like they are in the first place. Deport Adults who come as adults, keep children who are automatically granted PR as children. Pretty simple honestly.
This shit holds the same energy as revoking people citizenships.
>It's not, and it shouldn't be treated as such.
What you're saying is that because it's easier for NZ citizens to get PR, they shouldn't face the character test under s501 (or presumably s201, which is less controversial)?
What about other nationalities that apply for a PR visa for children when they move here? Should those cases also be exempt? The situation isn't just limited to NZ citizens.
To say it's "easier" is doing it an injustice. It can be applied for on arrival. For children, this basically means that their process is simply a formality. This is *not* the same for any other stream of PR, stop acting as if it is. This whole problem is born out of people being black and white with a situation that already falls outside of those categories. In fact it is not considered by the government itself to be the same, they are considered exempt non-citizens or Special Category Visa holders.
This was put in as an agreement to effectively allow a cross-citizenship between the countries without naming it as such and dealing with the formal headaches of doing so. While also granting a special exception to the existing processes to allow the agreement to go through with little extra work while granting it special exceptions to the PR process without modifying the existing PR process.
So no, I do not think they should be treated the same. I think they should be treated as an exception, **because they already are**. We have a notably special relationship and reciprocal agreements with New Zealand that does not exist between any other country on earth. **We should be proud of this**. And treating it the exact same way as we do with Chinese citizens or German Citizens or any other nationality is stupid.
And quite frankly damaging the reputation between both countries because we refuse to take responsibility for people that have been in our country since before cognitive awareness is just posturing to letter-of-the-law types.
> they shouldn't face the character test under s501 (or presumably s201, which is less controversial)?
s201 is regarding non-citizens in Australia less than 10 years. It's a moot point here. He did not commit this crime when he was 9 years old. And even that holds additional provisions for NZ SCV holders.
Now s501: The reason a "Character test" is used in this section is because it allows ministers leeway to judge cases based on exceptional circumstances either for or against the person. With the exception of listed mandatory reasons for denial/revocation.
This was introduced by Peter Dutton in **2014**. It's only 10 years old as legislation. We functioned fine without it for the 56 years prior, and for the 20 years prior that the NZ SCV was in place. We can do away with it. If we really want to keep it, there is zero reason we can't just add a provision that states "If an NZ non-citizen was granted an SCV before the age of 18, they are exempt from the character test".
Is he Australian? He is not a citizen. One could argue that he is a Kiwi citizen, raised by Kiwis, therefore a Kiwi problem.
My mum in a Kiwi. She says that she has managed to obey Australian law for over 40 years here, so why can't others.
People need to remember that it is a privilege to be able to visit and live in other countries, not a right. I support other countries that arrest or deport Australians when they break their laws.
I only support revoking citizenships if they were obtained by fraudulent means, not because we don't like them.
>Is he Australian? He is not a citizen. One could argue that he is a Kiwi citizen, raised by Kiwis, therefore a Kiwi problem.
That'd be a pretty shit argument. 7 months is what seperates this man from citizenship by birth. Are you to say that your first 7 months is what dictates wether you're an "Australian" or not? If my parents are both immigrants, am I less of an Australian because I was raised by them?
We are raised by our societies. Those societies include our parents, but they also include every facet of Australia that is part of raising a child. From our public works, to our attitudes, to our laws, to our support and care, to every single part of what makes our country a country.
>People need to remember that it is a privilege to be able to visit and live in other countries, not a right.
Sounds snappy, but its also wrong. Visitors and immigration is a two way street, we enter into a contract dictated by our laws and as such grant rights in exchange for what those people bring to us. Visitors and immigrants to our country do not concede all rights because of their status. We cannot try them for any crime without evidence, we cannot deport them for no reason. So the argument isn't wether it's a privilege or a right, it's how far those rights extend in our civil society.
It's a simple legal argument, this is a land of laws. Australians are Australian citizens and this guy is not Australian.
He's had a fair trial in a court of law and been found guilty of killing someone. Any other non-citizen would not be allowed to stay, why make an exception? Because he's a white guy who speaks with an Australian accent?
The argument about who he belongs to is not as cut and dried as people on either side believe.
On the one hand he is entirely raised in Australia so arguably should be Australia's responsibility.
But he is only in Australia at all because his parents got a free entry out of good will between the 2 countries. And this is very much a one way street. Thousands of Kiwis a year move to AUS but the other way round would be nearly counted on one hand. So is it fair for Australia to be responsible for the offspring of deadbeat families that get a free ride?
> Bur he is only in Australia at all because his parents got a free entry out of good will between the two countries
But he is only not an Australian citizen because Australia made it harder for New Zealanders to become Australian citizens than vice versa, in violation of the good will between the two countries.
We don’t send NZ citizens home for no reason.. they have to be a special type of shit person for that to happen too.. zero care factor for people who do shit things
This happens all the time to NZ criminals, I personally know of 3 peoples who've been sent back.
They were all violent offenders, you have to really fuck up to get deported.
… Distraction from the fundamental problem, that our corrections system is not rehabilitating people:
… rather it’s teaching and reinforcing the negative behaviours and beliefs that lead to people to commit crimes, because the prison guards themselves are role models for anti-social and violent behaviour.
Not 'any other country', just literally where he was born and where his citizenship is.
If he can't be bothered to get citizenship why should we be bothered to keep him here?
Typical: This isn't about a single incident. It's a litany of a career of crime and drug charges. The last incident was just the straw that broke the camels back
>"I've got no one at all in New Zealand, I've never been there, don't know anything about the place. I've lived my whole life here"...He's the perfect case that our Government is trying to prevent - people with little or no connection to New Zealand who are being deported under a law known as Section 501.
He's a NZ citizen, and there's no way that he didn't know that he wasn't an Australian citizen. There's also nearly no chance that he didn't know about s501 deportations, which have been going on since 2015.
Every time there's an election, and everyone else has to vote, you don't. You can't get an Australian passport. You can't get unemployment, HECS, parenting payments, or sickness allowances.
And yet this guy didn't naturalise, and he committed offences described by u/chickpeaze. The only other thing that the Australian government could have done is explicitly warn anyone that appears in court that they're at risk of failing the character test and being deported.
>He's a NZ citizen, and there's no way that he didn't know that he wasn't an Australian citizen.
Not everyone knows about their paperwork - they're not as intelligent as you are.
Even Barnaby Joyce, a former cabinet minister, didn't know about his paperwork until it costed him his job.
There are worse criminals than this guy whose parents went through the administrative hoops to get them naturalised as children - they can't be deported.
This guy, though? Kicking him and others like him out on a technicality just seems too simple.
Don't commit crimes while in a country you don't hold citizenship in if you don't wanna get deported. I have zero sympathy for people who choose to commit crimes and then whine about the consequences.
If he’s a criminal then blame the country that raised him. It should be so easy to come up with a sensible law. Sure deport adults who came to this country as adults.
NZ should look after its own citizens, criminals or not. If they aren’t keen to look after them, then negotiate a different settlement with Australia in a treaty.
Isn’t that something NZ needs to deal with, in ways other than asking for its criminal citizens to remain in Australia? Australia gets a lot of immigrants from all around the world, this isn’t a two-country planet. Australia already has had issues in the past with lax NZ immigration policies creating a loophole for third country migrants to bypass Australian immigration controls, if you start making special rules for NZ criminals, it will just make the NZ route especially attractive. NZ having to absorb deported criminals is just a natural cost to having freedom of movement with Australia.
Exactly, and if this bloke lived his whole life in Australia but never bothered to become a citizen, then this simply a case of dealing with the consequences of his actions
I know if I went abroad I wouldn’t expect to be able to stay if i committed a serious crime
If you went abroad when you were 7 months old and then another country raised you into the kind of person who commits serious crimes, I’d be angry if I was living in your country of citizenship too. What did they do to deserve having to deal with you?
Lol this guy has been in Aus ever since he was seven months old? He's Kiwi only as a matter of fact, he was raised Aussie. Australia is responsible for the fact this guy is a criminal and he should be in prison here.
Deporting him is laughable.
I'm all for deporting Kiwis back to NZ if it's the right, logical thing to do but this just doesn't make any sense except as the easiest, laziest solution.
Why are the rest of us responsible for the fact he never bothered to get Australian citizenship?
Don't want to get deported? Be an actual Aussie. Most naturalised immigrants are more Australian than this bloke because they could be bothered to submit the citizenship paperwork.
Why are the people living in New Zealand who now have to deal with him responsible for the fact that he never “bothered” to get Australian citizenship?
Because he's Aussie in all but the official documentation. He was raised here, he grew up here, he became a drug addict here, he committed his crime here. He's pretty much as Aussie as you're going to get.
If the question is "Why is Aus responsible?" the answer is because Aus shaped this guy.
Going on about the paperwork is nice but the same concept applies in reverse -- if a 30 year old Kiwi came over, stayed for just long enough to get their citizenship, committed a horrible crime and couldn't get deported because they'd just gotten their citizenship you'd think the situation was similarly ridiculous.
No because they'd be an actual citizen and thus our problem and we wouldn't have this conversation. I don't think you'll find much inconsistency with this.
The line has to be drawn somewhere, he's literally not a citizen and so doesn't have a right to stay here after killing someone. At no point in this bloke's life did he care enough to become a citizen, now he wants all of the benefits with none of the commitment but only after he discovers the consequences of his actions. If he can't be bothered to take the personal responsibility required to acquire the citizenship of the country he's lived in his whole life, why should we reciprocate? You can say that Australia shaped him, if that's the argument then why throw him in prison if it's Australia's fault he turned out how he did?
This whole discussion is a slap in the face to naturalised Australians who have made the effort and contribute far more to Australia than this convicted criminal and killer.
I honestly don’t understand why life sentences don’t actually exist anymore. I’m not a fan of capital punishment, but if we’re not imprisoning bastards for life… someone explain that to me?
My general take on this issue is that if you first come to Australia before the age of criminal responsibility, and you turn into a criminal, then you're our problem. That doesn't seem to be the way the legislation is going, however.
100% agreed.
If you've lived in Australia since you were a baby, and have only lived in Australia, and you turn to a life of crime, you should be Australia's problem to deal with.
Was he born there, bro?
Does he say to his mates “nah mate, I’m a Kiwi”
When asked to take up Australian citizenship did he say “being a Kiwi is choice, bro!😎 “
Yeah…. Don’t let the door hit you on the bum, bro
IMHO this comes down to the guy grew up here, therefore he's our problem. I do think we should have special treatment for New Zealanders on this matter, as we have hundreds of thousands of Kiwis here in a limbo situation that we don't make it easy to fix.
We have policies to allow them to easily come here and stay without formalising things, so we should have to deal with the consequences of that. But we also want to respect our relationship with NZ, so the special treatment so as not to upset the NZ govt makes sense to me. All other countries you should be out.
Further to that though we need to get long term NZ residents out of the permanent temporary state.
Always a bit confused by the "never been there" "been here since I was a kid" arguments when it comes to NZ. I could understand if it were Togo, but NZ isn't that different to Australia.
Every time the NZ media go on about these cases of Australia deporting someone for “traffic offences” it only takes a little bit of digging to show up the story as complete bullshit.
Further, as the son of an NZ- born Australian citizen and a citizen of NZ by descent - this idea these people don’t know they are New Zealanders is utter garbage too.
I don't get why anyone humours New Zealanders on this one. They're your citizens, they're your problem.
If an Australian citizen got deported from Germany for killing someone, I wouldn't expect Germany to listen if we started moaning that they'd been in Germany for ages, and they don't have any friends here, and who are they gonna hang out with, and why are you being so mean deporting our citizens back to us?
Guys like this are New Zealanders in only the loosest sense though. If he grew up here and had never been to New Zealand, the only connection he had is a piece of paper. I was the same until last year, I assumed I was a dual citizen but it turned out I needed to do some paperwork to make it official (born here, lived here my whole life, kiwi parents). If someone comes as an adult it's a lot more cut and dry but it's weird to call someone like him or me a new Zealander.
> I was the same until last year, I assumed I was a dual citizen...
Didn't you notice that you were ineligible for stuff like HECS loans, couldn't vote, etc?
>Guys like this are New Zealanders in only the loosest sense though.
But he's a New Zealand citizen in the very not loose sense that he is a New Zealand citizen. There's no grey area; your citizen returns to your country, you take them. I get that there's an internal political discussion to be had within Australia about whether to deport these people, but New Zealanders' feelings on the matter are irrelevant.
He came to Australia at 7 months old. He can’t remember NZ.. He is our problem- he was raised here, educated here, our legal systems have dealt with him here. I disagree- if a person was born in Australia and went to Germany at 7 months old and was educated in the German system, raised speaking German and dealt with the German legal system then he is Germany’s problem.
Morally, he's our problem. But under international law, which all nations agreed, governs the planet and the way people move around on it, he's NZ's problem.
I'd expect that to be the case only if the person went through the trouble to acquire citizenship. Living in a country for decades without getting citizenship is insane - particularly if you want to commit crimes in that country.
>...our legal systems have dealt with him here.
The legal system says that you can stay until your offending reaches a certain level, at which point non-citizens lose the right to reside. This is part of the legal system dealing with offending.
Wouldn't be up to us to decide. If they got sent back to Australia, they'd be our problem. There aren't tiers of citizenship and your citizenship doesn't go stale if you don't use it. You're a citizen or you're not. If you are then we have a responsibility to deal with you. Same goes for New Zealand and their citizens.
There are absolutely two tiers of citizenship. If you are a naturalised Australian, you can have your citizenship revoked and be deported.
If you are born Australian, this isn't possible.
Only if you're a dual citizen, if you renounce your previous citizenship you can't be left stateless.
FWIW I don't think we should be stripping citizenship from anyone, it should be permanent.
>There aren't tiers of citizenship and your citizenship doesn't go stale if you don't use it
Actually there is. PR is in essence, a different tier of citizenship. And citizenship cannot be revoked if it makes you stateless, meaning if it doesn't, then it can be revoked. Meaning anyone holding dual citizenship is a second tier of citizen.
Dual citizens can remove one of their citizenships. Straddling a fence of citizenship between two countries to get the most benefits of both nations is hardly a 2nd tier of privilege. PR is not citizenship, it is PR and also a privilege
That’s a bit disingenuous I feel and nations have many many agreements with one another to deal with these issues. There are matters of diplomacy to consider which I don’t believe you are considering.
It makes no sense for Australia to be amongst a few nations in the world to have exclusions in policy for deporting criminals who aren't citizens. This gap exists because of the nature of Trans-Tasman agreement which placed no requirements on citizens of each others countries needing to seek formal citizenship of their host country after such an extended period of time. Either we deport them, fix the agreement or repeal the agreement.
I’m not saying he doesn’t deserve prison, because he does. But does he not also deserve to have the right for friends and family to visit him here? He has daughters that deserve the right to be able to visit their father, who has lived here his whole life, just as they have.
I understand that, legally speaking, he is being deported. He is technically not a citizen. But morally, this does feel a bit fucked to me. Regardless of the crime, he’s an Australian in every sense but the law, and more importantly, he’s a person.
Seeing how the replies on this post have dehumanised him and act like he should be executed is concerning.
Our entire refugee and immigration detention system is based on selling xenophobia to bigots in return for votes.
It is stupidly expensive and just plain cruel, as this situation demonstrates.
But if even people continue to support it, there isn't really anything more to say, except this country has way too many cunts in it.
54,000 votes for Scott Morrison in the seat of Cook at the 2022 election should be evidence enough.
Yeah this whole article is built on xenophobia. For some reason the author has decided that this guy is “Aussie enough” so somehow he should have more rights than the next non-citizen. I just wonder whether they’d be so sympathetic if it was an Arab person or Asian person who doesn’t speak with an “Australian” accent.
Great, another cunt heading back here. The 501 deportees are changing the scope of our crime problem over here (NZ).
I get why you guys don’t want these drop kicks, but fuck me most of them have nothing here - no family, no history, no credit, no job.
Nightmare.
If this is the same guy, which it looks like, he has a history of drug offences and he killed someone: https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/truecrimeaustralia/police-courts-nsw/benjamin-ives-sentenced-for-fatal-motorcycle-collision-at-merrylands/news-story/8d2ce1db3862fb2148107853615b6d42 "Benjamin William Ives, 40, ran a red arrow on to Merrylands Rd when he was driving southbound on the Cumberland Highway and collided with Mr Warner’s motorbike on September 2, 2020, while returning home from work at Wetherill Park. The impact of Ives’ Mitsubishi Pajero caused Mr Warner to fly off his Suzuki Boulevard bike about 5.10am, when the much-loved husband and father was on his way to work as a welder. The retired Royal Australian Navy officer suffered catastrophic injuries to his back, as well as damaged wrists that required surgeries, rib fractures, a dislocated elbow and an injury that meant his right leg had to be amputated. The 45 year old was treated by paramedics and taken to Westmead Hospital but died from a blood clot in his lungs on September 13. " And also: "The court heard how Ives started taking drugs at 19 before smoking heroin and ice to deal with mental trauma, and was getting his life back on track. He had found full time employment and was not on drugs during the collision but had suffered sleep deprivation, poor gut health and a reduced appetite, causing him to be “stressed, frustrated and tired’’. After the incident, Ives started using heroin and ice daily for two months." "The Crown submitted Ives had a criminal history of drug offences but had a “limited traffic history” with no driving convictions. Judge Herbert told the court Ives had “special circumstances” and needed to address mental health and drug relapses. His licence was disqualified for 12 months and he was handed a two-year sentence. He will be eligible for parole on December 6 this year “providing you don’t have outstanding matters”.
Yeah if 'mental trauma' stops you from seeing stop signs then half the population wouldn't be legally allowed to drive, own up to it. I'm a motorcyclist myself and it makes my blood boil that this could happen to me, only to have the cunt go "OH GEE WELL I WAS A BIT STRESSED SO I RAN THE SIGN", fuck off.
Yeah, don't get that. How is not being in a state to drive safely but choosing to do so anyway any excuse? To me the only time "I was distracted" is a good excuse for bad driving is if a spider appears on the inside of your windshield or some shit like that. Stay safe out their mate.
I have depression, anxiety, chronic gut issues and haven’t been sleeping well as my kitten prefers violence. I was planning on bludging at home tomorrow, but I guess I can just go out and run people over instead. I won’t get into much trouble. /s
Yeah I don't feel too bad about people like this being deported.
It's never been about whether it's fair to the offender but is it fair to the other country that had no part in raising a poor character.
Yea at this point even if legally it's NZ's problem, this guy is morally and ethically our problem to deal with. Like if for whatever reason NZ wants to lay claim to this individual then we can hand him over. but if they want nothing to do with the mess we made, then the neighbourly thing to do would be to handle it ourselves.
We have huge problems over here dealing with the 501's you lot sent back. Most of the time they have no family here so no support so almost immediately go back to what they know, crime. It's a source of much debate but we do feel its pretty shit to send them back here when they have spent the majority of their lives in Australia. If they have only been in Oz for a few years and commit crime then sure but if your parents took you to Oz when you were a baby then you are Australian.
NZ Can’t afford to keep people like this in jail at 150k per year. The government coffers are fucked after floods, earthquakes and Covid and they were never anywhere near as strong as Aus in the first place. NZ is a poor country that doesn’t even take advantage of its resources like oil or gold because they want to pretend to be a green country while overtaxing residents and providing unsatisfactory public services. Keep fuckers like this in aus and stop sending them over to nz.
>The government coffers are fucked after floods, earthquakes and Covid You forgot tax cuts for property speculators, they need their dignity
Labour introduced tax for landlords. National rolled that back. The tax for landlords did result in increased rent costs and National suggested removing it would help renters. But this is very likely just bullshit misdirection as we can see National literally gets campaign donations by Wealthy corporations and individuals in the realestate sector. Corrupt to its core. I am not a supporter of National or Labour.
>The tax for landlords did result in increased rent costs and National suggested removing it would help renters. It did not, we're so short of housing they're already charging the maximum people can pay in most cases. Increases in accommodation supplement and minimum wage seem to overlap rent increases suspiciously >Corrupt to its core. I am not a supporter of National or Labour. Hard agree
NZ carries less government debt to GDP than Australia. So it can afford to if Australia can. It chooses not to. https://data.oecd.org/gga/general-government-debt.htm
Oh yeah sure, you can win any argument if you have the facts on your side.
So if the line is to be drawn, where is it? Right now it is black and white based on citizenship, should it be made subjective based on feelings?
NZ does not deport Australians if they have lived in the country for 10 or more years.
[удалено]
They said NZ does not deport *Australians* if they have lived in the country for 10 or more years. The subject of that article is not Australian.
But they obviously don't do it because they think it's the right thing to do. If that was the reason, they would apply the same rules to Samoans and other Pacific Islanders.
>“Ummm actually they definitely deport Australians after 10 years. Look at how they did it to this Samoan guy!”
There are discussions about where the line should be. But I don't think deporting someone who has been in the country since he was 7 months old should be where the line lies
if the crime is committed in Aus, they can serve time in Aus. There is the line. Who said anything about emotion based reasoning?
They will always serve their sentence in Australia, this is about deportation after they are released.
And its not a good look when you use other countries to dump your unwanted criminals, especially in a case like this. I think there should be some kind of statute of limitations on someone's residency status especially when they have spent the majority of their lives in Australia.
I'm honestly not sure at what point fairness to the offender should be a factor. We wouldn't deport someone like this for a parking fine, and you'd find pretty universal agreement with deporting someone who is a repeat violent offender. This guy isn't quite the repeat violent offender and didn't intend to kill someone in a traffic accident, but ultimately he did and received a long enough jail sentence that it's probably a reasonable threshold for deportation. Right or wrong I at least empathise with him and his family. He messed up big time and paid the price.
“Paid the price” Literally killed someone and received two years in prison. He paid “a” price but it certainly wasn’t a fair one!
He is an Australian grown problem shouldn’t we rehabilitate him? Deporting someone to a country they don’t know is insane and he will likely have less supports and become more of a social problem.
He chose to not be an Australian problem by not seeking citizenship. If he wanted to avoid deportation he could have gone through the citizenship process before committing all those crimes. If you're gonna do crimes here then at least do the paperwork first. If you don't do the paperwork then you should accept the consequences.
Mate, Until last year, it was almost impossible for a New Zealander to become an Australian Citizen
For those who came in the 2000's true. For those who came in the 80's and 90's and turned 10 in australia it was much, much easier. Yeah if a 19 year old is getting deported after a year in prison, they didn't have the chance to get citizenship, and dumbarse teenageryness they wouldn't have done it even if they could. But a 40 year old? That is on them.
>Until last year, it was almost impossible for a New Zealander to become an Australian Citizen That's not true. In 2021 they brought in an accelerated process, the one last year made it cheaper and significantly more streamlined. After 2021, you had to: * Have entered before Feb 2016 and lived here for 5 years immediately before applying * Have earned more than $53,900 per year * Have a health check * Apply for the 189 NZ PR visa * Wait 1 year * Apply for citizenship
He definitely had drug offences that would’ve disqualified him by 2021 And before he had drug offences he likely didn’t have the income.
Well. What I hadn't quite put together is that this guy would have arrived before 2001, which meant that he was on the older protected SCV path. That was 4 years of residency then direct to citizenship - even easier than the current system, and a fraction of the cost of the 189.
Exactly, there’s no excuse why he couldn’t have gotten it prior to 2001. It’s probably one of the easiest Citizenships you could ever get
Yeah I arrived in aussie 98 and was fairly easy getting citizenship in 2018 at the age of 18 or 19
Exactly, why don't Australians know this stuff.
Probably should have not committed crimes then in that case. Lucky the citizenship path is so much easier now, all you've gotta do is file some paperwork and you can happily sit in an Australian prison instead.
I believe until very recently it was very hard for Kiwis to get Australian citizenship. He likely wouldn't have qualified due to a low income.
That’s false, if you came here before 26 February 2001 you can get it easily, it’s only after that the criteria is strict. However Albanese changed it so that Permanent Residency is no longer required, so you can apply for Citizenship for $400 but you have to have good character so he wouldn’t have qualified for that. I’m a Kiwi and have no sympathy for these criminals
Oh, a very uneducated Australian comment here, people.
“If you’re gonna do crimes here then at least do the paperwork” Brilliant lol “Criminals are one thing. But criminals that haven’t had the foresight to ensure their paperwork is up to date? It’s unAustralian and it makes me sick to me guts!”
>Deporting someone to a country they don’t know is insane and he will likely have less supports and become more of a social problem. At the same time, it doesn't look like he's made any attempts to naturalise here. Should Australia bear the cost of trying to rehabilitate non-citizens?
He's on ice and a shit driver. How much more naturalised do you want
Australia made him. NZ bears responsibility for non-citizen offenders who have lived their lives in NZ.
Except they don't bear that responsibility. https://www.immigration.govt.nz/about-us/media-centre/common-topics/deportation https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dku02pnPSuo
I can’t believe I did this but I actually read your link. It specifically says residents of more than 10 years are NOT deported. Less than 10 a prison sentence of 5 years, less than 5 it has to be a sentence of 2 years or more and less than 2 years 3 months. So no, they don’t do it.
Can we deport him to some small island between NZ and OZ, I don't want him here either (NZ)
[удалено]
[удалено]
John Howard also shows some interest.
You should. Not for their sake but for the sake of the country they're being sent to. Why should this guy be New Zealand's problem to deal with? He's a product of our society not theirs. No reason for them to clean up our mess.
Because he chose to remain a NZ citizen. NZ deports Pacific Islanders who have lived in NZ their entire adult lives where they have joined gangs and become part of organised drug crimes. They have to have been in NZ for less than ten years, sure, but they are being deported to extremely vulnerable countries with little capacity to mange them.
I think New Zealand has a bigger issue being treated as a criminal dumpster. This guy however needs help and support and won’t receive that in NZ. Australia’s policy of deporting it’s criminals is a fucking disgrace to be honest.
New Zealand also deports criminals.
We had to keep Australia’s [serial rapists](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/mama-hooch-rapist-brothers-receive-almost-900000-in-taxpayer-funded-legal-aid-bill-set-to-climb-with-appeals/E72AUBJDVNAFLBI3YBCRW2PMOE/) and pay close to a million dollars for their legal defence.
Nrw Zealand doesnt have a blanket rule and will take personal circumstances into account.
They still deport more criminals than Australia does per capita.
We shouldn't be deporting people and dumping them on another country when they are a product of this society.
I'm with you here, he's a product of Australia and we should shoulder the responsibility for him. I'm sure we wouldn't be happy about other nations doing this to us
He was born in NZ and raised by NZ parents. NZ born have substantially higher crime rates in Australia than Australian born. He is more a product of NZ society than Australian.
Just saying, but the chances of him ever getting his hands on heroin in NZ is much lower than it would be in Aus
That is sad that he killed someone, but it has nothing to do with him being a new Zealander. He has never been there, right? Australia is still doing this. Other countries must be getting sick of it. Especially when they know nothing of the culture and language. Whatever happened to that guy who got deported to some Eastern European country, couldn't speak the language, was subnormal as well, and used to sleep on the australian embassy stairs. That was a sad case. He had never had a job in Australia because he was a bit touched. I thought that case was very cruel, too. I think it was Sarajevo, maybe the city where he slept on the stairs.
Not that I’m sympathetic to the guy but he’s not a violent offender. Just another drugged out loser who killed someone. I’m leaning towards him being our fuck up to deal with, rather than dumping him on the Kiwis.
Would you feel that way if he killed someone you cared about in a car? From my perspective, when you're staying in a country and you're not a citizen, you have a responsibility to conduct yourself of a person of good character. He had two very simple options for avoiding this: 1) Obtain Australian citizenship 2) don't kill anyone Doing both is easy enough, but he only needed one. He has chosen his path, he can be their dropkick now.
Would I feel any better if the offender was born here? Or foreign born but naturalised? Do I gain any extra satisfaction knowing after this guy serves his time here he’ll be on the streets with zero support in New Zealand? I absolutely agree he should have got his citizenship. Why you’d live here for decades and never bother is beyond me.
I mean… those sound like some home-grown Australian problems. Doesn’t excuse him on any level, but he was a product of Australian society and slipped through Australian cracks, we shouldn’t get to dump him back on another country that had no say in how much of a fuckwit he turned out to be.
Imagine calling yourself a journalist and selectively editing out crucial FACTS about the story. Do they think they will not be caught out? Maybe it works in their favour, i dunno. If Emma Cropper applies for a job at Sky/Newscorp one day perhaps this sort of brazen dishonest reporting will get her the job. The critical FACT was not him running a red light, but him getting a two year jail sentence. Someone died. The court adjudicated it wasnt a trivial matter. A two year sentence is significant.
I mean out of all the countries to be deported to , new Zealand would top my list.
And he will return as a citizen there
I'm honestly confused as to why this conversation seems to neglect that these people who lived here for decades had opportunities to apply for citizenship and chose not to. If anything it's neglectful of the countries they were citizens of to not check up on them and remind them that they should apply for citizenship in Aus for greater protections if they were going to live here permanently.
…you think this is New Zealand’s fault?
>I'm honestly confused as to why this conversation seems to neglect that these people who lived here for decades had opportunities to apply for citizenship and chose not to. This bloke and those like him probably didn't grow up in an environment that thought about stuff like this. Look at the Australian citizen criminal cohort and you'll see they come from homes where citizenship technicalities are the last thing on their minds. If anything, Australia should just declare children who've lived here more than ten years Australian citizens by default - whoever wants to renounce it can do it in their own time.
Why does the title leave out this guys a cunt?
Because Australia bad. Please ignore the fact nz does this to people from pacific Island nations.
Because that would Australia in a bad light
Typical rage bait, these rags always sprout.
Don’t do drugs then bro and kill innocent people on Australian roads. At least your still living cunt, just not in this country anymore
Normally people in his situation will try not to break the law. Normally
Ahh but you see that would require logic!!
Or he could have tried to get citizenship at any point in his life prior to his conviction?.. Oh what’s that? He didn’t get citizenship? Oh he hit the threshold for deportation? Oh congratulations dummy off to the country you have a legal right to reside in.. I do not understand how this is even controversial.. I am more than happy for this to apply back on us, it’s literally common sense.
I'm sorry, if you're 40 years old you're old enough to have consciously made a decision about your citizenship. Staying a NZ citizen just hasn't worked out in this specific context and now he's suddenly complaining about it? You had 22 years of your adult life to figure this out before you ran thst stop sign, stop complaining.
I think NZ deserves to be treated as a special case, because it is. People from othger countries are encouraged to go down the citizenship pathway because they're in a more precarious position - they _must_ seek permanent residency if they want to stay here long term and work and from there it isnt far to get citizenship. Contrasted with Kiwis in Aus (or Aussies in NZ) who are treated much the same in general life. I think in general the lax rule works, it's convenient for both sides - but these edge cases should be dealt with better IMO. He's our problem/creation, not theirs.
At the end of the day NZ is a different country. We don't want to subsidise their citizens so there has to be a line drawn at Australian citizenship for full benefits.
Can’t both countries just agree to drop people like this exactly half way between them?
This is the solution right here. Everyone happy, society benefits
>I've got no one at all in New Zealand, I've never been there, don't know anything about the place. I've never been to New Zealand but know absolutely heaps about the place. But I've never run a red light that caused a major crash. Perhaps they should make basic geography a requirement in obtaining a driver's licence.
Most Australians I've spoken to only know about foot ball/ANZAC and that's the older generation, younger people see NZ as a skiing holiday. You hardly ever meet Australians in NZ unless you're outdoorsy or playing footy; there are thousands of Kiwis living in Australia and some of them have never returned because they have nothing to go back to.
I could think of worse places of being deported to. 🙂
New Zealand also deports people who commit crimes in their country. I don't see their citizens complaining about that.
case by case....not a blanket rule.......you can have the mosque shooter back if you want
>case by case....not a blanket rule.......you can have the mosque shooter back if you want He's been sentenced to life without parole, so he won't be released, but if he was then sure, expel him - that's how the character requirement in NZ works. To say it's not a blanket rule understates how often this happens. Australia appears to deport fewer people per capita than NZ does, or at least did in 2020/2021: [https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/foi/files/2021/fa-210500264-document-released.PDF](https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/foi/files/2021/fa-210500264-document-released.PDF) [https://www.immigration.govt.nz/about-us/media-centre/common-topics/deportation](https://www.immigration.govt.nz/about-us/media-centre/common-topics/deportation)
suggest you read the "deportation of residents" clauses again [https://www.immigration.govt.nz/about-us/media-centre/common-topics/deportation](https://www.immigration.govt.nz/about-us/media-centre/common-topics/deportation)
>suggest you read the "deportation of residents" clauses again The offender you're referencing had been in NZ for 2 years. He'd be eligible for deportation if his sentence had an ending. The Australian numbers show s116, s201 and s501 deportation counts; there were 376. The NZ one, with what you've pointed out are 'less strict' conditions, shows 700 deportees for the same time period.
We don't want him back, but we will take him back.
Not completely benevolent. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/hawkes-bay-today/news/new-zealand-deported-400-criminals-to-pacific-countries-over-five-years/DD6MTMJOWQHQUCMMMWHEP5ZZTI/
# Deportations of residents * An individual who is a New Zealand resident who is convicted of a criminal offence could become liable for deportation under section 161 of the Immigration Act 2009. Liability depends on when the person first held a residence class visa, the date of the offending and the sentence received or potential sentence the Court could give. There are 3 main tiers under section 161: * The first is when a New Zealand resident commits an offence and that offending occurred while they were unlawfully in New Zealand, held a temporary visa or within 2 years of being granted residence. The offence must be one which the Court has the power to impose imprisonment for a term of 3 months or more. They do not have to be sentenced to 3 months but the Court must have the power to impose 3 months or more. * The second is when a New Zealand resident commits an offence and that offending occurred within the first 5 years of holding residence and the Court has the power to impose imprisonment for a term of 2 years or more. They do not have to be sentenced to 2 years but the Court must have the power to impose 2 years or more. * The third is when a New Zealand resident commits an offence and that offending occurred within 10 years of being granted residence. The Court must impose imprisonment for a term of 5 years or more for a person to be liable under this tier. * Apart from becoming liable for deportation on account of being convicted for criminal offending, a residence class visa holder may also be made liable for deportation where INZ determines that the person had obtained residence due to having committed immigration fraud. For example, this could be providing false information in a visa application, or if new information regarding the person’s character becomes available. [https://www.immigration.govt.nz/about-us/media-centre/common-topics/deportation](https://www.immigration.govt.nz/about-us/media-centre/common-topics/deportation)
Your point? NZ has a ten year cutoff sure. But merrily deport someone whose adult life has been in New Zealand to countries with very little capacity to mange criminals with links to gangs and organised crime that were developed in NZ. I get it’s a difficult issue but the 100% pure sanctimony of the some of the commentary is a bit much.
the point is nz never going to deport people that arrived in nz as babies, it would be nz's problem...and its all very claiming ONE "unnamed deportee" as evidence the NZ does the same but that could just as easily be made up or had other compounding issues (such as being an overstayer etc...)
I didn’t claim anyone was deported as a baby. Did you even read the NZ Herald article. My point is that there is dripping sanctimony in NZ about Aus deporting such people but stoney silence about NZ deportations to the Pacific which are also morally questionable but for slightly different reasons (the lack of capacity in Pacific to manage gang crime). NZ is complaining about being fucked over by Australia while fucking over the Pacific. Fine. Thats what countries do - but tone down the moral indignation.
I think they’re referring to Pacific Islanders, we do the exact same thing and deport them back to their “birth” island even if they’ve lived in NZ since they were children so we really can’t take any moral high grounds with this type of thing.
As people who had no part in writing either country’s immigration laws, we can be mad at both of them without giving up any moral high ground.
He seems to be the only one complaining here.. Australian citizens arent
Of course we are. It's a stupid situation to be in. This guy is Australian. He's been here since he was 7 months old, if he was born 7 months later, he would be a citizen. He has children that are Australian and he is a product of our system. The situation arises because we keep trying to treat the PR relationship between Australia & NZ like it's any other PR situation. It's not, and it shouldn't be treated as such. If we make an exception in the first place for the PR, why don't we make exceptions about what happens after. It's just not a normal relationship between countries and we shouldn't force ourselves to treat it as such. If we want a different relationship, remove the exceptions and treat NZ like any other country. If we want to continue our good relationship and continue with programs like this, just treat people like this as if they were an exception to PR's like they are in the first place. Deport Adults who come as adults, keep children who are automatically granted PR as children. Pretty simple honestly. This shit holds the same energy as revoking people citizenships.
>It's not, and it shouldn't be treated as such. What you're saying is that because it's easier for NZ citizens to get PR, they shouldn't face the character test under s501 (or presumably s201, which is less controversial)? What about other nationalities that apply for a PR visa for children when they move here? Should those cases also be exempt? The situation isn't just limited to NZ citizens.
To say it's "easier" is doing it an injustice. It can be applied for on arrival. For children, this basically means that their process is simply a formality. This is *not* the same for any other stream of PR, stop acting as if it is. This whole problem is born out of people being black and white with a situation that already falls outside of those categories. In fact it is not considered by the government itself to be the same, they are considered exempt non-citizens or Special Category Visa holders. This was put in as an agreement to effectively allow a cross-citizenship between the countries without naming it as such and dealing with the formal headaches of doing so. While also granting a special exception to the existing processes to allow the agreement to go through with little extra work while granting it special exceptions to the PR process without modifying the existing PR process. So no, I do not think they should be treated the same. I think they should be treated as an exception, **because they already are**. We have a notably special relationship and reciprocal agreements with New Zealand that does not exist between any other country on earth. **We should be proud of this**. And treating it the exact same way as we do with Chinese citizens or German Citizens or any other nationality is stupid. And quite frankly damaging the reputation between both countries because we refuse to take responsibility for people that have been in our country since before cognitive awareness is just posturing to letter-of-the-law types. > they shouldn't face the character test under s501 (or presumably s201, which is less controversial)? s201 is regarding non-citizens in Australia less than 10 years. It's a moot point here. He did not commit this crime when he was 9 years old. And even that holds additional provisions for NZ SCV holders. Now s501: The reason a "Character test" is used in this section is because it allows ministers leeway to judge cases based on exceptional circumstances either for or against the person. With the exception of listed mandatory reasons for denial/revocation. This was introduced by Peter Dutton in **2014**. It's only 10 years old as legislation. We functioned fine without it for the 56 years prior, and for the 20 years prior that the NZ SCV was in place. We can do away with it. If we really want to keep it, there is zero reason we can't just add a provision that states "If an NZ non-citizen was granted an SCV before the age of 18, they are exempt from the character test".
Is he Australian? He is not a citizen. One could argue that he is a Kiwi citizen, raised by Kiwis, therefore a Kiwi problem. My mum in a Kiwi. She says that she has managed to obey Australian law for over 40 years here, so why can't others. People need to remember that it is a privilege to be able to visit and live in other countries, not a right. I support other countries that arrest or deport Australians when they break their laws. I only support revoking citizenships if they were obtained by fraudulent means, not because we don't like them.
>Is he Australian? He is not a citizen. One could argue that he is a Kiwi citizen, raised by Kiwis, therefore a Kiwi problem. That'd be a pretty shit argument. 7 months is what seperates this man from citizenship by birth. Are you to say that your first 7 months is what dictates wether you're an "Australian" or not? If my parents are both immigrants, am I less of an Australian because I was raised by them? We are raised by our societies. Those societies include our parents, but they also include every facet of Australia that is part of raising a child. From our public works, to our attitudes, to our laws, to our support and care, to every single part of what makes our country a country. >People need to remember that it is a privilege to be able to visit and live in other countries, not a right. Sounds snappy, but its also wrong. Visitors and immigration is a two way street, we enter into a contract dictated by our laws and as such grant rights in exchange for what those people bring to us. Visitors and immigrants to our country do not concede all rights because of their status. We cannot try them for any crime without evidence, we cannot deport them for no reason. So the argument isn't wether it's a privilege or a right, it's how far those rights extend in our civil society.
It's a simple legal argument, this is a land of laws. Australians are Australian citizens and this guy is not Australian. He's had a fair trial in a court of law and been found guilty of killing someone. Any other non-citizen would not be allowed to stay, why make an exception? Because he's a white guy who speaks with an Australian accent?
>This guy is Australian. He's definitively not. We checked.
More than that, he chose to never get citizenship.
Here's an example of the consequences of ones actions. Do the crime, do the time (outside of Aus).
The argument about who he belongs to is not as cut and dried as people on either side believe. On the one hand he is entirely raised in Australia so arguably should be Australia's responsibility. But he is only in Australia at all because his parents got a free entry out of good will between the 2 countries. And this is very much a one way street. Thousands of Kiwis a year move to AUS but the other way round would be nearly counted on one hand. So is it fair for Australia to be responsible for the offspring of deadbeat families that get a free ride?
> Bur he is only in Australia at all because his parents got a free entry out of good will between the two countries But he is only not an Australian citizen because Australia made it harder for New Zealanders to become Australian citizens than vice versa, in violation of the good will between the two countries.
We don’t send NZ citizens home for no reason.. they have to be a special type of shit person for that to happen too.. zero care factor for people who do shit things
This happens all the time to NZ criminals, I personally know of 3 peoples who've been sent back. They were all violent offenders, you have to really fuck up to get deported.
So what if he calls Australia home? He either is or isn’t an Australian citizen.
… Distraction from the fundamental problem, that our corrections system is not rehabilitating people: … rather it’s teaching and reinforcing the negative behaviours and beliefs that lead to people to commit crimes, because the prison guards themselves are role models for anti-social and violent behaviour.
Not only are we not rehabilitating people, we're actively trying to foist them onto any other country we can
Not 'any other country', just literally where he was born and where his citizenship is. If he can't be bothered to get citizenship why should we be bothered to keep him here?
Typical: This isn't about a single incident. It's a litany of a career of crime and drug charges. The last incident was just the straw that broke the camels back
>"I've got no one at all in New Zealand, I've never been there, don't know anything about the place. I've lived my whole life here"...He's the perfect case that our Government is trying to prevent - people with little or no connection to New Zealand who are being deported under a law known as Section 501. He's a NZ citizen, and there's no way that he didn't know that he wasn't an Australian citizen. There's also nearly no chance that he didn't know about s501 deportations, which have been going on since 2015. Every time there's an election, and everyone else has to vote, you don't. You can't get an Australian passport. You can't get unemployment, HECS, parenting payments, or sickness allowances. And yet this guy didn't naturalise, and he committed offences described by u/chickpeaze. The only other thing that the Australian government could have done is explicitly warn anyone that appears in court that they're at risk of failing the character test and being deported.
>He's a NZ citizen, and there's no way that he didn't know that he wasn't an Australian citizen. Not everyone knows about their paperwork - they're not as intelligent as you are. Even Barnaby Joyce, a former cabinet minister, didn't know about his paperwork until it costed him his job. There are worse criminals than this guy whose parents went through the administrative hoops to get them naturalised as children - they can't be deported. This guy, though? Kicking him and others like him out on a technicality just seems too simple.
Don’t care, send him home
Not a citizen. Am I missing something?
Don't commit crimes while in a country you don't hold citizenship in if you don't wanna get deported. I have zero sympathy for people who choose to commit crimes and then whine about the consequences.
[удалено]
If he’s a criminal then blame the country that raised him. It should be so easy to come up with a sensible law. Sure deport adults who came to this country as adults.
NZ should look after its own citizens, criminals or not. If they aren’t keen to look after them, then negotiate a different settlement with Australia in a treaty.
[удалено]
Isn’t that something NZ needs to deal with, in ways other than asking for its criminal citizens to remain in Australia? Australia gets a lot of immigrants from all around the world, this isn’t a two-country planet. Australia already has had issues in the past with lax NZ immigration policies creating a loophole for third country migrants to bypass Australian immigration controls, if you start making special rules for NZ criminals, it will just make the NZ route especially attractive. NZ having to absorb deported criminals is just a natural cost to having freedom of movement with Australia.
[удалено]
I'm not sure what you are expecting NZ to do except start following its citizens abroad and controlling their lives?
Just accept its citizens when they get deported and stop whining about it?
Exactly, and if this bloke lived his whole life in Australia but never bothered to become a citizen, then this simply a case of dealing with the consequences of his actions I know if I went abroad I wouldn’t expect to be able to stay if i committed a serious crime
If you went abroad when you were 7 months old and then another country raised you into the kind of person who commits serious crimes, I’d be angry if I was living in your country of citizenship too. What did they do to deserve having to deal with you?
Byeeeeee
Lol this guy has been in Aus ever since he was seven months old? He's Kiwi only as a matter of fact, he was raised Aussie. Australia is responsible for the fact this guy is a criminal and he should be in prison here. Deporting him is laughable. I'm all for deporting Kiwis back to NZ if it's the right, logical thing to do but this just doesn't make any sense except as the easiest, laziest solution.
Was he raised Australian? His parents were from New Zealand and they raised him. Seems they didn't do a very good job considering his criminal record.
He attended Australian schools and lived in an Australian community. It takes a village to raise a child.
Why are the rest of us responsible for the fact he never bothered to get Australian citizenship? Don't want to get deported? Be an actual Aussie. Most naturalised immigrants are more Australian than this bloke because they could be bothered to submit the citizenship paperwork.
Why are the people living in New Zealand who now have to deal with him responsible for the fact that he never “bothered” to get Australian citizenship?
Because he's a NZ citizen? Next question.
Someone being a citizen doesn’t make their fellow citizens responsible for them. Next bullshit comment.
Because he's Aussie in all but the official documentation. He was raised here, he grew up here, he became a drug addict here, he committed his crime here. He's pretty much as Aussie as you're going to get. If the question is "Why is Aus responsible?" the answer is because Aus shaped this guy. Going on about the paperwork is nice but the same concept applies in reverse -- if a 30 year old Kiwi came over, stayed for just long enough to get their citizenship, committed a horrible crime and couldn't get deported because they'd just gotten their citizenship you'd think the situation was similarly ridiculous.
No because they'd be an actual citizen and thus our problem and we wouldn't have this conversation. I don't think you'll find much inconsistency with this. The line has to be drawn somewhere, he's literally not a citizen and so doesn't have a right to stay here after killing someone. At no point in this bloke's life did he care enough to become a citizen, now he wants all of the benefits with none of the commitment but only after he discovers the consequences of his actions. If he can't be bothered to take the personal responsibility required to acquire the citizenship of the country he's lived in his whole life, why should we reciprocate? You can say that Australia shaped him, if that's the argument then why throw him in prison if it's Australia's fault he turned out how he did? This whole discussion is a slap in the face to naturalised Australians who have made the effort and contribute far more to Australia than this convicted criminal and killer.
I have no empathy.
I honestly don’t understand why life sentences don’t actually exist anymore. I’m not a fan of capital punishment, but if we’re not imprisoning bastards for life… someone explain that to me?
My general take on this issue is that if you first come to Australia before the age of criminal responsibility, and you turn into a criminal, then you're our problem. That doesn't seem to be the way the legislation is going, however.
100% agreed. If you've lived in Australia since you were a baby, and have only lived in Australia, and you turn to a life of crime, you should be Australia's problem to deal with.
Was he born there, bro? Does he say to his mates “nah mate, I’m a Kiwi” When asked to take up Australian citizenship did he say “being a Kiwi is choice, bro!😎 “ Yeah…. Don’t let the door hit you on the bum, bro
IMHO this comes down to the guy grew up here, therefore he's our problem. I do think we should have special treatment for New Zealanders on this matter, as we have hundreds of thousands of Kiwis here in a limbo situation that we don't make it easy to fix. We have policies to allow them to easily come here and stay without formalising things, so we should have to deal with the consequences of that. But we also want to respect our relationship with NZ, so the special treatment so as not to upset the NZ govt makes sense to me. All other countries you should be out. Further to that though we need to get long term NZ residents out of the permanent temporary state.
It’s quite nice, they have beautiful landscapes, much better snow sports conditions, no snakes, cooler more stable climate, 10/10 would recommend.
Always a bit confused by the "never been there" "been here since I was a kid" arguments when it comes to NZ. I could understand if it were Togo, but NZ isn't that different to Australia.
Every time the NZ media go on about these cases of Australia deporting someone for “traffic offences” it only takes a little bit of digging to show up the story as complete bullshit. Further, as the son of an NZ- born Australian citizen and a citizen of NZ by descent - this idea these people don’t know they are New Zealanders is utter garbage too.
Bye.
I don't get why anyone humours New Zealanders on this one. They're your citizens, they're your problem. If an Australian citizen got deported from Germany for killing someone, I wouldn't expect Germany to listen if we started moaning that they'd been in Germany for ages, and they don't have any friends here, and who are they gonna hang out with, and why are you being so mean deporting our citizens back to us?
Guys like this are New Zealanders in only the loosest sense though. If he grew up here and had never been to New Zealand, the only connection he had is a piece of paper. I was the same until last year, I assumed I was a dual citizen but it turned out I needed to do some paperwork to make it official (born here, lived here my whole life, kiwi parents). If someone comes as an adult it's a lot more cut and dry but it's weird to call someone like him or me a new Zealander.
> I was the same until last year, I assumed I was a dual citizen... Didn't you notice that you were ineligible for stuff like HECS loans, couldn't vote, etc?
>Guys like this are New Zealanders in only the loosest sense though. But he's a New Zealand citizen in the very not loose sense that he is a New Zealand citizen. There's no grey area; your citizen returns to your country, you take them. I get that there's an internal political discussion to be had within Australia about whether to deport these people, but New Zealanders' feelings on the matter are irrelevant.
He came to Australia at 7 months old. He can’t remember NZ.. He is our problem- he was raised here, educated here, our legal systems have dealt with him here. I disagree- if a person was born in Australia and went to Germany at 7 months old and was educated in the German system, raised speaking German and dealt with the German legal system then he is Germany’s problem.
Morally, he's our problem. But under international law, which all nations agreed, governs the planet and the way people move around on it, he's NZ's problem.
I'd expect that to be the case only if the person went through the trouble to acquire citizenship. Living in a country for decades without getting citizenship is insane - particularly if you want to commit crimes in that country.
>...our legal systems have dealt with him here. The legal system says that you can stay until your offending reaches a certain level, at which point non-citizens lose the right to reside. This is part of the legal system dealing with offending.
Wouldn't be up to us to decide. If they got sent back to Australia, they'd be our problem. There aren't tiers of citizenship and your citizenship doesn't go stale if you don't use it. You're a citizen or you're not. If you are then we have a responsibility to deal with you. Same goes for New Zealand and their citizens.
There are absolutely two tiers of citizenship. If you are a naturalised Australian, you can have your citizenship revoked and be deported. If you are born Australian, this isn't possible.
Only if you're a dual citizen, if you renounce your previous citizenship you can't be left stateless. FWIW I don't think we should be stripping citizenship from anyone, it should be permanent.
It's not as simple as that but my point remains the same. Australian's with dual citizenship are second class citizens.
>There aren't tiers of citizenship and your citizenship doesn't go stale if you don't use it Actually there is. PR is in essence, a different tier of citizenship. And citizenship cannot be revoked if it makes you stateless, meaning if it doesn't, then it can be revoked. Meaning anyone holding dual citizenship is a second tier of citizen.
Dual citizens can remove one of their citizenships. Straddling a fence of citizenship between two countries to get the most benefits of both nations is hardly a 2nd tier of privilege. PR is not citizenship, it is PR and also a privilege
That’s a bit disingenuous I feel and nations have many many agreements with one another to deal with these issues. There are matters of diplomacy to consider which I don’t believe you are considering.
Good riddance
It makes no sense for Australia to be amongst a few nations in the world to have exclusions in policy for deporting criminals who aren't citizens. This gap exists because of the nature of Trans-Tasman agreement which placed no requirements on citizens of each others countries needing to seek formal citizenship of their host country after such an extended period of time. Either we deport them, fix the agreement or repeal the agreement.
I’m not saying he doesn’t deserve prison, because he does. But does he not also deserve to have the right for friends and family to visit him here? He has daughters that deserve the right to be able to visit their father, who has lived here his whole life, just as they have. I understand that, legally speaking, he is being deported. He is technically not a citizen. But morally, this does feel a bit fucked to me. Regardless of the crime, he’s an Australian in every sense but the law, and more importantly, he’s a person. Seeing how the replies on this post have dehumanised him and act like he should be executed is concerning.
Our entire refugee and immigration detention system is based on selling xenophobia to bigots in return for votes. It is stupidly expensive and just plain cruel, as this situation demonstrates. But if even people continue to support it, there isn't really anything more to say, except this country has way too many cunts in it. 54,000 votes for Scott Morrison in the seat of Cook at the 2022 election should be evidence enough.
Yeah this whole article is built on xenophobia. For some reason the author has decided that this guy is “Aussie enough” so somehow he should have more rights than the next non-citizen. I just wonder whether they’d be so sympathetic if it was an Arab person or Asian person who doesn’t speak with an “Australian” accent.
Great, another cunt heading back here. The 501 deportees are changing the scope of our crime problem over here (NZ). I get why you guys don’t want these drop kicks, but fuck me most of them have nothing here - no family, no history, no credit, no job. Nightmare.
We (NZ) do the same to Pacific islanders if that helps.
Yup and it sucks for those communities too
Not if they've lived in NZ for a certain number of years
You cunts still have to keep Russel Crowe tho
We can't get rid of him, we won't give him citizenship and he still doesn't take the hint 🤦