Terrorist Attack in Auckland, New Zealand

[Antipatros]

New Zealand tried to deport attacker for years after he arrived as refugee

[Outer Sparta]

New Zealand tried to deport attacker for years after he arrived as refugee

Interesting, considering the fact the suspect has exhibited plenty of red flags and other shady activities. Fraudulently obtaining refugee status obviously stands out, as well as the government's attempts to deport him.

[Antipatros]

New Zealand tried to deport attacker for years after he arrived as refugee

Interesting, considering the fact the suspect has exhibited plenty of red flags and other shady activities. Fraudulently obtaining refugee status obviously stands out, as well as the government's attempts to deport him.

It kinda sounds like NZ's counter-terrorism/immigration laws are not strong enough.

If you come in on a refugee visa (or apply for refugee status after coming in through some other means) and subsequently draw the attention of police for supporting violent extremism or designated terrorist groups, you should probably be deported pretty rapidly after that.

[The Reformed American Republic]

Interesting, considering the fact the suspect has exhibited plenty of red flags and other shady activities. Fraudulently obtaining refugee status obviously stands out, as well as the government's attempts to deport him.

It kinda sounds like NZ's counter-terrorism/immigration laws are not strong enough.

If you come in on a refugee visa (or apply for refugee status after coming in through some other means) and subsequently draw the attention of police for supporting violent extremism or designated terrorist groups, you should probably be deported pretty rapidly after that.

Indeed, and doing so is not racism or anything else but a government doing its job.

[Azania-]

It kinda sounds like NZ's counter-terrorism/immigration laws are not strong enough.

If you come in on a refugee visa (or apply for refugee status after coming in through some other means) and subsequently draw the attention of police for supporting violent extremism or designated terrorist groups, you should probably be deported pretty rapidly after that.

Indeed, and doing so is not racism or anything else but a government doing its job.

I don't think anyone apart from a few crazies would think that. There's always gonna be people who disagree with anything a government does.

[Vassenor]

Indeed, and doing so is not racism or anything else but a government doing its job.

I don't think anyone apart from a few crazies would think that. There's always gonna be people who disagree with anything a government does.

Yes but some people are salty that there are objections to their other strategy which is just to deport all the people who share a demographic factor with the attacker(s).

[Cetacea]

Three of seven New Zealand attack victims are in critical condition - PM

Also the attacker was a refugee, so prepare for nationalist paranoia

I mean that was going to happen anyway. Every Islamist or probable Islamist incident is always followed by loud demands for ethnic cleansing from the right.

Not in New Zealand. Fortunately NZ doesnt have a credible/prominent Right, the country is firmly centrist, so though we make get some immigration rumblings, and a few racists, calls for ethnic cleansing isnt a factor - even now the loudest voices decrying the incident are from the Sri Lankan community.

Interesting, considering the fact the suspect has exhibited plenty of red flags and other shady activities. Fraudulently obtaining refugee status obviously stands out, as well as the government's attempts to deport him.

It kinda sounds like NZ's counter-terrorism/immigration laws are not strong enough.

If you come in on a refugee visa (or apply for refugee status after coming in through some other means) and subsequently draw the attention of police for supporting violent extremism or designated terrorist groups, you should probably be deported pretty rapidly after that.

yeah unfortunately Refugee is a protected status, revoking this persons status was going through the court process but he was challenging it, and the courts had ruled that a refugee can not be detained until the court finalized their decision.

[Outer Sparta]

Interesting, considering the fact the suspect has exhibited plenty of red flags and other shady activities. Fraudulently obtaining refugee status obviously stands out, as well as the government's attempts to deport him.

It kinda sounds like NZ's counter-terrorism/immigration laws are not strong enough.

If you come in on a refugee visa (or apply for refugee status after coming in through some other means) and subsequently draw the attention of police for supporting violent extremism or designated terrorist groups, you should probably be deported pretty rapidly after that.

Yep, as mentioned in the article, there's definitely a big loophole with NZ's counter-terrorism laws. I am generally for accepting refugees and whatnot, but the minute they show extremist tendencies and other suspicious signs (coming in with a fraudulent refugee visa or status), then that's when you should draw the line.

[Forsher]

Interesting, considering the fact the suspect has exhibited plenty of red flags and other shady activities. Fraudulently obtaining refugee status obviously stands out, as well as the government's attempts to deport him.

It kinda sounds like NZ's counter-terrorism/immigration laws are not strong enough.

If you come in on a refugee visa (or apply for refugee status after coming in through some other means) and subsequently draw the attention of police for supporting violent extremism or designated terrorist groups, you should probably be deported pretty rapidly after that.

Yeah, no.

You shouldn't be deported for having fraudulent documents until they're able to prove you used fraudulent documents. (And, incidentally, the standard for fraudulent documents are ludicrously stringent lax, basically anything can be... NZ has extremely cruel immigration policies; it just skates under the radar because Australia is right over there.)

Stripping citizenships from terrorists is immoral. Stripping immigration statuses from people who are suspected of having done something (seriously, the main evidence for "this person had planned an attack" was "he bought a knife") and who are suspected of having illegally obtained said status is a violation of the rule of law in general and "innocent until proven guilty".

Deporting people for being of a bad character is literally the main cause of deteriorating relationships with Australia. It's fucked up. And using it as an excuse for getting rid of people like this guy, will, as Australia conveniently shows, very quickly degenerate into getting rid of people you, as a country, fucked up.

I know everyone's on a massive power trip right now, but if you can legally surveil someone close enough to shoot them dead within 2 minutes of an attack (possibly it was within 60 seconds, I can't remember if it was "after" or "within"), you probably don't need more powers.

[Antipatros]

It kinda sounds like NZ's counter-terrorism/immigration laws are not strong enough.

If you come in on a refugee visa (or apply for refugee status after coming in through some other means) and subsequently draw the attention of police for supporting violent extremism or designated terrorist groups, you should probably be deported pretty rapidly after that.

Yeah, no.

You shouldn't be deported for having fraudulent documents until they're able to prove you used fraudulent documents. (And, incidentally, the standard for fraudulent documents are ludicrously stringent... NZ has extremely cruel immigration policies; it just skates under the radar because Australia is right over there.)

Stripping citizenships from terrorists is immoral. Stripping immigration statuses from people who are suspected of having done something (seriously, the main evidence for "this person had planned an attack" was "he bought a knife") and who are suspected of having illegally obtained said status is a violation of the rule of law in general and "innocent until proven guilty".

Deporting people for being of a bad character is literally the main cause of deteriorating relationships with Australia. It's fucked up. And using it as an excuse for getting rid of people like this guy, will, as Australia conveniently shows, very quickly degenerate into getting rid of people you, as a country, fucked up.

I know everyone's on a massive power trip right now, but if you can legally surveil someone close enough to shoot them dead within 2 minutes of an attack (possibly it was within 60 seconds, I can't remember if it was "after" or "within"), you probably don't need more powers.

Samsudeen was not a citizen of New Zealand, as far as I can tell. He was a permanent resident. Please correct me if I'm wrong on that.

This guy has been on the radar of authorities since 2016, and has been arrested repeatedly for problematic behavior (possession of extremist materials like beheading videos, purchasing a knife while on bail for extremism/weapons charges, assaulting corrections officers while behind bars, etc.). That simply shouldn't happen. This guy should have been deported years ago.

New Zealand should be proud that it welcomes refugees, but it should also maintain a low tolerance for terrorism and violent extremism.

[Costa Fierro]

Samsudeen was not a citizen of New Zealand, as far as I can tell. He was a permanent resident. Please correct me if I'm wrong on that.

He was a permanent resident, and yes, permanent residents have rights.

This guy has been on the radar of authorities since 2016, and has been arrested repeatedly for problematic behavior (possession of extremist materials like beheading videos, purchasing a knife while on bail for extremism/weapons charges, assaulting corrections officers while behind bars, etc.). That simply shouldn't happen. This guy should have been deported years ago.

Sure, but deporting someone who has residency is difficult for obvious reasons, especially moreso if that residency came as a result for something such as refugee status. It should be difficult to strip residency from refugees.

That said, New Zealand still deports dozens of people a year; mostly Pasifika people.

New Zealand should be proud that it welcomes refugees, but it should also maintain a low tolerance for terrorism and violent extremism.

It doesn't. The fact that the state was trying every single legal avenue to keep this person behind bars or have them deported is proof that the government has a low tolerance of extremists and terrorists; even more so when you consider that it was still actively trying to push through changes to existing terrorism laws (themselves rushed through after March 15, 2019) that would have meant the government could charge him and keep him in prison.

But there is a balancing act here.

That balancing act involves not only protecting New Zealanders, but also ensuring that we have a good legal framework that protects people who acquire residency or citizenship. We've seen with the large number of 503 deportees coming back from Australia what happens when we become too eager to strip citizenship or permanent residency from people.

[Costa Fierro]

Part of me has to wonder if this could be a revenge attack for the Mosque shootings.

Unlikely. The individual in question had previously been arrested at the border as he wanted to travel to Syria and had also been in and out of prison in the years prior to being sentenced to a year's supervision for the latest round of charges including possession of banned publications (IS propaganda) as well as dangerous weapons (hunting knives). It's very likely whatever he was planning was prevented by the continuous surveillance and that it was more opportunistic.

[The Reformed American Republic]

I don't think anyone apart from a few crazies would think that. There's always gonna be people who disagree with anything a government does.

Yes but some people are salty that there are objections to their other strategy which is just to deport all the people who share a demographic factor with the attacker(s).

And they're wrong too.

[Forsher]

Samsudeen was not a citizen of New Zealand, as far as I can tell. He was a permanent resident. Please correct me if I'm wrong on that.

He was a permanent resident, and yes, permanent residents have rights.

This guy has been on the radar of authorities since 2016, and has been arrested repeatedly for problematic behavior (possession of extremist materials like beheading videos, purchasing a knife while on bail for extremism/weapons charges, assaulting corrections officers while behind bars, etc.). That simply shouldn't happen. This guy should have been deported years ago.

Sure, but deporting someone who has residency is difficult for obvious reasons, especially moreso if that residency came as a result for something such as refugee status. It should be difficult to strip residency from refugees.

That said, New Zealand still deports dozens of people a year; mostly Pasifika people.

New Zealand should be proud that it welcomes refugees, but it should also maintain a low tolerance for terrorism and violent extremism.

It doesn't. The fact that the state was trying every single legal avenue to keep this person behind bars or have them deported is proof that the government has a low tolerance of extremists and terrorists; even more so when you consider that it was still actively trying to push through changes to existing terrorism laws (themselves rushed through after March 15, 2019) that would have meant the government could charge him and keep him in prison.

But there is a balancing act here.

That balancing act involves not only protecting New Zealanders, but also ensuring that we have a good legal framework that protects people who acquire residency or citizenship. We've seen with the large number of 503 deportees coming back from Australia what happens when we become too eager to strip citizenship or permanent residency from people.

Exactly.