Should DIAC cut visa numbers for UK?

[Linday]

Moving to another country is a big step for anyone and it can take it's toll in various ways. We have moved all over the world with hubby's job and sometimes we were lucky enough to have had the support of colleagues to help us adjust. It can be a very stressful time and a lot of marriages have suffered under the strain.

 

If you look at the reasons why people are returning home it is quite often because they miss their families. If Australia wants to grow as a country shouldn't it look at the wider picture and maybe think about immigration on a family basis. It is much easier to cope with a different culture if you have the support of your family around you. Maybe they should make it easier for brothers, sisters and parents to move to Australia. Parents in particular can offer a lot of support in the way of childcare.

 

As for the fact that it doesn't cost the country much if people leave and return home the recruitment process is extremely expensive, plus the hidden cost of staff development. Add to that the cost of processing immigration for those people who have left the country and need to be replaced - it all adds up.

[Guest londnr]

if Australia were to go down this path, you can bet the UK would also change its criteria for ozzies wanting to live in the UK, which I'm sure wouldn't go down too well on the ozzie side either...

[RonnieRocket0]

I just can't figure out the Brits. What was so wrong with the UK in the first place that made you want to leave? Then after a couple of months the amount of Brits that want to go home. I know the expense is on the individual and it costs the Australian government nothing, it actually generates more tax dollars for Austrlaia but really I do not think the British (in general) are suited for emigration. Time wasters for everyone else in the DIAC waiting list.

 

Hi Down Under,

I have read your posts with great interest. This one on in particular moved me to respond to your comments. I can fully appreciate that you have your opinion, but I think there are a number of demographics here that need to be examined before you make such a sweeping statement about the British not being suited to emigration. My impression is that most of the Australian who decide to leave Australia for foreign shores do so at a far younger age than their UK counterparts.

I don't wish to make a sweeping statement but here goes, most Aussie's decide at an earlier age if they are likely to travel or not, those who can/do, you have to ask why?? Is this as a result that they wish to explore the countries of their heritage and visit the places that their parents have spoken about? Is it because there are more oppotunities/desirable lifestyle choices for the younger population overseas than there is in Australia?

When I was 20 I did not have consider Australia as a destination to work or live and chose North/South America & Middle East instead, however you do have a great country and that is why I feel drawn to move my wife and young children to Australia for a better life. My impression is that Australia is great for years up to 20's and then from your 30's onwards.

Getting back to your statement, I think it is far more difficult for 30 somethings with familys to move and settle to a foreign country than it is for someone in their 20's. This is why it is important that migrants do get sufficient time to decide and should they so wish, complete a validation visit prior to moving permanently. Just to give you an indication for my two visits and visa application I have spent roughly £25,000 and have validated my visa. I feel more comfortable now knowing that if we do come to Australia, that my family and I have had some experience of life in Australia and it also enables me time to try and find suitable work/accomodation etc before shipping the family out here.

As I mentioned earlier I have taken onboard your views, but as one of the other contributors has stated, it is a greatly sweeping one.

Kind regards

[RonnieRocket0]

From DIACs perspective, their goal is to get people into the country to meet the needs of Australia. Showing up 2-5 years late for the party is of no use to them. (although with their recent immi changes, they are shooting themselves in the foot on this front too)

 

I think a 2 year wait is reasonable enough expectation. And DIAC realise that people have houses to sell, jobs to find etc...When the government set their targets for visas etc, they factor in aspects such as regional development/growth prospects and current economic trends. These do not happen overnight, just as upping sticks and moving happens overnight. I guess it depends what you have in the way of responsibilites which determines how soon you can move.

[Proview220]

Looking through the Going Back Home threads and I am just wondering if the Aussie government should cut the visa numbers for UK residents? There is a hugh amount of Poms who return home after a relitately short period of time. I wonder why these people bother going through the process at all. Australia is not UK in the sun. Poms seem to be amazed that you have to pay for doctor, dentist, school books etc. There is nothing free well except in UK it seems. I just think these visa's would be better going to people who want to give Australia a fair go not go home after 9 weeks like I saw in one thread.

 

 

to be honest with you i can see you have a good point here, however the way i see it if you are fit for the system then their money is as good as any one else's and its up to them if they want to come back so soon.

 

proview

[Guest Alejandro]

if Australia were to go down this path, you can bet the UK would also change its criteria for ozzies wanting to live in the UK, which I'm sure wouldn't go down too well on the ozzie side either...

Australian Emigration Statistics:

A total of 81,018 citizens left Australia permanently in 2008-09.

A majority of these emigrant groups returned to their country of birth.

Example: New Zealand (80.9 per cent), United Arab Emirates (73.3 per cent), United States of America (71.4 per cent), Singapore (63.0 per cent) and the United Kingdom (53.5 per cent).

Most (79.2 per cent) overseas-born people who left Australia permanently in 2008-09 had lived here for more than five years. However, a significant proportion (13.9 per cent) departed after less than two years' residence in Australia.

In 2008-09, 66.5 per cent of people departing permanently were in employment prior to leaving. The largest group (20 856 or 38.7 per cent) were professionals, followed by managers and administrators (8710 or 16.2 per cent) and intermediate clerical, sales and service workers (6336 or 11.8 per cent).

A total of 30.5 per cent (including children) stated on their passenger cards that they were not in the labour force.

 

 

Another interesting fact:

In response to growing public opinion against the flow of immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe in the years following World War I, Congress passed first the Quota Act of 1921 then the even more restrictive Immigration Act of 1924 (the Johnson-Reed Act). Initially, the 1924 law imposed a total quota on immigration of 165,000—less than 20 percent of the pre-World War I average. It based ceilings on the number of immigrants from any particular nation on the percentage of each nationality recorded in the 1890 census—a blatant effort to limit immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe, which mostly occurred after that date. In the first decade of the 20th century, an average of 200,000 Italians had entered the United States each year. With the 1924 Act, the annual quota for Italians was set at less than 4,000. This table shows the annual immigration quotas under the 1924 Immigration Act.

 

 

I feel the Australian government is trying to formulate a similar strategy almost a century later. What's funny though is that they never had a peak immigration intake or may be they did but it was too small to be noticed by the rest of the world. Presently I feel Australia is shrinking into itself.

[Lenore]

I agree that every nation has some issues, so you can't punish British applicants because some Poms don't try hard enough to stay in Australia.

Probably more harmful than messing with DIAC (for Australian citizens and PRs) are nations that are most likely to live on benefits, and I don't believe it would be Poms. So you can't get into detail let's these people in, but not those... It's just too complicated and overall doesn't make a big threat to Australia as a country. The real issue are the boat people but again it's the matter of ethics vs economy.

I, too am terrified that we have been waiting for a year to apply for a visa watching all the regulations being changed, spending money on various papers, and I see the thread where the British complain that it's too hot in Oz, that shops are not interesting... I totally understand some people's frustration. But I think those Poms who returned to UK learned their lesson, they must have lost a lot of money, nerves and had other nasty feelings, so it's not only other applicants who "suffer" because of their indecision. Actually, if they stayed - does it affect the other applicants? Will it make visa queues shorter? Not really, and how would those poor Poms know they DON'T like living in Oz if they only go there for holidays...