New Category 4's - Where are you now?

[Guest JohnAnton]

ASPC updates will most probably available this week. Let's hope it will be a good one.

[taniaholmes]

Has anyone been assigned a CO after the changes 1st July.

Thanks Tania

[SHANO7]

diac seem to be hibernating again !!

[taniaholmes]

diac seem to be hibernating again !!

 

That's what I thought.

[Guest tipt]

The forms are on the DIAC website.

 

www.immi.gov.au/allforms/pdf/26.pdf

 

www.immi.gov.au/allforms/pdf/160.pdf

 

They are different, the EH forms are for online applicants so it has our details prefilled. Thanks anyway.

[SHANO7]

What irritates me is that people who have paid for a visa application and then Australia go and agree a humanitarian scheme to allow 4000 people in over the next 4 years.

 

What about being humane to those those that have paid thousands ????

[User Name]

What irritates me is that people who have paid for a visa application and then Australia go and agree a humanitarian scheme to allow 4000 people in over the next 4 years.

 

What about being humane to those those that have paid thousands ????

 

If you are referring to the Burmese refugees, they are genuine refugees.

 

Most if not all are Rohingya minorities that get persecuted to no ends. I used tolive right next door so trust me, its bad the **** they went through and still go through.

 

They are more genuine than the Iraqis and Afghans that come here via boat. And they never try to queue jump by taking a boat to Australia.

[cat4er]

If you are referring to the Burmese refugees, they are genuine refugees.

 

Most if not all are Rohingya minorities that get persecuted to no ends. I used tolive right next door so trust me, its bad the **** they went through and still go through.

 

They are more genuine than the Iraqis and Afghans that come here via boat. And they never try to queue jump by taking a boat to Australia.

 

I would not distinguish between genuine and non-genuine refugees in regards of immigraton. They are simlpy refugees who enter the country illegally.

 

Similarly there should not be any priority groups.

[User Name]

I would not distinguish between genuine and non-genuine refugees in regards of immigraton. They are simlpy refugees who enter the country illegally.

 

Similarly there should not be any priority groups.

 

Firstly not all enter Australia illegally only a handful who has little patience waiting in refugee camps in Malaysia.

 

Secondly there is a clear difference between real genuine refugees fleeing persecution and economic refugees who take advantage of turmoil in home country to migrate overseas.

For some like myself, the difference is obvious, for others (ultra-naive ones) you could arrive here on Queen Mary cruise ship and still be classified as refugee.

 

Even though leftists, human rights groups might put them all in same baskets, my opinion is that government should assess each on a case by case basis and ensure only genuine refugees are let in and as many as possible. And that is exactly whats happening.

 

It is not that hard to tell the 2 apart. Real refugees will just want to get away from conflict. There is no future in refugee camps in Malaysia or Indonesia. However, thats not the main issue. As long as they and their families are safe from getting shot at, they are happy. Those will never endanger their lives getting on a boat, as they count themselves lucky to leave conflict zones alive, than risk their life unnecessarily to get on a boat.

 

Burmese refugees fits that description perfectly.

 

While others like Iraqis, Afghans and Iranians don't (in my opinion).

 

In Iraq everyone is blowing everyone to bits. Its not one majority killing a miniority like Burmese vs Rohingyas. We might as well bring the whole of Iraq to Australia if they classify as refugees.

 

Afghans - same story. The whole country is in deep $hit. How many counts as refugees?

 

Iranians - unless you are Bahai, who gets badly persecuted, there is absolutely no reason again.

[RegDwight]

Firstly not all enter Australia illegally only a handful who has little patience waiting in refugee camps in Malaysia.

 

Secondly there is a clear difference between real genuine refugees fleeing persecution and economic refugees who take advantage of turmoil in home country to migrate overseas.

For some like myself, the difference is obvious, for others (ultra-naive ones) you could arrive here on Queen Mary cruise ship and still be classified as refugee.

 

Even though leftists, human rights groups might put them all in same baskets, my opinion is that government should assess each on a case by case basis and ensure only genuine refugees are let in and as many as possible. And that is exactly whats happening.

 

It is not that hard to tell the 2 apart. Real refugees will just want to get away from conflict. There is no future in refugee camps in Malaysia or Indonesia. However, thats not the main issue. As long as they and their families are safe from getting shot at, they are happy. Those will never endanger their lives getting on a boat, as they count themselves lucky to leave conflict zones alive, than risk their life unnecessarily to get on a boat.

 

Burmese refugees fits that description perfectly.

 

While others like Iraqis, Afghans and Iranians don't (in my opinion).

 

In Iraq everyone is blowing everyone to bits. Its not one majority killing a miniority like Burmese vs Rohingyas. We might as well bring the whole of Iraq to Australia if they classify as refugees.

 

Afghans - same story. The whole country is in deep $hit. How many counts as refugees?

 

Iranians - unless you are Bahai, who gets badly persecuted, there is absolutely no reason again.

 

UN, I am a Baha'i too. Nice to meet you :laugh:

[Guest IoanHoria]

Guys, please...stay on topic. If not try messenger, or skype, or Hi5, or FB...

Come on, we are boiling here in what it seems a long wait...I don't need to check evrey few hours your useless chats... This topic is for cat 4... So if you have any news, or questions, or concerns, and if your are CAT 4 priority, this is the place...otherwise, try some other topics, there are plenty.

Thanks

[SHANO7]

If you are referring to the Burmese refugees, they are genuine refugees.

 

Most if not all are Rohingya minorities that get persecuted to no ends. I used tolive right next door so trust me, its bad the **** they went through and still go through.

 

They are more genuine than the Iraqis and Afghans that come here via boat. And they never try to queue jump by taking a boat to Australia.

 

I was referring to the 4000 refugees in the new humanitarian scheme !!

 

Cant remember mentioning Burmese refugess.

[SHANO7]

Firstly not all enter Australia illegally only a handful who has little patience waiting in refugee camps in Malaysia.

 

Secondly there is a clear difference between real genuine refugees fleeing persecution and economic refugees who take advantage of turmoil in home country to migrate overseas.

For some like myself, the difference is obvious, for others (ultra-naive ones) you could arrive here on Queen Mary cruise ship and still be classified as refugee.

 

Even though leftists, human rights groups might put them all in same baskets, my opinion is that government should assess each on a case by case basis and ensure only genuine refugees are let in and as many as possible. And that is exactly whats happening.

 

It is not that hard to tell the 2 apart. Real refugees will just want to get away from conflict. There is no future in refugee camps in Malaysia or Indonesia. However, thats not the main issue. As long as they and their families are safe from getting shot at, they are happy. Those will never endanger their lives getting on a boat, as they count themselves lucky to leave conflict zones alive, than risk their life unnecessarily to get on a boat.

 

Burmese refugees fits that description perfectly.

 

While others like Iraqis, Afghans and Iranians don't (in my opinion).

 

In Iraq everyone is blowing everyone to bits. Its not one majority killing a miniority like Burmese vs Rohingyas. We might as well bring the whole of Iraq to Australia if they classify as refugees.

 

Afghans - same story. The whole country is in deep $hit. How many counts as refugees?

 

Iranians - unless you are Bahai, who gets badly persecuted, there is absolutely no reason again.

 

 

This a obviouslt Topic closer to your heart than most of us. My query stating that 4000 refugees will be permitted over 4 years was merely suggesting why should they receive priority over GSM applicants in Cat 4 that have paid hard earned money.

 

 

I agree with your sentiments and do not envy refugess one bit however Australia is not the only country where asylum could be requested.

[User Name]

This a obviouslt Topic closer to your heart than most of us. My query stating that 4000 refugees will be permitted over 4 years was merely suggesting why should they receive priority over GSM applicants in Cat 4 that have paid hard earned money.

 

 

I agree with your sentiments and do not envy refugess one bit however Australia is not the only country where asylum could be requested.

 

You can't say they are receiving priority over GSM unless they are being processed in the same queue. If Australia stops taking refugees, that wont remotely affect how much time for you to get processed.

 

Your issue is that you fell on the bottom of the queue by being put into cat 4. Its the way DIAC is processing cat 4s, thats the issue.

 

If you still think refugees are at fault, then blame spouse visa, parent visa applicants as well. They get to come here simply because they married an Aussie or their son/daughter became one, not because they possess any in demand skill.

 

4000 is a tiniest when you pitt it against 150,000 GSM applicants and tens of thousands more on other visa schemes.

[cat4er]

You can't say they are receiving priority over GSM unless they are being processed in the same queue. If Australia stops taking refugees, that wont remotely affect how much time for you to get processed.

 

Your issue is that you fell on the bottom of the queue by being put into cat 4. Its the way DIAC is processing cat 4s, thats the issue.

 

If you still think refugees are at fault, then blame spouse visa, parent visa applicants as well. They get to come here simply because they married an Aussie or their son/daughter became one, not because they possess any in demand skill.

 

4000 is a tiniest when you pitt it against 150,000 GSM applicants and tens of thousands more on other visa schemes.

 

There is say 4000 refugees with negative economic value to the country (most of refugees are criminals on dole who will never work) and there is an army of 100.000 highly educated and qualified professionals and the problem is how much attention each o these groups get. You simply need to let at least some who create value to feed those who don't. In the UK, they let too many who don't.

 

I want to point that not all refugees are criminals and not all GSM applicant are professionals, but paying attention to the first group this much just isn't right. I think it is sponsored by government to move the attention away form the real problems. Ask average Australian about immigration problems and you will hear nothing about GSM.

 

I ran into problems discussing this topic on this forum, most of my posts vere deleted and was forced to close my account. Just giving you some idea what kind of strength is behing this refugee propaganda, I belive it is mostly to cover the real problem with immigration.

 

Let's get back to the topic, processing died again, I expect people to start harming themselves in front of DIAC buildings soon...

[RegDwight]

There is say 4000 refugees with negative economic value to the country (most of refugees are criminals on dole who will never work) and there is an army of 100.000 highly educated and qualified professionals and the problem is how much attention each o these groups get. You simply need to let at least some who create value to feed those who don't. In the UK, they let too many who don't.

 

I want to point that not all refugees are criminals and not all GSM applicant are professionals, but paying attention to the first group this much just isn't right. I think it is sponsored by government to move the attention away form the real problems. Ask average Australian about immigration problems and you will hear nothing about GSM.

 

I ran into problems discussing this topic on this forum, most of my posts vere deleted and was forced to close my account. Just giving you some idea what kind of strength is behing this refugee propaganda, I belive it is mostly to cover the real problem with immigration.

 

Let's get back to the topic, processing died again, I expect people to start harming themselves in front of DIAC buildings soon...

 

One thing you should probably take into account is Australia's agreement according to the UNHCR. A member country of the bespoke UN is bound to regulations which enforce them to "procure" a preset quota of refugees. Quotas probably vary according to a country's capacity to look after the needy but I would imagine Australia has a comparatively high one including a delineation of responsibilities that includes not only clothing and feeding them, but making a long-term commitment to their social welfare.

 

For this reason I do not think DIAC determines its refugee intake all by itself and is actually at the whim of international organizations and treaties. If Australia had its own way, there would be no refugees and everyone would be expected to come in through the GSM route. Not accepting refugees or making substitutions with GSM for refugees at the level you are suggesting would be considered a kin to political bitch-slapping - no country wants to be perceived as a self-absorbed, self-serving entity.

[cat4er]

One thing you should probably take into account is Australia's agreement according to the UNHCR. A member country of the bespoke UN is bound to regulations which enforce them to "procure" a preset quota of refugees. Quotas probably vary according to a country's capacity to look after the needy but I would imagine Australia has a comparatively high one including a delineation of responsibilities that includes not only clothing and feeding them, but making a long-term commitment to their social welfare.

 

For this reason I do not think DIAC determines its refugee intake all by itself and is actually at the whim of international organizations and treaties. If Australia had its own way, there would be no refugees and everyone would be expected to come in through the GSM route. Not accepting refugees or making substitutions with GSM for refugees at the level you are suggesting would be considered a kin to political bitch-slapping - no country wants to be perceived as a self-absorbed, self-serving entity.

 

I agree, that Australia really does not control this as it is dictated by som military agreements. What I mind is the attention.

 

I believe it should be every country's choice to accept or not accept refugees. Same as with sexual partners. You let in the bad ones and it will once kill you...

[User Name]

There is say 4000 refugees with negative economic value to the country (most of refugees are criminals on dole who will never work) and there is an army of 100.000 highly educated and qualified professionals and the problem is how much attention each o these groups get. You simply need to let at least some who create value to feed those who don't. In the UK, they let too many who don't.

.

 

I don't agree with you. I don't know where you go the idea that they all come here and live on dole. Do you have any link/statistics to back that assertion?

 

The biggest hogger of welfare payments are elderly pensioners (mixed with anglo majority) and single mums (majority anglo-Saxon and European). I used to work in retail and most customers during the day were these 2. You can tell they are on dole coz they buy very less and in packs every second week (dole week).

 

Then followed by aboriginals.

 

This is in inner-west Sydney with highest concentration of migrants.

 

When you eventually get here, you'll know what I am talking about.

[SHANO7]

You can't say they are receiving priority over GSM unless they are being processed in the same queue. If Australia stops taking refugees, that wont remotely affect how much time for you to get processed.

 

Your issue is that you fell on the bottom of the queue by being put into cat 4. Its the way DIAC is processing cat 4s, thats the issue.

 

If you still think refugees are at fault, then blame spouse visa, parent visa applicants as well. They get to come here simply because they married an Aussie or their son/daughter became one, not because they possess any in demand skill.

 

4000 is a tiniest when you pitt it against 150,000 GSM applicants and tens of thousands more on other visa schemes.

 

Please dont try to say that I think refugees are at fault or try to second guess what my issue is. I merely was trying to suggest that on one hand Australia are being fair to refugees when they have been unfair to people in category 4 that have paid thousands in good faith and then had retrospective rules applied. That would be the same as indicating to a refugee family that they would be considered within 12 months for a home in Australia and then told hang on we are not dealing with your request for another 12 months. So basically my issue is purely down to one of fairness.

 

Secondly, why shouldnt a parent be allowed to join their children in Australia. If they have been upset ever since the day their child decided to emigrate then rejoining them and be assisted by Australian is very humane dont you think ?

 

We all have our valid reasons and beliefs of what should and shouldnt happen. this is a forum after all and people should be able to write their views on it without be made to look that they are against a certain stream of migrants.

 

In my opinion everyone should be treated with the utmost fairness and in a pre defined timescale from visa application submission irrespective of circumstances.

[RegDwight]

I agree, that Australia really does not control this as it is dictated by som military agreements. What I mind is the attention.

 

 

Australia is a relatively small country, and so small things tend to have a greater reaction than anywhere else such as the USA. Likewise, it being small, the net effect of something bad has the possibility of affecting more people adversely...and even more similarly because the population has a greater potential in how the country is run. So you see, it's just a matter of dynamics. Think India with all its multitude of people (there is a hardly an issue which effects everyone) vs. Australia. Get it now?

 

 

I believe it should be every country's choice to accept or not accept refugees. Same as with sexual partners. You let in the bad ones and it will once kill you...

 

Not everything can be justified by choice, my friend. If that were the case, murderers would run free - because inflicting cruelty was their own choice and they were not answerable to anyone.

 

There is a moral prerogative which goes beyond one's freedom. Think about that one :wink:

[User Name]

Please dont try to say that I think refugees are at fault or try to second guess what my issue is. I merely was trying to suggest that on one hand Australia are being fair to refugees when they have been unfair to people in category 4 that have paid thousands in good faith and then had retrospective rules applied. That would be the same as indicating to a refugee family that they would be considered within 12 months for a home in Australia and then told hang on we are not dealing with your request for another 12 months. So basically my issue is purely down to one of fairness.

 

Secondly, why shouldnt a parent be allowed to join their children in Australia. If they have been upset ever since the day their child decided to emigrate then rejoining them and be assisted by Australian is very humane dont you think ?

 

We all have our valid reasons and beliefs of what should and shouldnt happen. this is a forum after all and people should be able to write their views on it without be made to look that they are against a certain stream of migrants.

 

In my opinion everyone should be treated with the utmost fairness and in a pre defined timescale from visa application submission irrespective of circumstances.

 

You are mixing 2 different issues that shouldn't be mixed in first place.

 

Firstly, like I said, they DO NOT get priority over anyone. They get processed seperately and any inflation/fluctuation of their numbers will not affect (positively or negatively) your chance of getting processed.

 

Besides, its not like they apply and get visa straight away. All of them have to go through security check which can take upto 18 months. Thats if they make the cut. Refugee quota is very very minimal (4 or 5k I think) compared to GSM which is around 120k.

 

Everyone has their reasons to migrate, spouse wants to live with husband/wife, parents want to be with their kids, refugees too want to escape hardship and start a new life.

[User Name]

One moment you are defending refugees and now you are discussing who hogs welfare payments. Wont the majority of refugees do the same... initially or at least be funded.

 

And Aboroginals have more right than anyone to be in Oz i reckon.

 

Time for a mod to step .

 

As a taxpayer I dont mind anglo-saxons or Aboriginals hogging welfare. In my opinion centerlink payments should be for all eligible citizens irrespective of background. But saying that refugees come and live on welfare is wrong. And I am trying to get the facts straight.

 

Saying refugees live off welfare is wrong, misleading propaganda for racist bigots and anti-immigration campaigners. They frequently use it to convince everyone immigration is bad for Australia. I am surprised its being used here in a migration forum.

 

Anyway we are all having a healthy interesting debate. Why get mod involved? Not like anyone is fighting here. I got nothing against you or cat4ers and as a former cat 4 applicant, I understand your plights. Its just that I don't agree with your views.

[RegDwight]

I merely was trying to suggest that on one hand Australia are being fair to refugees when they have been unfair to people in category 4 that have paid thousands in good faith and then had retrospective rules applied. That would be the same as indicating to a refugee family that they would be considered within 12 months for a home in Australia and then told hang on we are not dealing with your request for another 12 months. So basically my issue is purely down to one of fairness.

 

 

 

Yes, I think they are relatively fair in their approach. Let's face it GSM applicants are not quite knocking on heaven's door while most refugees are, they are literally making a run for it. Secondly, GSMs are here to work which means they are an integral part of the economy. So depending on the state of the economy, wouldn't it be acceptable that the supply of labour has to be tied in directly with demand? Refugees, are taken care of by a special section of the federal budget so their 'keep' is almost secure by the ever resourceful and wealthy Australian government.

[Guest siamsusie]

One moment you are defending refugees and now you are discussing who hogs welfare payments. Wont the majority of refugees do the same... initially or at least be funded.

 

And Aboroginals have more right than anyone to be in Oz i reckon.

Time for a mod to step .

 

 

:unsure:Is there a problem folk please?

[Guest siamsusie]

Please can we get back on track now, its a shame to see a good thread go downhill.

 

Thank you.

 

Susie x