The Immigration (Enhanced Risk Management) Amendment Bill, currently before Parliament, would strengthen New Zealand’s deportation settings in a number of meaningful ways. Most notably, it extends the period during which a resident can be deported for serious criminal offending – from 10 years to 20 years. The bill also broadens deportation liability at lower tiers of offending, recognising that the current settings have allowed some serious cases to fall through the gaps.
Under the existing framework in section 161 of the Immigration Act, deportation liability for residence class visa holders is graduated according to both the seriousness of the offending and how long the person has held residence. For offending committed within the first two years of residence, a person can be liable for deportation for an offence carrying a possible prison term of three months or more. Within the first five years, the threshold rises to offences carrying a possible prison term of two years or more. Within the first ten years, a person can be liable if sentenced to five years’ imprisonment or more.
The bill would extend each of those timeframes. The three-month threshold would apply for five years instead of two, the two-year threshold for ten years instead of five, and the five-year sentence threshold for fifteen years instead of ten. It would also add a new twenty-year timeframe for residence class visa holders sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment or more.
This is a welcome step. But it raises a fundamental question: if twenty years is justified for the most serious offenders, why stop there? Why should deportation liability expire at all for a resident who commits a serious crime?
A violent or predatory crime doesn’t become less serious with time. Setting an expiry date on deportation liability implies that an offence somehow becomes less offensive over the years – an idea that would be insulting to any victim. The harm is permanent; the consequences should reflect that.
This also leads to a commonsense question. If someone has lived in New Zealand for two decades, why haven’t they become a citizen?
For anyone truly committed to this country, citizenship is the natural final step. It is the point at which a person formally becomes part of New Zealand’s national family, with all the rights and responsibilities that entails. The pathway is clear and the requirements are well-understood.
So if a long-term resident hasn’t taken that step, we have to ask why.
Perhaps they simply aren’t that committed to being a New Zealander. If so, it is hard to argue that New Zealand owes them a permanent, unconditional right to remain if they go on to betray our country’s hospitality by committing a serious crime.
But there is a more serious possibility. What if they are committed, and have tried to become a citizen, but were rejected? The most likely reason for that is failing the character requirements that every aspiring citizen must meet.
The character test is our basic safeguard. It exists to ensure that those granted the full rights of a New Zealander share our fundamental values, including respect for the law. If a person has been formally assessed as not meeting that standard, then allowing them to remain indefinitely – even after committing a serious crime – makes a mockery of the process. It puts the rights of a convicted criminal ahead of the safety of the community.
The distinction between a resident and a citizen must mean something. For law-abiding residents, it is simply a step on a journey. But for a serious criminal, that distinction must be our safeguard. The principle is simple: if you are not a citizen and you commit a serious crime, you forfeit the privilege of living here. Time should be no defence.
Parmjeet Parmar is a current ACT MP with a PhD in Biological Sciences, she has worked as as scientist, businesswoman and broadcaster.
7 comments:
There is also no reason a resident should have a vote in our elections, this should be reserved for citizens.
But Ardern (now Dame) declared that criminals are victims too and must be treated with kindness & compassion. Who are we mere mortals to question the wisdom of such a saintly person?
Do you think that NZ "is to PC' when it comes to extending a Visa, particularly on the basis the applicant seeks to become a resident.
How many of past times, have we had MSM reports of a "person" being detained and facing deportation - to find that a Legal Counsel, in Court goes to great lengths to ensure said person if NOT deported.
At this point I cast my "vision" across the 'ditch' and what Australia has done for many Years with those entering Australia.
For New Zealander's, entry was a "free pass", but you abided by the Law.
We saw just how Australia delt with those who "broke the law", for NZ they became the 501's, and we got to read that many had gone from NZ, with a criminal background, broke the law and got sent home.
No if's, no but's.
There are other stories of children of NZ parents being born in Aussie, and some being sent back to NZ because they "broke a law" and citizenship could not be verified.
And also recall, that Ardern, asked Albanese - "to be kind" on these people.
Just keep in mind, we also sent Aussie's home, but they did not get the NZ MSM (farewell) "fanfare" when it happened.
Many other Law abiding Kiwi's who sought to become Citizens in Australia - and I am told the "ladder" they had to climb to get there became insurmountable - that many gave up.
This changed with Ardern and her "talk with Albo" to loosen the requirements - our MSM then related stories of former Kiwis becoming Citizens.
Just keep in mind the many NZder's, who have resided there, for sometime, have not bothered and probably will not bother.
This approach to "amending a law" and the interpretation thereof - if what is proposed (as per this article) - just how will Legal Counsel apply?
I think of a statement - "Every Law created, there are loop holes".
A simplistic take on a complex issue. I don't disagree with most of it, but there are glaring holes. Still, hey ho, it's an election year after all!
It really is simplistic, we lived in Australia and became dual citizens of both countries.
We returned to NZ while our daughter lives and works in Australia.
We treat both countries as home and respect all their laws and customs.
Citizenship is a responsibility, if you stupidly reject the inherent responsibilities then you forfeit the right to citizenship and can bugger off.
Consider the case of a friend of mine. When he was a baby, his family moved to NZ from a European country as invited and paid for by the NZ government which at that time sought workers. He has lived in NZ ever since, the only life he knows. As an adult he has always worked and paid taxes over decades, has served as a volunteer firefighter and contributed in many other ways. No criminal history. His country of birth does not allow dual citizenship, otherwise he would have gained NZ citizenship a long time ago. However, he wanted to retain his European citizenship that allows him to move and work freely throughout EU countries (even England until a few years ago). Now imagine if an Adern-type government passed a hate-speech law with significant punitive tariff. Then imagine my friend unwittingly broke that law by posting some truth on social media about low life in his neighbourhood and mentioning their racial group, or perhaps misgendering someone, or calling to ban men in dresses from female sports codes. As is currently happening in Starmer's England, he is then convicted of the hurty-words crime and this allows him to be deported. Yay for everyone, huh?
Keep in mind also that Courts are not equipped with godly knowledge of the truth. They merely follow a process to decide if the prosecution's case was convincing enough. Appeals mainly only check whether the process was followed correctly, though they can take into account new evidence arising. False convictions are not rare. Surely some consideration of dangerousness, individual history and circumstances is in order before imposing the huge additional cruelty of deportation?
And of course there are many reasons why residents should be allowed to vote. Remembering that residency is still something one applies for and has to meet conditions for.
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.