Mmmbop

Absolute troll you are. You've done more than me to disrupt the discussion. As you were.

You melon. The OP says: Thinking there might be others struggling with the same questions, I thought I'd start a thread where we can share any answers we might find, or add to the related questions. So I added my question, to the thread, which is titled 'Questions surrounding the announcement of re-opening of international borders'. I don't see anything restricting conversation to the discussion of inbound flights. Again, I asked a good faith question. In the course of that discussion, someone else brought up the issue to which you're referring, one which is close to my heart, and I wasn't about to just let it slide. Again, that discussion was also relevant to this, again, open, thread. For all the disagreement, @Marisa was not 'pointing out' the irrelevance of my question, she was answering it, helpfully, until we came to the difference of opinion. So why don't you just mind your own business and let the discussion continue.

What on earth are you on about? Are you actually suggesting that if you are a citizen and you wish to move abroad you should have to renounce your citizenship? Absolute raging nonsense. If you read the thread you'd see that I asked an entirely relevant question about the reliability of outbound flights. During the course of the response I received, someone else brought up the topic of exemptions and how easy they are to get. I corrected her. All of which is also relevant to this topic, as previously stated on this thread, because anyone leaving the country permanently needs to know about the exemption situation. The question you actually quote, which is nothing to do with that discussion, is also entirely relevant, and the information I requested was not previously stated anywhere. So do pipe down.

Thanks very much. Congrats on the exemption.

Can I clarify, do you mean you received an exemption for your family to visit Australia? Or for you to visit family in Australia? If so, can I ask what the relationship is? I.e. parents (non immediate family) or 'immediate' family?

Thanks for your response Loopylu, and I'm very sorry you had to go through all that. I'm not feeling bullied, it's fine! Just a strong disagreement. They're entitled to their view, however wrong and unsympathetic it might be to my mind. I would say that the discussion IS relevant to the thread though. The point about whether exemptions are hard to secure is an important consideration for anyone flying out right now. For example, I will be applying for one regardless of the borders most likely being open, because if they're not, I won't be able to go if I don't have an exemption.Therefore it's valuable info for people to be aware of now. The last thing I'll say on it: Marisa is right to the extent that in theory, if you present all the evidence that you want to leave for good, you're probably likely to be approved. However, there are many stories of people doing this and being turned down, because ultimately it's at the discretion of a border official, it's a somewhat subjective judgement as to whether someone 'genuinely' wants to leave or is just saying they will but actually will come back (and you can bet people's backgrounds factor into that decision), and no reason for the decision needs to be given. So it's unpredictable. You'll probably be fine, but do lots of research on how to fill in the application and don't assume you'll get it. Also, maybe they're more lax with them now we're approaching opening up. Anyway, over and out, sorry to clog up the thread with this

Thanks for sharing. It is indeed a heartbreaking situation for so many, and wrong. I have heard countless stories like that. I've seen many people lazily chalk it off to 'oh, well everyone's suffering during the pandemic, so just get on with it.' A very reductive and dangerous mindset in my opinion. And exasperating to see someone ignorantly denying the situation exists for reasons best known to themselves. Anyway, I am very pleased that this situation will hopefully be resolved soon.

Yes you're quite right. It's a totally transparent and simple system, and all the people who have fallen foul of it are clearly just not as intelligent as you. And thank you for your concern, I'm sure it's quite genuine. How condescending. Read this: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-07-09/coronaivurs-border-restrictions-hard-to-leave-permanently/100274870 I'm sure you have a thousand reasons why the people in this article are all doing it wrong and really it's fantastically straightforward. Jog on.

Nothing relevant to the discussion in this.

As I have said, there is plenty of overlap between permanent and compassionate grounds. That's a false distinction which you choose to draw, quite arbitrarily, and which I don't accept. You don't get to determine what is relevant in a two way conversation. I am making the points I want to make. I've made myself quite clear. I won't be submitting any more 'evidence' to you for the reasons explicitly stated. There is no more evidence AVAILABLE. I also don't want to crowd those thread further. People can draw their own conclusions. Good luck to you.

I notice you don't respond to the entirety of message. I've made my assessment of the system very clear. It's based on all the available information, and it's quite legitimate. The burden of proof that a system is NOT inhumane and cruel lies with those trying to demonstrate that it isn't, when there are reasonable grounds to suspect it is. It is right and proper to ask the question, and to raise concerns. I don't have 'NO' grounds for the analysis. I, and many others like me who have observed this problem, have the anecdotal evidence of many people. Detailed anecdotal evidence of people, saying exactly what they've submitted, stat decs, the lot, and being denied. That is the ONLY evidence available. You have nothing, other than your frankly patronising assumptions about people's inability to fill in their applications correctly. You cannot define what a 'correct' application is, can you? That's impossible to know. That information is not in the public domain. You are in no position to make the assumptions you are making. As far as we can tell, it is opaque and cruel. And if it isn't, and it's merely a series of administrative errors as you very complacently suggest, then ok. That's possible. Based on everything I've seen and heard, I think it's highly unlikely. Regardless, the system would still be at fault for communicating so poorly what's required. Please don't tell me I should be ashamed. I'm trying to raise awareness about an important issue. The worst that happens if I'm wrong is that some people are worried unnecessarily. The worst that happens if everyone acts like you and shuts up about it is that the likely unfair system persists and people continue to suffer unjustly. The piece is an opinion article, and clearly framed as such. There is nothing that is neither fact nor opinion in it. How would you suggest a journalist cover an opaque unaccountable system. By your bizarre, authoritarian logic, we are only permitted to make any comment on it at all when it becomes transparent, and we have all the information we could possibly want. How would anything ever come to light, or be held accountable, by your logic? You seem to have limited appreciation of journalism, or indeed dissent/democracy. And as I said, and you chose to ignore, opacity of the system IS the issue. There ARE no 'instructions' as you seem to believe. You should go into business helping those trying to reunite with their families as you're such an expert.

You're making a lot of assumptions I would say. You say 'Did you see his application? If not how do you know he submitted a correct application?'. I don't, for sure. However, neither do you. I strongly suspect neither of us are immigration lawyers, or know enough about the very opaque exemption system to judge what a 'correct' application is. The system is intentionally opaque, so the chances of people submitting an 'incorrect' application, a by-all-accounts very subjective judgement, are therefore increased. There is very little guidance on how to submit an application in compelling circumstances. That is the point. It's designed into the system, which you seem unwilling to attribute any blame to. Furthermore, compelling and permanent grounds should not be mutually exclusive, that's absurd. Regardless of the nature of the applications submitted, about which we cannot know very much, based on the information we do have, any system which denies a request in such circumstances is to my mind categorically inhumane and wrong. You can call it scaremongering, and blame the people suffering at the hands of this system, but the point is that very many people have been unable to leave when they most needed to despite their best efforts. Many have also been successful. The point remains, it's an opaque and cruel system.

So you draw the conclusion that the second person was applying to leave temporarily, despite, as you note, them saying that they applied to leave permanently? You seem to have drawn this conclusion based on the fact that the article doesn't include the contents of their application. Quite bizarre really. And you say, if he applied on compassionate grounds to go to a funeral, then that's why he got denied. As if that's the most natural thing in the world. A) It's not the point because, as stated, the person applied to leave permanently, unless you choose to disbelieve that for reasons which are unclear. B) People should be allowed to leave under compassionate grounds, both morally, and by the terms of the legislation. If you don't think caring for a dying parent, or indeed attending their funeral - constitutes grounds - under any interpretation of the frankly disgraceful system - then I really don't know what to say to you.

Not true. It's a lottery with no transparency. I've heard of plenty of people who have been denied despite providing all the evidence. I wrote an article on the issue, with examples, quite disgraceful: https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/double-standards-in-australian-travel-ban-crisis,15332 I'm not too sure why it would be pig-headed of someone not to make arrangements to leave unless they were actually allowed to leave. That's quite the Catch 22. You're asking people to cut everything off without security that they can indeed leave. They're high and dry if they get denied. Also, I wouldn't describe it as 'natural' that the outward travel ban, pretty much unique amongst democracies and very probably illegal under international law, exists at all.

Yes, that all makes sense. It seems to me my biggest risk is actually that the inward situation comes to resemble the outward one, i.e. everything opens up as planned and the flights get overbooked. I never said getting an exemption would be a major hurdle, although plenty have been denied. However, assuming I can get one, hopefully even in the case that closures are imposed again, we could get seats on a flight.