ian360

Thank you, Zet01. Your advice has been most helpful. I really appreciate it. Yes, here is hoping to a positive outcome for everybody. :) Thanks again.

Ah that is good then Dee. Good luck with your interview and I hope that your ceremony will be at the same time. I am sure that it will be.

Thank you Zet01. Yes I have been checking the spam also. I am sure it will arrive soon then. Thank you so much for responding.

Thank you for responding. Yes we did that - I think it also asked if you would like to take the ceremony at the same time as another person, and we linked it here too.

Hello all,

Just a quick question here. My wife and I applied for our citizenship last December at the same time. We applied to the Perth office. My wife received an email last week requesting that she goes for the citizenship interview and test, however I did not receive anything as of yet. We were wondering if this is normal to process applications at different times despite us both applying at the same time? Or have they forgotten all about me?  I hope this question makes sense.

Thank you in advance.

Ian

1 hour ago, peterson said:

Computer

Is it using a touch screen thing, or is using a mouse? I ask because I have a bit of a disability that makes some computer work a bit tricky.

Myself and my wife are currently putting together our citizenship applications. On the residence calculator at the bottom it says…

—————————————————

If any of the following applied to you in the past 4 years, please telephone the Citizenship Information Line on 131 880 during business hours to discuss your circumstances.

• You obtained an e-visa to replace an expired Resident Return Visa (RRV)
• You obtained a bridging visa of any type
• You lodged an onshore application for a permanent visa then travelled overseas on your temporary visa
• You are a New Zealand citizen on a Special Category Visa (SCV)

—————————————————

My wife was on a Bridging Visa A from 30 January 2014 to 9 September 2014 while she was waiting for her permanent partner visa to be processed. Does anybody know what are the reasons immigration need us to call them for?

Hey Kimmy... I am in a similar situation to you. Did you have to get many penal clearance certificates from the various countries? This will take me forever!!!!

8 minutes ago, Erica Smith said:

A win!!!!!!

 

 

Erical, BREAKING NEWS: a win for multicultural Australia I wanted you to know straight away, just moments ago, the Senate here in the Australian Parliamentthrew out the Government’s changes to Australia citizenship laws. That means they have said no to the university level English test. It means they have said no to the three year additional wait that was going to cause some people to wait more than ten years before they got to become Australian citizens. Because of the university English test, some people were going to live here their entire working lives and were never going to be able to become Australian citizens. So right now, we’ve just had the win that you’ve been campaigning for. I want to give you full credit, because let’s not pretend this was done by members of Parliament. This was done by an extraordinary community activism that you were part of and you made sure that you never wasted a conversation. This will make a real difference to the lives of people who will become good Australian citizens. This will make a massive difference in people’s lives. And will guarantee that a whole lot of people who were never going to hear the words ‘Welcome home’ will now be able to make a pledge of commitment to Australia. Now the Government may well have another go at this. The Government may well come back and try again. So, if you are eligible for Australian citizenship under current law my advice is don't waste time. Get your application in under current law. Get your application in before the government tries to do this again. I was Minister for Citizenship for a time and when I was, I got to write the message that was read out of every citizenship ceremony and the message that I had finished with the words ‘Welcome home.’ We want to be able to say ‘welcome home’ to you. Those of you who are ready to become good Australian citizens, those of you who are ready to make your pledge of commitment to Australia. Get your applications in. Make the application go through the existing test. Make your pledge of commitment to this country and the Labor Party will be very, very proud to say back to you ‘welcome home’. No doubt the government will come back. There will be another attempt at this. But right now enjoy the victory, enjoy the moment and know your activism made this happen.     Congratulations.   Tony.         Authorised by T. Burke, Level 2 Roselands Shopping Centre, Roselands Drive, Roselands, NSW 2196 Sent via ActionNetwork.org. To update your email address, change your name or address, or to stop receiving emails from Tony Burke, please click here.

 

 

 

Happy days!!!!!

37 minutes ago, ozpursuit said:

I forgive the myopic view of this person (and the other person who came before, and those who will come after) and I rise above those who use deprecating words. They are uncalled for, non-constructive, does not invite nor contribute to a meaningful discussion.

Supposed the bill was founded on greater integration and contribution, 4 years on PR is harsh to those who were on temporary visa and has become PR for a year and qualified for citizenship. Their contribution will not compare to the contribution and degree of integration just because as much as there may be minute similarities, they are different. They do not compare does not mean the other has greater or lesser contribution or degree of integration. Although tax paid is quantifiable, it's hard to quantify integration. Hence the conundrum in some provisions of the bill. I concede that the post could have been clearer to include other aspects of contribution such as contribution to innovative research (for PhD students), community volunteer work, cultural exchange and a whole lot more. The point you raise is so true ian360 (The thing I don't understand is the argument I am seeing on here about who pays the most tax). Those advertising the obscene amount of tax money they pay to the government seem to want to justify that they are worthy of citizenship when what I was hoping was the discussion of the issues of A and B or those who have been on provisional visa before PR, or those who have been partners, or those who were in special circumstances. 

Fact check:

students are only allowed to work 20 hours per week - depends if you're undergraduate or graduate student, could be full time hours on term breaks

But then again, given the misgivings of my post, I think just because tax money is very quantifiable some people are fixated to zoom in on that.

Well to be fair, this kinda clears up your points for me. Thank you for the update, ozpursuit.

The thing I don't understand is the argument I am seeing on here about who pays the most tax. I was unaware that worthiness to citizenship was based on how much tax people pay. Surely there has to be more to a person's eligibility than how much tax they pay or have paid? My memory is a little hazy about the PR rules now as I originally got my PR back in 2003. I remember I got in due to my teaching qualifications and experience, I was fluent in English and I was under 30 years old. I remember they had a list of jobs and skills they needed, and if you had any of those skills, the right amount of experience, could speak English and were a certain age, then you were in and could apply.

To my knowledge, being a student does not equate to the skills needed for PR, but possibly the end product would be (ie... you become an engineer or doctor etc). To try to make out that a student has been paying more taxes and is therefore more worthy seems to be missing the point. Surely it is about skills and what you as an individual can bring to Australia as a whole? If you have what they need and/or want then you have a good chance of success. 

1 minute ago, Vic154 said:

 

Because I guess I was a bit naive to the visa system and didn't realise PR was possible straight away in my occupation. At the time I was just happy to be offered sponsorship on a 457 and two year wait seemed fine. Then I ended up changing jobs...

 

I understand. In this case, this is not a good situation for you.

11 minutes ago, Vic154 said:

I agree that the whole 4 yr PR rule is harsh. I've been here 5 years on a 457, I should have PR by next year which will mean 10yrs before citizenship.

Now someone who arrives today straight on a PR visa will end up getting their citizenship before me! Despite me living and working here for 5 more years!

What is the difference between how I have lived my life during the last 5 yrs vs how I would have lived had I been on a PR visa? None! I would still have done the same job, paid the same taxes, joined the same clubs, lived the same Australian values, etc etc

That is why that rule is unfair in my opinion. I live my life the same way and contribute just as much as someone on PR.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If it would have been the same, why did you go the 457 route and not just go directly for PR so you could cut your waiting times down?

6 hours ago, Parley said:

Given none of you can vote, do you really think politicians care what you think ?

Surely they would listen to voting citizens in their electorates.

4 hours ago, Keith and Linda said:

Pretty evident that politicians would not check up on every individuals voting right, but surely they still need to listen to the public feelings in their electorate

Plus in the not so distant future, many of us on PR will become citizens and then we will be voters. So it could certainly come back to bite the politicians. It really depends on how short sighted they choose to be.

Do Australia have an equivalent to Bernie Sanders in the US or Jeremy Corbyn in the UK?

4 minutes ago, Nemesis said:

Unfortunately after living for many years in Queensland I can tell you that One Nation are becoming increasingly popular there, especially in the country areas. Many country queenslanders have always been suspicious of immigrants, of muslims and followers of other religions that rhey consider "unaustralian", of people who have a different cultural background from themselves, etc. Hanson knows exactly how to dance to their tune and get them to support her. As a result of living there so long I have many born & bred Queensland mates on my facebook and it's quite scary at times seeing how supposedly intelligent people can be taken in by Hanson's rubbish. I see posts being shared about how immigration should be stopped at once, or limited to white people, how Brisbane is now totally populated by Asians and should be reclaimed for the "true blue ozzie" (whatever the heck that is!), how speaking of other languages should be banned, and even a petition to try and stop the government from translating emergency cyclone leaflets into other languages -it basically said that if people can't read it in English they don't deserve to survive. 

Hanson is one reason why I am very glad to be out of that place. 

Wow! I never knew it had got to that point. That is appalling!

3 minutes ago, jess6 said:

I know of a few people around me re-starting a career and re-studying in their 40's. Why would migrants be any different?

I am quite confident that some well educated migrants would be comfortable with a political career.

At the end of the day, it's always the same: what applies to you does not apply for everyone ; your belief system and reality are just yours.

It's not because you are not interested that the opportunity should be removed from others!

I am one of those migrants. I worked in education for most of my life and made a career change 2 years ago into something completely different. I am now 43 years old. I guess that variety is the spice of life!

43 minutes ago, Spinny said:

Someone earlier pointed out the irony of these proposals and the blanked inclusion of Canada as an English speaking country! These proposals would be more palatable if it at least appeared like some thought went into them....unfortunately, as is the case with politicians the world over, put your ignorance on display and hope that the majority that vote are more ignorant than you and don't notice!

Hahahaha! This is actually very true!

3 minutes ago, path2aus said:

I just cant believe that they are going to require us to write English test again. I wrote one last year and got overall score of 8, I wrote one in 2012 and got overall score of 8. Now I am required to write again for Citizenship. This is just ridiculous. A person has already proven that he/she has more than competent English and has worked in Australia for 4 years after obtaining PR or in some cases even before that, and they still want him/her to prove English competency? I just feel this particular part of the amendment does not make any sense to me. There needs to be more exceptions to this requirement. Why not exempt primary visa applicants from writing the test who have already done that when submitting their application? Competent English is 6 if the test is IELTS, do you think all secondary applicants can pass with 6.0?That's a serious jump over just 4 years. Other countries like US does not have this criteria, so just based on passport they are exempted from English test, what if the person having US passport does not speak English?or for that matter UK passport holder?

I have to agree with this also. It makes no sense.

6 hours ago, Quoll said:

Talking to both my sons who graduated from Australia's number one (apparently) University, both would say that there were plenty of people on their courses who could not speak English well enough to pass a degree but there was a process which included group assessments so the less able were dragged up by the ones who chose to work - alternatively, the ones who chose to work were dragged down by those who could either not speak English or chose to spend their days stoned/drunk/asleep.  Both of them were very scathing of their university experience

That is pretty shocking, Quoll. But then again, in the past I worked in education for many years so I really should not be surprised. Of course it does diminish the degree for the people who worked hard for it if you can basically get it just for signing up to the university. I have also worked as an English teacher, teaching English as a foreign language, and so I was able to understand how difficult it is for students to learn English. English is not a simple language despite us native speakers using it instinctively. So I certainly feel some sympathy for the people who need an IELTS 6, as this level is really too high and probably not necessary for a person to simply integrate. I can understand that certain jobs need a higher level, but for citizenship it is unnecessary. IELTS 5 would seem like a more appropriate requirement to me as this is more achievable for most learners of English.

2 minutes ago, Spinny said:

That would be the logical conclusion......when it comes to Dutton????

And this is where the system of logic breaks down and is replaced with fairies and unicorns and non-existent problems!

25 minutes ago, Amy Zhang said:

I saw the amendment as below:

Aspiring citizens are currently required to possess a level of 'basic' English. This is indirectly assessed when an applicant sits the citizenship test. Aspiring citizens will now be required to undertake a separate up-front English language test with an accredited provider and achieve a level of 'competent'. There will be exemptions, such as for applicants over 60 years of age or under 16 years of age at the time they applied for citizenship or those with an enduring or permanent mental or physical incapacity. There will be other exemptions from testing, as is currently the case for skilled migration assessments, such as for citizens of the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland, Canada, the United States of America or New Zealand who hold a valid passport or for applicants who have undertaken specified English language studies at a recognised Australian education institution.

Well I think it may be something specifically connected to English such as an English major degree etc, but logically it should be any major at an Australian university, because how on earth could you pass your degree without a good level of English in the first place?

4 minutes ago, Parley said:

It may surprise you to know that not everyone who wants to come here is from an Anglo Saxon background.

Even if they come from the UK that is no guarantee that English is their 1st language.

It does not surprise me - however, you would assume that somebody who was born and grew up in an English speaking country, went through the school education system there and then studied at a university in an English speaking country, probably has a pretty good command of the English language. Therefore, in a case like this, is an English test really necessary?

4 minutes ago, Spinny said:

It seems so....only exception I'm aware is for Kiwis

That seems a bit strange. I grew up in England, went to an English university, worked as an English teacher for many years - yet, I have to take a test to prove that I can speak English? Hahahaha! Sorry, it seems kinda funny if you think about it.

Does anybody know if British citizens will be expected to take the English test when applying for citizenship?