advertised New Zealand once again as the number-one soft touch for illegal immigrants
I never thought in my wildest nightmares that I might or could wholeheartedly agree with the number one bauble counter, but 'trust me, vote-for-me' Winnie has hit the nail on the head.
This criminal rocks up at the front gate, having flushed a false passport down the bog as the plane lands, is a convicted terrorist and then asks for clemency. And what does the soft cock NZ government do? It allows said criminal to twist our soft immigration laws to suit himself to the point now, where the powers consider the risk to be minimal. Also of note in recent times, the criminal is suddenly
no longer a threat to New Zealand was that he had become "more candid" in his disclosures to authoritiesSo he was a risk initially and was rightly locked up for that risk. The corrupt government, ever more desperate to clutch at eternal power from the ballot box have decided it is time to be shot of this millstone. This criminal should have never been let into NZ.
Once a terrorist, always a terrorist, just like the rabid greenie MP Locke and the trough slurping lawyer who showed support for this cause, they will never change their spots. This episode will come back to bite NZ - he and any others of his ilk, such as the recently conveniently converted, should be deported the same day they arrive, without any further questions.
If I were to do the same at the border in the US of A, where could I expect to be? Do not pass go, do not collect a legal aid lawyer, proceed directly to Gitmo! That is what should have happened here, but we are too soft for these terrorists who know every trick and how to bend specific countries laws.
Keep the pressure on Winnie and enjoy your last twelve months playing with Helen's baubles.
Posts
1 comment:
here are two online polls, one in Stuff and the other in the NZ Herald asking whether this was the right decision.
To my surprise, the majority in both polls says "no".
Yet the media is in full apologist mode for this bastard, who has cost us, the taxpayers over 3 million dollars so far.
As for the assurance that he's told the SIS "everything he knows".....
and pigs might fly.
Same for the assurance that the SIS will be "keeping an eye" on him. What the hell?? More taxpayer's dollars, if they actually do keep him under observation which I very much doubt.
This decision is a disgrace and a farce and the cow of a lawyer who's sucked up so many taxpayer's dollars ought to be made to pay it back. Very easy, ain't it to "fight for justice" on someone else's dollar?
Post a Comment