Parley Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 Meanwhile back in your homeland. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29715630 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Que Sera Sera Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 "They came at me at 3:30 in the morning. We were fast asleep. They didn't warn us and say get on the ground. They came in with batons and shields and just started giving it to us. I was scared for my life." Did he stop to think that maybe this is how his victims felt when he robbed them, did they not wonder what the hell was happening ?? where they not scared for their lives ?? Id say its called Karma and his criminal past as well and truly bitten him on his butt. Cal x Absolutely this! We were burgled back in the UK on our wedding day. We arrived home to find our house completely wrecked and everything of value gone. My Husband worked nights and I couldnt sleep for about 6 months, I went to bed with a personal alarm and a baseball bat. This thug deserves all he gets and his family will be better off without him. He wasn't a Citizen so I can't see how his rights have been eroded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starlight7 Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 He can go back to New Zealand permanently. A nice first world country with plenty to eat and shelter. No issue. They can look after him there. To trivialise the quotation about the Nazis makes me sick, frankly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robfromdublin Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 You would only have to be a concerned Muslim or any other citizen if you are planning on committing a crime rob. What's your status? Have you got PR or are you on a working visa or 457 maybe? You're average Muslim with citizenship needs to be less worried than anyone on a 457 I would think. As for trying to equate not paying your car rego with aggravated burglary, for which he got 2 years, is just a crazy argument. The argument is eroding of citizen's or resident's rights. OK I picked an extreme example of car rego, but the argument still stands. I'm sure you can think up an example of someone who is party to a crime but their offence has mitigating circumstances or the crime is relatively minor. Should they be removed from the country forever, even if all of their family is here and they've lived here almost all their life? Taking parents away from children? Is that proportional to the crime? And the key thing here is that you do NOT have to be committed of a crime. This guy was, fair enough, but there is absolutely no requirement for a crime to be committed under this legislation. All you have to do is piss off the minister. I would argue that if you are to be removed under this 'character' test then it should be tested in a court of law with a jury of your peers. The Muslim example was because there has been such excitable rhetoric from the media and the government over Muslim extremists. I could certainly envisage a scenario in which someone could be considered to fail the character test because they 'associate' with extremists (just like QLD's bikie association laws). By going to a mosque that also has extremists attending you could fail that test and be exiled. And the issue here is that they are considering doing that not just for residents, but also for citizens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flag of convenience Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 We have always deported non citizen criminals.Nothing new at all. Nothing to the extent as has occurred in more recent times. The Americans ramped it up under Bush and we followed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robfromdublin Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 He can go back to New Zealand permanently. A nice first world country with plenty to eat and shelter. No issue. They can look after him there. To trivialise the quotation about the Nazis makes me sick, frankly. That hardly trivialises it. It's what the quote was meant to convey. Look, I don't consider myself a bleeding-heart liberal (liberal in the way it is meant to be, not in the confusing Liberal way) but there has to be some proportionality here. For sure, deport a 457 who has only been here a couple of years and has a lot of ties to another country. Do NOT take a mother or father away from their child. This guy clearly has ties to Australia more than any other country. He has more ties here than some pom who came over 10 years ago and has family elsewhere. Why should he be subject to permanent exile away from all his loved ones, while someone who just passed their citizenship can commit the same crime and get a vastly different sentence? In a country that considers itself to give a 'fair go'? No wonder John Key had a spray at Bishop over it. Also, my understanding is that NZ citizens who want to get PR or citizenship are subject to the same rules as everyone else and the same visa costs. Not everyone has the appropriate skills or enough money for a visa to be able to buy one, especially if you already have the right to live & work here. Would it be a priority for you if you were struggling to put food on the table for your loved ones? No, me neither. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flag of convenience Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 He can go back to New Zealand permanently. A nice first world country with plenty to eat and shelter. No issue. They can look after him there. To trivialise the quotation about the Nazis makes me sick, frankly. Rather apt though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booma Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 good riddance. if he was worried about being with his family he should have thought about them before he committed his crimes. i feel more sorry for his victims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robfromdublin Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 OK that's fine. Do you think all people who commit the same crime should have the same punishment? Or do you think it should be one rule for a certain group of people and another rule for a different group? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booma Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 OK that's fine. Do you think all people who commit the same crime should have the same punishment? Or do you think it should be one rule for a certain group of people and another rule for a different group? they should be be able to send anyone who wasnt born in oz back where they came from if they commit crimes. i think all countries should do that. citizenship of a country you werent born in is a privilege not a right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harpodom Posted October 1, 2015 Author Share Posted October 1, 2015 OK that's fine. Do you think all people who commit the same crime should have the same punishment? Or do you think it should be one rule for a certain group of people and another rule for a different group? that, obviously. Brings to mind Morrison's 'behaviour contract' that asylum seekers are forced to sign in order to be released from detention. In that, there are the most vague set of proscribed activities, such as 'antisocial behaviour', or anything that upsets the enjoyment of this grate land for other more worthy people, all of which result in a return to detention. Proportional? Fair? Due process? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harpodom Posted October 1, 2015 Author Share Posted October 1, 2015 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-29/refugee-code-of-conduct-stressful-asylum-seekers-say/5923700 Part of the code requires asylum seekers not to "engage in any anti-social or disruptive activities that are inconsiderate, disrespectful or threaten the peaceful enjoyment of other members of the community". Immigration Minister Scott Morrison said the code was a way of protecting the Australian community and its values. In a statement, Mr Morrison said the code was introduced to: provide a strong and enforceable reminder of the behaviour that is expected of people living in the community on a bridging E visa (BVE); provide the opportunity for early warning, educative and preventative measures to be taken before more serious behavioural problems can arise; and encourage cooperation with the immigration department to resolve immigration status. "It is government policy and will remain a condition of being granted a bridging visa," he said. However, asylum seekers such as "Karim", a Hazara Afghan using an alias so as not to be identified, said he and his friends stayed at home most days out of fear of breaching the code. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robfromdublin Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 they should be be able to send anyone who wasnt born in oz back where they came from if they commit crimes. i think all countries should do that. citizenship of a country you werent born in is a privilege not a right. The right to change citizenship is actually a human right under the UN. Do you have a feel for where the line is drawn on a crime? Robbery? Non-payment of fines? That guy who drove after a big night out because he had a pressing engagement and got done for drink-driving? The world is full of grey areas. A just society has to recognise these and legislate accordingly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toOZ2012 Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 they should be be able to send anyone who wasnt born in oz back where they came from if they commit crimes. i think all countries should do that. citizenship of a country you werent born in is a privilege not a right. Punishment should fit the crime. He did his time and they should let him be as he is practically a local rather than going on a witch hunt. Not all countries grant citizenship by Jus Soli. Should people who were born elsewhere to Australian parents be stripped of their citizenship too? Citizenship should be about calling a place home and about ties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VERYSTORMY Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 Punishment should fit the crime. He did his time and they should let him be as he is practically a local rather than going on a witch hunt. Not all countries grant citizenship by Jus Soli. Should people who were born elsewhere to Australian parents be stripped of their citizenship too? Citizenship should be about calling a place home and about ties. I would argue the punishment is fitting the crime. It is well known that Australia - like many other countries - deports convicted criminals that are present as visa holders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toOZ2012 Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 I would argue the punishment is fitting the crime. It is well known that Australia - like many other countries - deports convicted criminals that are present as visa holders. The guy has been here for 26 years that's more than most migrants. The only mistake(other than actual crime) he did was not to get citizenship. If a migrant got his citizenship and commits a crime, he would be jailed and let go once the sentence is complete. I am arguing that he is practically a citizen and his 26 years here(he is only 29) should count for something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boganbear Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 I haven't got much sympathy for him. Armed robbery is pretty serious and it's not in the same league as a speeding fine. The terms of his visa essentially are that he can live permanently, providing he behaves himself. He didn't behave himself so he loses his right to be here. If the UK had the balls to get rid of the Human Rights Act, it could deport thousands of foreign criminals, save millions looking after them in prisons or on benefits. Instead, the UK has to put up with these bad apples who take the piss because of this silly law and the connivance of the judicial system. The HRA has been good in some ways to protect the ordinary person from a bullying or abusive state but if you commit a crime you lose your right to be in the country. It could learn a lot from Australia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harpodom Posted October 1, 2015 Author Share Posted October 1, 2015 The guy has been here for 26 years that's more than most migrants. The only mistake(other than actual crime) he did was not to get citizenship. If a migrant got his citizenship and commits a crime, he would be jailed and let go once the sentence is complete. I am arguing that he is practically a citizen and his 26 years here(he is only 29) should count for something. I honestly think people don't give a $hite until or unless they themselves are in the firing line, on the receiving end, so to speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 I highly doubt this was his first offence and if it was it must have been a very bad assult along with the burglary to get a two year sentence. He's not the first non citizen to be detained with a view to be deported due to criminal behaviour. The rules are quite clear your PR status is safe as long as you behave ( ie Don't commit crimes). I feel for his partner and child of course but he did the crime and must live with the outcome. My partner has had PR for thirty years is he concerned about losing it no because he doesn't do crimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harpodom Posted October 1, 2015 Author Share Posted October 1, 2015 interesting.. http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/oct/01/influx-of-501s-into-detention-centres-sparks-outbreak-of-violence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARYROSE02 Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me. http://www.smh.com.au/national/kiwis-held-on-christmas-island-as-visas-revoked-20150929-gjx0cl Harpo, defender of the Jews? No way are you a supporter of the state of Israel. And as for this guy, well he is a convicted and violent criminal, and many countries deport people with records like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.