Changes to pathway to Citizenship

[Jason Martin]

Wrote to my local (Labour) MP at the weekend. 

[Keep me in oz]

19 minutes ago, Jason Martin said:

Wrote to my local (Labour) MP at the weekend. 

i was just drafting something up, i have no idea what to say! 

Im all like... are you for or against the changes?!? want to lobby against them!?! lol

[Jason Martin]

I just stated that why are people whom came in on a temporary visa being singled out as needing longer to integrate in to Australian society. I pointed out I still have to abide by the same rules and if I came on a permanent visa, I would be able to apply after four years. I asked what is the difference?

[Sigh]

20 minutes ago, Jason Martin said:

I just stated that why are people whom came in on a temporary visa being singled out as needing longer to integrate in to Australian society. I pointed out I still have to abide by the same rules and if I came on a permanent visa, I would be able to apply after four years. I asked what is the difference?

This is a very good point, as it gets to the heart of the changes.

Integration doesn't require PR; just residence.

I wrote my submission along the lines of the changes denying natural justice to PR holders, who, having obtained PR in the old regime, and, having relied on this to form their lives in Australia (you know, INTEGRATING!), had formed a legitimate expectation of obtaining citizenship under those rules.

[wombatinabox]

7 hours ago, Keep me in oz said:

i was just drafting something up, i have no idea what to say! 

Im all like... are you for or against the changes?!? want to lobby against them!?! lol

Don't ASK them their opinion, ORDER them. They are your rep and should represent the views of their electors. That's how you talk to MPs and pressure them.

Basically say why you oppose this and end it with "YOU SHOULD VOTE NO"

[bella1458]

Have seen this petition doing the rounds on FB. might be worth a shot 

https://www.change.org/p/department-of-immigration-and-border-protection-australia-vote-against-4-years-after-pr-eligibility-towards-oz-citizenship?recruiter=711193688&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=share_page&utm_term=mob-xs-no_src-custom_msg

[BadgerLady]

There's also a Facebook group that's VERY active - they're organising city protests (though some of us question the effect that might have)... last night we teamed up to contribute questions to Q&A... the main thing the campaign needs is Australian citizens who support the cause. Could be people who've previously been through the process and support those who have it ahead, or could be spouses / family members and friends of immigrants.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1000834103380575/

 

[unzippy]

IELT - does eveyone have to do it or just people from non english speaking countries?

[Felix123]

I would suggest protesting in the street is unlikely to have the desired result. Pen is mightier than the sword - although having seen the literary skills used by some of the local media and those on here there's certainly a need for more robust English language skills for Australians and migrants.

[Felix123]

This is a very interesting article and does make me wonder whether darts are being sharpened in readiness to blame immigration for an impending recession. House price bubble, falling consumer confidence, interest rate volitility....

Citizenship, visa changes defended by Assistant Minister on Q&A
ABC News

Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection Alex Hawke spends his Q&A appearance fending off attacks on the Government's sweeping changes to the nation's citizenship laws and the abolition of the 457 visa. Read the full story

[Parley]

What is the problem ?

If you are a permanent resident and committed to life in Australia it shouldn't worry you as you are already living here anyway.

 

If citizenship is just a convenience and you are planning to leave back to the UK then really you are not committed anyway and don't deserve to be citizens.

[wombatinabox]

Protesting on the streets is useless, these days protests are considered a nuisance and usually labelled by media as jobless no life bludgers.

Online petitions can help, but only if they reach 100K+ .

What is more important however is to write or email your local MP and senator and tell them to vote NO for these changes. 

[Nemesis]

1 hour ago, BadgerLady said:

There's also a Facebook group that's VERY active - they're organising city protests (though some of us question the effect that might have)... last night we teamed up to contribute questions to Q&A... the main thing the campaign needs is Australian citizens who support the cause. Could be people who've previously been through the process and support those who have it ahead, or could be spouses / family members and friends of immigrants.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1000834103380575/

 

Remember that some of those hardest hit by this will be the spouses of Austrlain citizens, Most of them enter in a visa which is provisional. They cannot get round this, they cannot get PR until two years have passed (and another year for porcessing). And if they came on a Prospective Marriage Visa in the first place that would be another few months, then 12 months processing to even achieve the temporary spouse visa. Many Spouse Visa holders are now looking at being here as legal residents, partners of Australians, for 4 years before they even get PR. Then another 4 years before they can apply for citizenship. Thats not integration, thats a way to drive families apart. 

[BadgerLady]

25 minutes ago, Parley said:

What is the problem ?

If you are a permanent resident and committed to life in Australia it shouldn't worry you as you are already living here anyway.

31% of jobs in Canberra require you to be a citizen. As an innovation specialist working with governments and NGOs, my work options are becoming more and more limited and I'm getting pressure to abandon my 15 year career in favour of something corporate, simply because of my immigration status.

Under the old rules, I would finally have citizenship next year and have freedom to work for any agency. Now I'm looking at 2021.

[Jason Martin]

I don't think anyone is complaining about being here Parley. For me, it is the descrimination against those of us whom entered Australia on a temporary visa. I am here for the long haul but it also means that my wife cannot apply for certain jobs as Citizenship is required. 

[K974]

27 minutes ago, Parley said:

What is the problem ?

If you are a permanent resident and committed to life in Australia it shouldn't worry you as you are already living here anyway.

 

If citizenship is just a convenience and you are planning to leave back to the UK then really you are not committed anyway and don't deserve to be citizens.

Not really , if you are on the journey and have PR pre 20/4/17 and they have moved the goal posts what's to say they won't do it again, thereby never achieving citizenship , changes should only apply to new PR approvals . 

 

The governemt went abroad to attract certain skills and made representations regarding the route to citizenship , some of these people were the most highly skilled in the world and could have gone to any country  it's unreasonable to move the goals posts

 

also a visa is a visa it can be changed its highly unlikely but theoretically possibly all PR's would be cancelled. Not a good position to be in if you have a big asset base built up here.

also in a case I know the guy needs to travel to PNG weekly to develop his Australian business that employs Aussies , he spends 2-4 days a week in PNG, he will never comply with the minimum residency requirement if he does this so now has a choice to grow his Australian business and keep people employed in australia or obtain his citizenship , he's talking about closing the business and going back into employment as he wants citizenship asap for the security of assets etc  thereby Australian 5people will loose their jobs . 

 

Besides all all that the principle of moving The goal posts is unfair and not an Australian value , one of  supposed reasons for the changes are to ensure Australian values 

by all means make the changes it's their country but they should be grandfathered for this with PR 

[BadgerLady]

12 minutes ago, K974 said:

also in a case I know the guy needs to travel to PNG weekly to develop his Australian business that employs Aussies , he spends 2-4 days a week in PNG, he will never comply with the minimum residency requirement if he does this 

All empathy to your friend. I work with Australian NGOs on their projects in developing countries, which might mean for example spending 3 months in Kenya or Vietnam talking to women about their health needs. I have a choice to either abandon that work (ouch!) or abandon my chance of ever becoming an Australian citizen.

Edited April 25, 2017 by BadgerLady

[K974]

1 minute ago, BadgerLady said:

All empathy. I work with Australian NGOs on their projects in developing countries, which might mean for example spending 3 months in Kenya or Vietnam talking to women about their health needs. I have a choice to either abandon that work (ouch!) or abandon my chance of ever becoming an Australian citizen.

It's this reason and the whole principle of a retrospective change , there is no security that in 3yrs time they won't make it 8yrs and so on , therefore the theoriectcial possibility you never achieving citizenship. 

 

If your  on a pathway under a set of rules you should be able follow it to completion

chnage tbe rules to anything they like and people have a choice to go down the pathway or not ,  but not after you have committed everything to it 

 

 

 

 

[ali]

15 minutes ago, K974 said:

 

Besides all all that the principle of moving The goal posts is unfair and not an Australian value , one of  supposed reasons for the changes are to ensure Australian values 

by all means make the changes it's their country but they should be grandfathered for this with PR 

Moving the goal posts is something that they have always done, when we arrived they also changed the goal posts for citizenship in that if you arrived after July 1st 2007 then you would then have to wait 4 years and not 2 for your citizenship and they introduced the citizenship test..  We were fortunate that we fell into the old rules by 6 months, had we not, we'd have been put out but with nothing else to do about it, we would, like thousands of others have waited the 4 years.  It's not the first time the goal posts have changed and it won't be the last.

[wombatinabox]

21 minutes ago, K974 said:

 changes should only apply to new PR approvals .  

This is the MAIN problem, while I am eligible under the new rules to apply in June 2017 anyway, I completely disagree and oppose the fact that these new changes are "back dated".

Edited April 25, 2017 by wombatinabox

[K974]

1 minute ago, ali said:

Moving the goal posts is something that they have always done, when we arrived they also changed the goal posts for citizenship in that if you arrived after July 1st 2007 then you would then have to wait 4 years and not 2 for your citizenship and they introduced the citizenship test..  We were fortunate that we fell into the old rules by 6 months, had we not, we'd have been put out but with nothing else to do about it, we would, like thousands of others have waited the 4 years.  It's not the first time the goal posts have changed and it won't be the last.

Change was different tho, there was a notice periods and it was for people that didn't have PR prior to the date , wasn't it ? 

[ali]

1 minute ago, K974 said:

Change was different tho, there was a notice periods and it was for people that didn't have PR prior to the date , wasn't it ? 

Some people had PR and wouldn't have validated and would have then fallen into the new rules.

[K974]

2 minutes ago, wombatinabox said:

This is the MAIN problem, while I am eligible under the new rules to apply in June 2017 anyway, I completely disagree and oppose the fact that these new changes are "back dated".

Exactly , cos in 3 yrs they may make it 8yrs and so on . You can change the rules fair enough, but changing the goal post is different . Anyone eligible/ with PR on 20/4/17 should see it through to completion on the old rules . Otherwise you have no certainty

 

same as playing a soccer match and on 70min one team want to make it 110min game ,  you can add 20min to all the games in the new season then it's a level playing field 

[K974]

1 minute ago, ali said:

Some people had PR and wouldn't have validated and would have then fallen into the new rules.

Ok , but they got notice to validate /enter and people that were here went under old rules , they got benifit of "grandfathering "but in this instance , we have people here 4+yrs in some cases 10yr and all of a sudden you gotta do another 3yrs . 

 

Grabfthering should apply shifying goalposts is wrong 

[ali]

Pretty much like now, there was an announcement that the rules would change and if you hadn't arrived before July 1st.  but a few months grace.