Quinkla Posted May 17, 2014 Share Posted May 17, 2014 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. I think this is the attitude that some people have a problem with But that is down to the Government, they write the legislation Indeed - and they are changing the legislation. But rather than just closing the onshore loophole, they are getting rd of non-contributory visas entirely. Those who played the existing system might want to try some self-reflection and decide whether their gaming of the system was so important that it justifies denying families the opportunity to migrate in the future, even within the spirit of the rules. 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. It's actually not a grey area. The purpose of a visitor visa is to be a visitor. If you apply for one with the intention of lodging an onshore visa application you have made a fraudulent application for the visitor visa. The fact that you can get away with it does not make it legitimate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silencio Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 I completely agree with your opinions on not moving elderly parents who might have heavy health issues and might not cope with the climate here in summer anyway to the other part of the world around the globe and the Australian tax payer has to pay (besides the assurance of support from the sponsor family member). And don't forget many migrants from non-English speaking background move their non-English speaking parents to Australia which causes except the language barrier cultural clashes because of generation conflicts and coming from another cultural background. Why should any Australian be forced to pay the bill when we are already have an ageing population? But by saying this I'm also ambivalent to this matter because my partner is affected from this change. When his father may die before his mother than his mother is forced to stay completely alone due to not having other children and because she was a migrant herself to hubby's and his father's country she has no family there. Besides the language barrier she has in our home country because English is her mother tongue (we're from a non-English speaking background, but his mother is). All her relatives live in Australia and migrated a long time ago but she's forced as the only one to stay far away from all her family members. And she's completely healthy currently and would get a good pension, so no financial support would be necessary from our side. The recent changes to the parent visa seems to be a little bit harsh when it comes to the individual case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 I completely agree with your opinions on not moving elderly parents who might have heavy health issues and might not cope with the climate here in summer anyway to the other part of the world around the globe and the Australian tax payer has to pay (besides the assurance of support from the sponsor family member). And don't forget many migrants from non-English speaking background move their non-English speaking parents to Australia which causes except the language barrier cultural clashes because of generation conflicts and coming from another cultural background. Why should any Australian be forced to pay the bill when we are already have an ageing population? But by saying this I'm also ambivalent to this matter because my partner is affected from this change. When his father may die before his mother than his mother is forced to stay completely alone due to not having other children and because she was a migrant herself to hubby's and his father's country she has no family there. Besides the language barrier she has in our home country because English is her mother tongue (we're from a non-English speaking background, but his mother is). All her relatives live in Australia and migrated a long time ago but she's forced as the only one to stay far away from all her family members. And she's completely healthy currently and would get a good pension, so no financial support would be necessary from our side. The recent changes to the parent visa seems to be a little bit harsh when it comes to the individual case. Not really sure what you are saying here? You agree with it, but not for your family? Your partners mother could think about a contributory parent visa if she wants it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silencio Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 Hi Rupert, as I said I'm ambivalent, lets say self-contradictory regarding abolishing the non-contributory parent visa. It's okay for me, but my partner is shocked because he wanted his mother to come later in life. To be honest his mum hasn't got 40,000 bucks or what ever it costs to join us with the contributory parent visa. And from next year we'll have a mortgage to pay off which makes it impossible for us to pay for her. The last remaining relative visa, our favourite visa, is also no longer available for my understanding. I rephrase what I actually wanted to say in a more clearer and precise way: it's unfair to let a person who has her entirely family in Australia being dumped in a foreign country and parents who can afford to pay and still have relatives in their country of origin are allowed to come. My partner tried to persuade both parents to come because we are eligible to sponsor them but his father doesn't want to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quinkla Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 it's unfair to let a person who has her entirely family in Australia being dumped in a foreign country and parents who can afford to pay and still have relatives in their country of origin are allowed to come. My partner tried to persuade both parents to come because we are eligible to sponsor them but his father doesn't want to. Nobody is being dumped. The parents live where they have always lived. It is the offspring who have chosen to up sticks and leave. Plus, why should your partner's parents want to relocate just because they can. I know for a fact that my mother wouldn't want to live in Australia, even if she had a visa tomorrow. If she moved here, she would be away from her friends, everything she knows and would probably have to be financially dependent on me which she wouldn't want (and nor would I). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest spreadingwings Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 I'd like to add three things to the conversation: 1. This doesn't exclude including your parent as an adult dependant on your 189/190 visa application, which I'm doing for my mom who's raised me as a single parent all her life and has no one else to rely on. We're from South Africa and I have the evidence required to prove her dependence. Having said all that, if the visa is approved on condition that my mom is not included as a dependent, I'll be at peace with the decision not to move at all and stay here, living as we currently are. There is no other first world country in the world that offers me the opportunity to move to the country as a permanent resident and include my mom in the application. 2. The UK is equally anti-parent migration for British citizens (but not EU citizens, ironically, who can take all kinds of family members to the UK with them), with their recent immigration rules now changing to require proof that: Their parent requires “long-term personal care to perform everyday tasks” (they literally aren't able to wash themselves); and Even with their practical and financial help, their parent is unable to “obtain the required level of care in the country where they are living, because (a) it is not available and there is no person in that country who can reasonably provide it; or (b) it is not affordable” 3. I wish this forum had a DISLIKE button for some of the comments made in this thread. I can't believe how judgmental, selfish and insensitive some people on here have been. PLEASE just be a normal, empathetic, happy, supportive human being. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fisher1 Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 'I wish this forum had a DISLIKE button for some of the comments made in this thread. I can't believe how judgmental, selfish and insensitive some people on here have been. PLEASE just be a normal, empathetic, happy, supportive human being' Agreed. It is entirely possible to voice an opinion in a calm and reasonable way, without unnecessary rudeness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fisher1 Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 So basically, you want one rule for your family and another rule for everyone else? Unfortunately that's not how it works. It seems to me that your father in law is the one preventing your partner's parents from migrating and not the Australian government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mext60 Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 Why cant Australia just have a parent visa, wherein the comprehensive health insurance coverage has to be arranged by the sponsor (children in Australia) and this requirement can stay for the first 4/5 years. I believe Canada has a similar arrangement for parent visas called "Parent Super Visa" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quinkla Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 Why cant Australia just have a parent visa, wherein the comprehensive health insurance coverage has to be arranged by the sponsor (children in Australia) and this requirement can stay for the first 4/5 years. For a number of reasons. Firstly, health insurance covers only a small fraction of medical costs. Frankly, it's useless and only serves to give a tax rebate. Secondly, you couldn't enforce it - what if the sponsor did not keep up the arrangement? Canada may have a tradition of refusing medical care to people who can't pay but Australia doesn't. And nor would Australia deport a resident because a sponsor didn't keep up the health insurance. Thirdly, the high health and social costs would be incurred in the last years of life, not the first years after migration. Fourthly, health insurance payments benefit health insurance companies, not the state. It is much better to get the money up front, before the visa is granted, as happens with the contributory parent visa. I think Australia was remarkably generous in allowing migrants parents' to follow on and given the shameless rorting of the system with onshore applications, I am only surprised it took this long to get rid of the non-contributory visa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weaver Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 For a number of reasons. Firstly, health insurance covers only a small fraction of medical costs. Frankly, it's useless and only serves to give a tax rebate. Secondly, you couldn't enforce it - what if the sponsor did not keep up the arrangement? Canada may have a tradition of refusing medical care to people who can't pay but Australia doesn't. And nor would Australia deport a resident because a sponsor didn't keep up the health insurance. Thirdly, the high health and social costs would be incurred in the last years of life, not the first years after migration. Fourthly, health insurance payments benefit health insurance companies, not the state. It is much better to get the money up front, before the visa is granted, as happens with the contributory parent visa. I think Australia was remarkably generous in allowing migrants parents' to follow on and given the shameless rorting of the system with onshore applications, I am only surprised it took this long to get rid of the non-contributory visa. Are you entirely sure that is the reason for the removal as the offshore non-contributory visa (103 I think) is also being removed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quinkla Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 Are you entirely sure that is the reason for the removal as the offshore non-contributory visa (103 I think) is also being removed I think that was the last straw that broke the camel's back. If people rort the system, the whole system gets taken away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weaver Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 I think that was the last straw that broke the camel's back. If people rort the system, the whole system gets taken away. A little unfair on those who cannot afford the contributary visa fees (they are a bit steep). surely they only needed to remove the onshore visas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jac2011 Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 Another thing that pops into my head is the amount of threads that randomly appear on here from people asking how they go about taking there father/mother/sister/brother/cousin/niece/dads neighbour/shop keeper down the road/old school teacher etc etc... British culture is very independent, most of us move away from our parents and are supported by childcare mainly. However, there are other cultures where the larger family unit lives together with 4 or more generations all in the same home and rely on each other for childcare etc. If a British immigrant with a skill takes on average 2 other family members then Australia needs to support 3 people potentially off one skilled worker. However, in the case of a skilled worker from another culture there is the possibility if they can prove 'dependance' of claiming for far more than this as dependants, therefore potentially increasing the cost to the Australian government of supporting these additional immigrants in the future. Either way, emigrating is a choice we are lucky to have. Whether or not we agree with all the rules isn't appropriate. If we choose to emigrate then we choose to live within the policies set out by that country. The issue, is purely the poor individuals who have already emigrated and can now not bring over relatives like they had planned. However, I am sure these numbers are few and far between. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weaver Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 You are correct in saying that the rules are rules, but it might have been fairer to families to have had a time delay on imposing the withdrawal of the visas so that families could have time to be in a more informed position when making the decision to emigrate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weaver Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 I must point out that I have no axe to grind. I will be emigrating with a contributory visa. But I can still feel sorry for those families who may have been caught out by this decision Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quoll Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 But then where do you draw the line time-wise. Draw it and be done! People can always go back if they don't like it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weaver Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 Not an easy decision if they have sunk a lot of money into the move, given up their jobs and sold their houses. Not to mention the end of their dreams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quoll Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 Not an easy decision if they have sunk a lot of money into the move, given up their jobs and sold their houses. Not to mention the end of their dreams Well, Immigration is a bureaucracy not a reunions bureau - caveat emptor springs to mind! It's not as if parents are being banned from moving just that they have to pay the contribution - as they all should! I'd be very worried if they pussy footed about just because they might damage someone's "dreams" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 Not an easy decision if they have sunk a lot of money into the move, given up their jobs and sold their houses. Not to mention the end of their dreams Nobody should assume they can move to Australia until they have a visa in hand. Parents cannot be sponsored until the child has been resident for two years, well anything can happen in that two years, health issues crop up maybe, so it could never have been a foregone conclusion that parents can follow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jac2011 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 Each and everyone of us are (well actually 'most') are aware that at any time the rug may be pulled, lots of people have unfortunately already had it happen to them with little or no warning. The rules for all the visas are tightening up, just look at all the negatives with the 457 visa and how much more difficult it has become. Yes, Australia may still need skills but they are not needing our skills as much as they use too. If they just kept the gates open without reviewing their processes then the country would be crippled by mass emigration. Look at the UK currently and the pressure on schooling, healthcare, aging populations, crime etc. There has to be a limit. I understand it is awful for people who have made the move already and committed to this but as Rupert rightly said, visas come and go and rules change almost monthly. We are lucky in that if we need to go back home to the UK, it is a lovely country to go back to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bridgeman Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 I have just been reminded of something which I have found extremely unfair for a long time. Bearing in mind that the majority of immigrants to Australia are now not from the UK and to be fair, if they don’t want the parents to come, if the government wanted to save money maybe they should look at not allowing immigrants to add parents as dependents to their applications. There are lots of parents from non-welfare states who come over on their offspring’s visa and, as they have no income, after 2 years are entitled to various benefits, and of course Medicare as soon as they land. Those from a welfare state who have pensions and so probably not entitled to any benefits are discriminated against and even more so now with the removal of the parent visa. This will not stop those other parents, who will cost the state even more, from coming over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny842003 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 I have just been reminded of something which I have found extremely unfair for a long time. Bearing in mind that the majority of immigrants to Australia are now not from the UK and to be fair, if they don’t want the parents to come, if the government wanted to save money maybe they should look at not allowing immigrants to add parents as dependents to their applications. There are lots of parents from non-welfare states who come over on their offspring’s visa and, as they have no income, after 2 years are entitled to various benefits, and of course Medicare as soon as they land. Those from a welfare state who have pensions and so probably not entitled to any benefits are discriminated against and even more so now with the removal of the parent visa. This will not stop those other parents, who will cost the state even more, from coming over. This is hardly relevant though. My fiancee's grandmother came over in the 80s and gives nothing to Australia she was already in her 60s and still to this day can't speak any English. She got lucky. On the other hand I know full well that I hopefully move over next year and despite my dad having a state and private pension he is never going to be able to live in Oz with me and the soon to be Mrs. Australia does not have to choose one or the other. It maybe unfair that one group might be allowed in and another better off group may not be, but one does not justify the other. In the grand scheme Oz needs neither. I suspect a lot of other people you speak of have had it easier on humanitarian grounds. My dads rights are not being trampled on in big bad Cumbria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fisher1 Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 I would sleep easier in my bed if Australia didn't make you pass a medical in order to VISIT after the age of seventy five. If I believed that I could go on spending a couple of months a year in Sydney till I dropped off my twig, or was too old to travel, I'd be reasonably happy to stay in the UK ... but the idea of being stopped from even visiting my only child without a doctors approval makes me feel a bit queasy ... maybe the huge waiting list would diminish somewhat if there was no time limit on visiting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bridgeman Posted May 22, 2014 Share Posted May 22, 2014 Danny 842003 I would think this is very relevant, given that the changes were announced in the budget, presumably to save the government money. If they don't want them then why not prevent all parents from emigrating unless they pay the large CPV charge? Why just pick on one section of parents, and overlook another larger section who will in the long run cost more money? And I am not talking about migrants who are allowed in on humanitarian grounds, of course, I am not suggesting this is wrong. I am talking about people who come over on skilled visas, but who, because they financially support their parents, are allowed to add them to the applications as dependants. Danny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.