New Citizenship Rules

[Bonny]

On 4/25/2017 at 10:48 AM, RYLC said:

It would be highly unlikely for Australia to intervene in a matter in RSA. Besides you would have entered on your RSA passport, cementing the fact that you are choosing to be "South African" for the period. It's probably one of the reasons people have to use their Saffa passport for entry and exit. So not an urban legend. It's determined by which country you are in when you need consular assistance. 

@RYLC yes that makes sense. I am more thinking about what would happen when visiting other countries though. Like, say Indonesia or Thailand. 

 

But I think you have a point about SA (although you would have exited Australia with your Aus passport. If the plane crashes you will be included in the 'X number of Australians on board').

 

I honestly think it would be on a case by case basis. 

 

Anyway, sorry it is off topic

[Bonny]

On 4/25/2017 at 11:04 AM, RYLC said:

 

@Bonny this article highlights the REAL reason for the changes to 457. Yes it's political but I think any government who doesn't tackle the issue of their citizens being able to get work in their OWN country is looking for trouble.  There is never a good time to make changes. There will always be people who didn't make it over the line AND history has taught them that a phased approach just brings an enormous FLOOD of applications of the occupations that they don't want to import any more. 

@RYLC @Mara

"Between 2008 and 2016, in net terms, the Australian labour market expanded by 474,000 full-time jobs. But only 74,000 of them went to people born in Australia. That’s fewer than one in six"

 

Interesting stats. Need to be taken into consideration with the fact that full time jobs are severely shrinking anyway, and also 28% of ALL Australians were born overseas.

 

I think it's a good thing, don't get me wrong. I have 3 kids at uni and I really worry about their job prospects. This move can only help them.

 

However as in the case of the family described above, where they have resigned from good jobs and sold their house...I believe that Immigration had entered into a contract with these people. These people took reasonable steps to fulfil the contract, and then the rules changed. This could result in serious financial problems for this family (and many others). I feel that the applicants after a certain date (say 1 October 2016) should have been processed under the old rules.

 

What is never mentioned is the absolutely obscene amount of money Australia makes out of immigration. I cannot find the stats now, but read previously that it's second only to taxes.

 

It's a one-way street, all in their favour. Always has been. 

Edited April 26, 2017 by Bonny
Grammar

[RYLC]

2 hours ago, Bonny said:

However as in the case of the family described above, where they have resigned from good jobs and sold their house

 

The family described above jumped the gun, counted their chickens before they hatched.  I REALLY feel for them but they had no guarantee of getting a visa until they had it in hand. It is their actions that resulted in this unfortunately. 20/20 hindsight obviously but that's the nature of temporary visas.  I remember our immigration paperwork telling us SPECIFICALLY not to do anything like this until we got our visa.  

 

2 hours ago, Bonny said:

It's a one-way street, all in their favour. Always has been.

 

and the problem is?  When you "own" the box seats you get to decide who gets them. Scarcity of any commodity drives up price. Nowhere is there any assurance of entry. People from all around the world who apply have the same hoops to jump through.  It is a voluntary system where applicants choose to go through and pay for the various application stages.  So I'm not sure what you mean by this.  People apply (with all that that means) or they don't. You make it sound like Australia should make it easier / cheaper... How would that serve Australia better?  Contrary to popular belief, most applicants come from Asian/Indian countries where health and English are not always first world and to be fair it was decided to make everybody do the same tests and checks so that no country was singled out/refused.  All this extra testing takes time and money and that is the price we choose to pay for applying.  I still can't see the problem...

 

Edited April 26, 2017 by RYLC

[Bonny]

1 hour ago, RYLC said:

 

The family described above jumped the gun, counted their chickens before they hatched.  I REALLY feel for them but they had no guarantee of getting a visa until they had it in hand. It is their actions that resulted in this unfortunately. 20/20 hindsight obviously but that's the nature of temporary visas.  I remember our immigration paperwork telling us SPECIFICALLY not to do anything like this until we got our visa.  

 

 

and the problem is?  When you "own" the box seats you get to decide who gets them. Scarcity of any commodity drives up price. Nowhere is there any assurance of entry. People from all around the world who apply have the same hoops to jump through.  It is a voluntary system where applicants choose to go through and pay for the various application stages.  So I'm not sure what you mean by this.  People apply (with all that that means) or they don't. You make it sound like Australia should make it easier / cheaper... How would that serve Australia better?  Contrary to popular belief, most applicants come from Asian/Indian countries where health and English are not always first world and to be fair it was decided to make everybody do the same tests and checks so that no country was singled out/refused.  All this extra testing takes time and money and that is the price we choose to pay for applying.  I still can't see the problem...

 

@RYLC I've deleted my reply. 

Edited April 26, 2017 by Bonny

[Mara]

I know of a couple that went to the USA. She was a CA in a niche industry and he was the headmaster of a popular and sought after high school in Pretoria. They had two sons. She could work, but he could not, so he became a house husband. It took them the required 10 years to get PR. Obviously they went to the USA on a work visa.

 

So, I do agree with @RYLC if you come on a 457, you have no guarantees, probably any first world country would be the same.

[Riekie]

Friends of ours lived 11 years in the UK before they finally got their citizenship (and this was many years ago) - so it's nothing new, it's not only Australia and it's not only aimed at a certain group of people. At the end of the day, any government's first and foremost responsibility is towards their tax paying citizens. A citizen of any country would expect nothing less.  

[Brad76]

Seems like the one size fits all / fairness argument just got blown away....

 

http://www.skynews.com.au/news/world/asiapacific/2017/04/28/nz-pm-secures-citizenship-change-exemption.html

[Peterthe1]

Here is something to consider to all that think having citizenship is the end to all problems.

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-25/bradley-how-you-could-lose-your-citizenship/6572382

[Mara]

@Peterthe1 that link definitely makes for interesting reading...

[HadEnoughofJuju]

Indeed, interesting reading. Does that now mean that those of us in the not-for-profit game have to scrutinise every single donation made to overseas charities? What about the whole sponsor a child thing that world vision do? What happens if one of those children end up leading one of those organisations because we paid for their education? So many scenarios, how they going to police them all?

[Peterthe1]

I don't think it's so much the case of all scenarios being policed but this will give the government the backdoor to cancel citizenships for whatever reason they like, without legal recourse.

[Brad76]

Unchecked discretionary power is a favourite among politicians, wonder how it will all stack up in court though?

[Tiermelk]

On 4/21/2017 at 11:12 PM, Brad76 said:

I think the requirement to retake the English test and pass it at a lower level is complete rubbish! Clearly something that wasn't very well thought through.

 

You need to demonstrate English competence in order to get PR, I can understand that, but what changes other than a date on a piece of paper between the awarding of PR and obtaining citizenship??

 

It was implied somewhere in the news that Turnbull is feeling the heat! I suppose he's hoping that this will resonate with the average voter and shore up his political stock.

 

I`ve met lots of migrants from non English speaking countries that are here on PR and no chance they could have passed the IELTS test standard in SA, I think the IELTS  marking/exam standards differ widely between countries. 

 

[Brad76]

10 minutes ago, Tiermelk said:

 

I`ve met lots of migrants from non English speaking countries that are here on PR and no chance they could have passed the IELTS test standard in SA, I think the IELTS  marking/exam standards differ widely between countries. 

 

That is Interesting - the standard of testing / marking should surely be uniform irrespective of test location. If that's not the case the credibility of the test is basically zero! So, if someone is genuinely concerned about the test but desperate for citizenship, a quick trip 'home' could  theoretically solve the problem? The current reforms would be rendered useless, at least in part!

[Brad76]

On 30/04/2017 at 8:04 AM, HadEnoughofJuju said:

Indeed, interesting reading. Does that now mean that those of us in the not-for-profit game have to scrutinise every single donation made to overseas charities? What about the whole sponsor a child thing that world vision do? What happens if one of those children end up leading one of those organisations because we paid for their education? So many scenarios, how they going to police them all?

I think the emphasis would be on upfront due diligence with annual reviews to ensure your money is going to who you think it is going to.

 

I think if a child grows up to be a bad apple, there is a nothing that can/should be done to any charitable institution who sponsored that individual as minor! Unless of course they invested in weapons stock piles and trained said child in the use thereof!

[HadEnoughofJuju]

9 hours ago, Brad76 said:

That is Interesting - the standard of testing / marking should surely be uniform irrespective of test location. If that's not the case the credibility of the test is basically zero! So, if someone is genuinely concerned about the test but desperate for citizenship, a quick trip 'home' could  theoretically solve the problem? The current reforms would be rendered useless, at least in part!

 

All IELTS test papers are sent back to Cambridge Uni to be marked, that's why it takes so long to get the results back. The examiners that do the speaking part of the test are tested by Cambrige and have to meet a minimum standard themselves before they are allowed to examine candidates.

 

My wife works for an English language school here in Aus and even their IELTS test papers (the ones for visa purposes) get sent to  Cambridge for marking.

 

It's done to ensure that one standard is applied to all and is also probably the reason why Aussie immigration only accepted IELTS as the only proof of functional English for so long. It's only recently that other tests have been added to the list.

 

Most of those immigrants that you meet that can hardly speak English are more than likely here on 457 visas as partners or some other temp student or working holiday visa that doesn't require proof of functional English. My wife teaches many of them and the school has a steady supply of overseas students. At peak there are around 300 students and none of them were required to prove functional English.

 

 

Edited May 1, 2017 by HadEnoughofJuju

[Brad76]

Does anybody know what is to happen with applications lodged on/after the 20th of April? Will they be put on ice until the laws are eventually amended or the proposals discarded?

[HadEnoughofJuju]

I think they are going to take longer than usual because I don't think the new requirements were even thought of before the decision was made.

[RedPanda]

On 02/05/2017 at 1:42 PM, HadEnoughofJuju said:

I think they are going to take longer than usual because I don't think the new requirements were even thought of before the decision was made.

Hehehehe...Aussie politicians still better than Juju?  (I couldn't resist)

[BrendanH]

On 2017/04/25 at 7:37 PM, Peterthe1 said:

 What security clearance does your husband need? I've got a ASIO security clearance to work with explosives and I've only got PR. Got the clearance without any problems after all the necessary checks.

If you want an IT job in Canberra you pretty much need citizenship and a security clearance to work with sensitive information.

[BrendanH]

On 2017/04/30 at 5:00 AM, Peterthe1 said:

Here is something to consider to all that think having citizenship is the end to all problems.

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-25/bradley-how-you-could-lose-your-citizenship/6572382

 

The phrasing and wording of that article is pretty skewed.

 

They seem like reasonable grounds for having your citizenship revoked.

 

If you are a non-profit you absolutely should be doing your due diligence on who your cash goes to.

You should absolutely not be taking up arms against the country that has adopted you.

The laws against destruction of Commonwealth property are a bit vague but Australia does that (I may or may not be arrested for carrying a Leatherman multi-tool depending on the mood of the officer.)

Inciting violence - the country has a duty to protect its citizens from violent extremists.

 

As a general rule a country with such a strong history of immigration needs to take certain steps to safeguard itself in this day and age.

 

As for the new English requirements - I am 100% in support of ensuring that all immigrants can communicate effectively in first language of the country they are moving to. Australia has given us so much - writing an English test again is a pain but a small price to pay for living in a stable, secure, safe, modern democracy.

[ottg]

On 4/30/2017 at 3:00 AM, Peterthe1 said:

Here is something to consider to all that think having citizenship is the end to all problems.

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-25/bradley-how-you-could-lose-your-citizenship/6572382

 

 

This only applies to someone that is an illegal immigrant or that has dual citizenship and busy with/done criminal activities (i.e need a country to be sent back to).

Here are a few recent cases to frown about - that gives an idea how far back this can go

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-15/grandmothers-visa-cancelled-faces-deportation-to-croatia/8355302

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-13/iranian-asylum-seeker-mojgan-shamsalipoor-in-limbo/8321256

Using illegal immigrants for labour exploitation

http://www.sbs.com.au/yourlanguage/punjabi/en/article/2017/03/02/immigration-raids-find-50-‘illegal-workers’-western-australia

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-06/man-faces-deportation-after-jail-despite-living-in-wa-50-years/6919574

There are more such cases and each one has a twist but are they unfair - perhaps not!

[Peterthe1]

1 hour ago, ottg said:

 

This only applies to someone that is an illegal immigrant or that has dual citizenship and busy with/done criminal activities (i.e need a country to be sent back to).

Here are a few recent cases to frown about - that gives an idea how far back this can go

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-15/grandmothers-visa-cancelled-faces-deportation-to-croatia/8355302

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-13/iranian-asylum-seeker-mojgan-shamsalipoor-in-limbo/8321256

Using illegal immigrants for labour exploitation

http://www.sbs.com.au/yourlanguage/punjabi/en/article/2017/03/02/immigration-raids-find-50-‘illegal-workers’-western-australia

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-06/man-faces-deportation-after-jail-despite-living-in-wa-50-years/6919574

There are more such cases and each one has a twist but are they unfair - perhaps not!

If you read the article it makes no mention of illegal immigrants. What it does come down to is that you can loose your citizenship if you do any act which is on the mentioned list and you won't be able to go to court and defend yourself but will be automatically deported.

These laws are being created to circumvent due legal process in any situation decided on by the government.

As stated in the article these don't necessarily have to be serious criminal offences, they can be anything deemed un australian by the government.

[Brad76]

"These laws are being created to circumvent due legal process in any situation decided on by the government.

As stated in the article these don't necessarily have to be serious criminal offences, they can be anything deemed un australian by the government"

 

It's never a good thing when a govt gives itself that sort of power without any recourse!

[Bonny]

One interesting example springs to mind...Alex Vella can best be described as 'colourful' and worst as 'serious criminal bikie'. He had Australian PR from the age of at least 19 to 64, but somehow never got citizenship. Married to an Aussie and basically deported to Malta a couple of years ago..after 45 years he failed the character test

 

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/bikie-boss-alex-vella-wants-to-come-home-to-australia/news-story/a8fc79ad9b33f15ee986083c2e69a369

 

And

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3384846/Inside-compound-banned-millionaire-Rebels-bikie-gang-boss-known-Maltese-Falcon.html

 

I wonder if Citizenship would have helped him?

Edited May 14, 2017 by Bonny