newjez Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 These visas take a long time to process anyway and realistically, this only impacts those that sneak in on a tourist visa to lodge on shore. Families that want to be together, can do so ... in their own country. Reality is most people chose between a country and their parents and other relatives when they moved. Funny, my mom has a Friend who has applied onshore, and apparently has right of abode while she is waiting. She's been waiting for years, and has had a lot of medical care while she was waiting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack13 Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 No now the state has a big obligation to you as a P resident and you have a great obligation to it. Before commencing such an agreement, things must be taken very seriously. My solution is why didnt these parents come to Australia years ago, when they were much younger. Because it was much easier to obtain a visa in the days of 10 pound poms ect. Now they cannot get a visa perhaps they should just give up because if they really wanted to be in Australia so badly they would have done so a long time ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 How is the visa subclass 804 a loophole? If the visa is advertised on DIAC as non contribution and you need to be 65 or over to apply. Then what exactly is the loophole? To all you bitter sounding people there are a few of us that actually love our parents! Shocking, I know but we aren't all brought up pompous keyboard warriors who dislike the oldies. Another shocker for you all....some Grandparents actually like being with their grandchildren! Absurd as it sounds my parents love it. You all sound such bitter people that I hope I never have the misfortune of ever meeting any of you. Loophole as in people come on shore on a tourist visa purely to apply for the non contributory visa, dodging the fee and dodging the wait time and this is not a legitimate use of a tourist visa. That is the loophole some are referring too. Don't know how you conclude that people don't like oldies, but it really is irrelevant, I love older people myself, absolutely love them, they have lived and are so interesting, but I am baffled as to how this is relevant? You see nobody else is getting personal about it (you should try that), but are just looking at the matter based on the facts and on decisions that a government needs to make sometimes for the good of the greater population. And once more, if you want to be near your parents and want them to be active grandparents - then you can pay for the contributory visa or don't emigrate for heavens sake! You (general you) do have choices in this. It is not hard. Really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 Funny, my mom has a Friend who has applied onshore, and apparently has right of abode while she is waiting. She's been waiting for years, and has had a lot of medical care while she was waiting. Yes that is exactly what this will stop, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Petals Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 I think that Brits are just a casualty of the bigger agenda with relative migration. I think that Brits are only a small minority of relatives who want to live with family here. Its the big picture this government is looking at. Once we could move between countries that were culturally alike easily but this is no longer the case. Oh for the good old days. Arrive, have an Xray and stay. That is what we did. The world as we know it is changing and not for the better, in fact I believe having a regular job, bit less money and a place to live is a much better life than wondering if we will be made redundant, looking for a pot of gold etc. after all in my experience having stuff does not make happiness, its just stuff and now the world is running on stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Que Sera Sera Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 I can see why some posters still need their parents holding their hands if the way they spit the dummy on here is anything to go by :wink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newjez Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 Yes that is exactly what this will stop, Will they deport her? Can't wait to see the press about that when they drag an 86 year old with cancer and a heart condition kicking and screaming back to the UK where she will have no support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 Will they deport her? Can't wait to see the press about that when they drag an 86 year old with cancer and a heart condition kicking and screaming back to the UK where she will have no support. No of course not! This is forward looking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bridgeman Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 I've got to say, the posts on here are very short sighted!!Parents can be an added bonus to families living in Australia - helping out with child care, enabling their own children to go out to work to help boost the Australian economy. Lets be honest, it's not an 'easy' country to get into (and rightly so) but we have been granted visas on Australians needs to 'fill in' the gaps in their employment. By having supportive parents can allow people to work and give back into Australia. I would hardly call it a 'loop hole' - it's a shame that you people aren't as fortunate as others to have strong, close family ties where parents play an active role in their children and grandchildrens lives! As for 'dragging' them over - how ridiculous! Is it so hard to believe that families all want a better life, to be all together and are willing to work, and support each other?? Hopefully at some stage in your lives your own children will want YOU to be apart of their lives and would move heaven and earth to be apart of it! Even if that means moving to the other side of the world! I think the Australian government and you people should wake up and realise the benefits of parent visas and stop focusing on the negatives! It should not cost a ridiculous amount of money to get there! As they are worth their weight in gold once they arrive!! I agree entirely. We provide a lot of support to our family, not least of which is childcare. One of the main reasons for people leaving Australia is that they miss their families and the support they can offer particularly in WA where many of the main breadwinners work away from home, leaving the wife to cope alone with the children. We were lucky enough to afford the CPV (only just, although we are struggling to afford a house here and I don't think we could afford the CPV now) but would have been devastated had we not been able to join our family in Australia. I doubt if our family would have come to Australia without the prospect of us being able to join them and the country would have been poorer by two very skilled workers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thinker78 Posted May 17, 2014 Author Share Posted May 17, 2014 I agree entirely. We provide a lot of support to our family, not least of which is childcare. One of the main reasons for people leaving Australia is that they miss their families and the support they can offer particularly in WA where many of the main breadwinners work away from home, leaving the wife to cope alone with the children. We were lucky enough to afford the CPV (only just, although we are struggling to afford a house here and I don't think we could afford the CPV now) but would have been devastated had we not been able to join our family in Australia. I doubt if our family would have come to Australia without the prospect of us being able to join them and the country would have been poorer by two very skilled workers. As to 'loopholes' it's entirely legal for people to lodge onshore, how is it a loophole when DIBP decide on where people can lodge? People have been able to lodge for Aged Parent visas on or offshore for ages. Just saying; a lot (and not only parents, workers, partners, kids blah blah) come over on a tourist visa and lodge onshore. Totally allowed and fine- if it wasn't, they should change the legislation relating to qualifying visas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 I agree entirely. We provide a lot of support to our family, not least of which is childcare. One of the main reasons for people leaving Australia is that they miss their families and the support they can offer particularly in WA where many of the main breadwinners work away from home, leaving the wife to cope alone with the children. We were lucky enough to afford the CPV (only just, although we are struggling to afford a house here and I don't think we could afford the CPV now) but would have been devastated had we not been able to join our family in Australia. I doubt if our family would have come to Australia without the prospect of us being able to join them and the country would have been poorer by two very skilled workers. Not being funny or anything, but I m sure the country would have got over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Que Sera Sera Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 If they are that highly skilled then they probably could afford to pay the contribritory visa fees to bring their parents over I'd have thought or at least save it up before the 16 years are up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny842003 Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 As to 'loopholes' it's entirely legal for people to lodge onshore, how is it a loophole when DIBP decide on where people can lodge? People have been able to lodge for Aged Parent visas on or offshore for ages. Just saying; a lot (and not only parents, workers, partners, kids blah blah) come over on a tourist visa and lodge onshore. Totally allowed and fine- if it wasn't, they should change the legislation relating to qualifying visas. thats pretty much much the definition of a loop hole. Loopholes aren't illegal, just perhaps out of the spirit of what is intended which is why they have changed the rules now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starlight7 Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 When my Dad came here to live aged 80 he had to cover all his medical expenses with no subsidies for anything. He had to take out very expensive insurance ( over $3,500 a year at that time so probably more now). He thought it was well worth it to see his great grandchildren and it was a very happy time for him . After Mum died he just wouldn't have survived alone in London. In those days there was a temporary visa called the retirement visa which had to be renewed every couple of years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramot Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 As to 'loopholes' it's entirely legal for people to lodge onshore, how is it a loophole when DIBP decide on where people can lodge? People have been able to lodge for Aged Parent visas on or offshore for ages. Just saying; a lot (and not only parents, workers, partners, kids blah blah) come over on a tourist visa and lodge onshore. Totally allowed and fine- if it wasn't, they should change the legislation relating to qualifying visas. The point about the loophole for lodging the parent visa on shore (not the PCV) is that it can take up to 15 years to be granted and the applicant gets Medicare for all that time, having contributed nothing. whereas most other visas when lodged on shore take very little time in comparison, and many might well be working while waiting for their visas and paying tax. I sympathise for the wife's of FIFLO workers, but as an ex service wife I managed to cope for years and years with an absent husband with no support from my mother, Perhaps service wives are made of sterner stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 As to 'loopholes' it's entirely legal for people to lodge onshore, how is it a loophole when DIBP decide on where people can lodge? People have been able to lodge for Aged Parent visas on or offshore for ages. Just saying; a lot (and not only parents, workers, partners, kids blah blah) come over on a tourist visa and lodge onshore. Totally allowed and fine- if it wasn't, they should change the legislation relating to qualifying visas. I don't personally use the word loophole, but it is not appropriate use of a tourist visa to come onshore with the intention of lodging another visa. This is abuse of the tourist visa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Echidna66 Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 I don't personally use the word loophole, but it is not appropriate use of a tourist visa to come onshore with the intention of lodging another visa. This is abuse of the tourist visa. so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thinker78 Posted May 17, 2014 Author Share Posted May 17, 2014 so? Hmm....it's not down to the individual to decide on lodgement rules. As things currently stand, the visa system is set up for both onshore and offshore lodgement- some tourist visas do indeed have a 'no further stay' condition, but if they don't, then it's fair game to lodge onshore. But that is down to the Government, they write the legislation, and in no way reflects those who decide to lodge onshore. It's a grey area, but we can't blame those applying onshore legitimately- this is how things stand currently and it will be interesting to see if this changes in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ali Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 so? So ... that might be why immigration are implementing the new rules Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 Us FIFO wifes manage just fine! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bridgeman Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 Not being funny or anything, but I m sure the country would have got over it. Maybe, but I was alluding to the title of this thread which refers to people being forced to return to the UK. If this wasn't the case then why would this thread exist? I don't have statistics to hand but maybe if you multiplied my example, then maybe the country wouldn't get over it, if lots of skilled workers suddenly decided to leave the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sammy1 Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 Maybe, but I was alluding to the title of this thread which refers to people being forced to return to the UK. If this wasn't the case then why would this thread exist? I don't have statistics to hand but maybe if you multiplied my example, then maybe the country wouldn't get over it, if lots of skilled workers suddenly decided to leave the country. More skilled workers would take their place. There is never a shortage of people wanting to come here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Que Sera Sera Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 Us FIFO wifes manage just fine! Yes we do!:yes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 Maybe, but I was alluding to the title of this thread which refers to people being forced to return to the UK. If this wasn't the case then why would this thread exist? I don't have statistics to hand but maybe if you multiplied my example, then maybe the country wouldn't get over it, if lots of skilled workers suddenly decided to leave the country. You think that the title of this thread is fact based? Anyway, there is a long, long line of skilled people queuing to get into Australia. A handful thinking they can't come unless mum can get in with a cheap visa, won't cause a gap that can't be filled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 so? Read the post I responded to again if you don't understand. It should help you with context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.