Time for New Zealand to grow some balls on criminal deportations

New Zealand has always prided itself on being welcoming and fair, but fairness cuts both ways. If people choose to come here and build a life, they also choose to respect our laws and the social contract that holds this country together. When they break that contract in a serious way, our current immigration rules are far too soft. It is time for New Zealand to grow some balls and start treating this issue with the seriousness it deserves.

Right now, a foreign national can commit significant offences here and still find a way to stay. We get tied up in bureaucratic appeals or human rights arguments that ignore the rights of the public to feel safe. Australia, for all its faults, understood this long ago. Their 501 laws draw a clear line. If you are not a citizen and you commit a crime punishable by more than twelve months imprisonment, you are gone. No endless back and forth, no drawn out appeals. They protect their borders, their communities and their national interest.

New Zealand’s approach feels timid by comparison. We have situations where serious offenders remain here through layers of legal loopholes that ordinary New Zealanders could never access. It sends a terrible message. It tells would-be criminals that this country will bend over backwards for them, and it tells victims that their safety comes second. That is not the type of country we should be building.

This needs to apply across the board, including asylum seekers and anyone else who enters the country and then chooses to abuse that generosity. Seeking protection does not give someone a free pass to harm others. Compassion is important, but compassion without boundaries is simply weakness in disguise. If you repay refuge with violent or serious criminal behaviour, you should lose the privilege of staying here.

Critics will call this harsh. They will say deportation is cruel or unfair. But what is truly unfair is allowing dangerous people to remain in our communities after they have proven they have no respect for the country that took them in. What is unfair is expecting New Zealanders to shoulder the burden of repeated offending because politicians are too scared of being called insensitive. What is unfair is letting ideology override common sense.

If you enjoyed this piece, consider supporting my work by becoming a paid subscriber or, if you’d rather keep it casual, shout me a beer. Every bit helps keep independent writing alive.

A tougher stance will not fix every problem in our justice system, but it will draw a line in the sand. It will show that our laws mean something. It will tell the world that if you come here, you are welcome, but you must also live up to the standards that make this country worth moving to in the first place.

New Zealand deserves immigration rules that protect the public, respect victims and send a clear signal that serious criminal behaviour by foreign nationals will not be tolerated. It is time to adopt a stronger, clearer, Australia style threshold and start backing our own safety for once. It is time for New Zealand to grow some balls.

---

I wrote the above piece a few days ago, and the case below only drives the point home. Again, we are seeing another violent case involving a recent migrant before our courts, reinforcing the argument that deportation must be on the table. The pattern is becoming impossible to ignore.

Defence insists murder accused had ‘no reason to harm’ victim

Murder accused Rajinder in the High Court at Dunedin 17th November 2025.

A Dunedin newlywed was stabbed at least 46 times, with his killer attempting to decapitate him, the High Court has heard. Rajinder, 35, who arrived in New Zealand in 2015, is on trial for the murder of 27-year-old Gurjit Singh, whose bloodied body was found at his Liberton home on 29 January last year. Crown prosecutor Robin Bates said CCTV showed the defendant buying gloves, a scarf and a knife just hours before the attack, and DNA analysis linked blood and even a hair found in the victim’s hand to him with “extremely strong scientific certainty”. Blood matching Mr Singh was also found in Rajinder’s car. The Crown says the evidence points “fairly and squarely” at the accused as the killer.

The defence argues there is no motive and that Rajinder had no reason to harm a man he previously worked with and remained on good terms with. Rajinder told police he had been giving his wife a late-night driving lesson and lied about a hand injury, later backtracking when confronted with CCTV. He insisted it was “impossible” he had been at the scene. Defence counsel Katy Barker urged the jury to consider whether others in the victim’s life should be scrutinised, stressing the defendant does not need to prove his innocence. The trial before Justice Rachel Dunningham is set for three weeks.